I realize that the headline sounds provocative, along the lines of “how can this sort of travesty happen?” That is not my intent. I don’t know this to be a travesty. But I am literally remembering back to the debates we had about ending cash bail, flummoxed by the notion than someone suspected of murder can so quickly get released on even $1 million bail.
I make no prejudgment of Judge Ferguson himself. We know from the Orange Lady story below is that his son was in the house and called 9-1-1. While that does not logically eliminate the son as a suspect, the fact that the son was not arrested makes it very unlikely. The fact that there was an arrest at all suggests that suicide is not suspected; it also suggests that no intruder is thought responsible. Other possibilities include justifiable self-defense by the 72-year-old judge against his 65-year-old wife, which seems unlikely; accidental shooting by him (negligent homicide, which is still a serious crime); accidental shooting by herself (in which event I suppose he might be arrested as an accessory, or as someone who was supposed to secure his firearms and didn’t); manslaughter, premeditated murder without excuse; or premeditated murder with arguable excuse, such as a “mercy killing” — made less likely by the total lack of discussion, among the people interviewed in the story, of the judge’s wife having been seriously ill.
More than half of these possibilities involve very serious crimes about which a suspect’s explanation — even if the suspect is a well-respected judge — should not necessarily be credited; in most cases, I think it’s fair to say that they are not. Beyond that: Is it obvious that the subject is not a flight risk? Is it obvious that he was not a threat to kill again (if he was reasonably believed to have killed his wife)?
Those were the thoughts I had had when I just read the headline of the story. Was this likely to become a stark and blazing example of the unfairness of our current bail system?
After about a minute of ping-ponging through my head like this, I went back to read the story.
(1) How did the officers know that he was not “lying in wait” for his wife inside their home? (I’m not asserting that anything of the sort happened; I just want to know how they knew this.)
(2) HOW the hell can ANYONE be RELEASED in a MURDER case BEFORE PROSECUTORS HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK THE JUDGE TO INCREASE OR DISALLOW BAIL?
In summary: Judge Ferguson was arrested at around 8 p.m. on the night of August 3, by a swarm of heavily armed police outside his house in the 8500 block of East Canyon Vista Drive, on suspicion of murdering his wife Sheryl Ferguson, who was found dead at the scene. He spent the night in jail. At about 4:00 Friday afternoon he was released on $1 million bail.
And then I came across the answer to my question:
Since Ferguson had not been formally charged as of Friday afternoon, prosecutors did not have a chance prior to his release to ask a judge to order Ferguson held without bail, or perhaps to increase the amount of his bail. The felony bail schedule in OC Superior Court automatically sets $1 million for most murder cases. The exception is murder cases with special circumstances, such as lying in wait, which default to no bail.
But that led to another question or two:
I simply do not understand how OC’s legal system could have concluded so rapidly that Judge Ferguson, who could clearly afford such bail (as his wife was in no position to complain if he had had to put up their his house as collateral), would be allowed to walk — to walk, perchance to flee? — out of jail before even being arraigned.
I want to remind people of what was supposed to happen on the “elimination of cash bail” initiative we had last cycle. Bail decisions were supposed to go to a judge who would, advised by a formula designed not to be biased by racial or wealth factors, to make a decision based on two factors, which include both the judge’s professional opinion and the base rates presented by the formula:
- whether the accused person was likely to flee if released
- whether the accused person was likely to attack witnesses or others if released
- If the answer to either question was “yes,” then no bail to allow the person to leave would be set
- If the answers to both questions was “no,” then the person would be released without any cash bond
That’s it.
In the debate over the initiative, we largely how cash bail would be more fair to the poor. But there was a less-articulated, complementary consideration in its favor: it would be less lenient on the wealthy and well-connected who could buy their way out of pre-trial incarceration without too much inconvenience. (I suspect that one such consideration may be that some people wanted to spare Judge Ferguson the indignity — well known to younger, non-white, and less-wealthy people — of having to spend three nights in jail because the next arraignment would not occur until Monday morning.
If that thoughtful bit of kindness was a consideration at all, it’s awful.
Judge Ferguson figured in a startling example of judicial clubbiness that made this blog a few years ago.
Judge Ferguson was admonished by a judicial ethics commission for a post to a North OC Courthouse Facebook page attacking judicial candidate Karen Schatzle, who in 2016 was running against disgraced judge Scott Steiner, who as readers may remember was censured by the commission in 2014 for allegedly having sex in his chambers with two of his former law students from Chapman University Law School.
Schatzle, during that campaign, had posted on the North Orange County Bar Association Facebook page that “Scott Steiner uses his office for sex and yet so many aren’t concerned, crazy politics!”
Judge Ferguson retorted in defense of Steiner that Schatzle “has sex with defense lawyer whike [sic] shw [sic] [presumably “while she”] is a DA on his cases and nobody cares. Interesting politics.”
Schatzle replied: “I’m sure The Judicial Commission of Performance would love to know about your blogging!!” Ferguson took the comment down shortly thereafter — but obviously not quickly enough to avoid a screenshot. He was in fact sanctioned for making allegations about a court officer for which he had no proof. (Because … he didn’t. And if anyone had had proof, I reckon they’d have given it to him.)
Moral: As has been noted here many times in relation to judicial races, judges do not take kindly to those challenging incumbents — even a sitting Assistant District Attorney.)
The above vignette speaks, far less dramatically, to a surfeit of “clubbiness” among law enforcement– coupled with a frankly shocking lack of concern about the life of Sheryl Ferguson. (Can one imagine her being allowed by the legal system to stroll out of confinement in less than a day, in time for the full weekend, if she had been the one to shoot her husband?)
I freely admit that there may be attenuating circumstances about Judge Ferguson’s case that I don’t know about — because, other than social class and connections, they didn’t make it into the Register’s story. But I am sure that the more that this story gets attention in the broader public that doesn’t read newspapers (or even the very finest local advertising-boosted blogs), the more poor people among us will reinforce their conclusion that the system is as rigged as its harshest critics maintain.
Personally, I don’t recall if I have ever appeared before Judge Ferguson. (I have a vague memory that I did, but that memory is connected to someone who doesn’t look anything like the person whose photos are in the Register. Then again, he wouldn’t, would he?) So I don’t know what to predict what will come any more than I do how to explain what happened. But I will tell you this.
Part of me hopes that Judge Ferguson does flee to a country without a U.S. extradition treaty, so as to underscore how unsupportable this indulgence of a man accused of murdering his wife has been.
And a less nihilistic part of me hopes that everyone with the power to investigate what happened here, and how, with the same fervor as would be applied if Judge Ferguson did flee the country like that.
That is a reasonable hope — whether or not it is reasonable to expect.
And to the young people of color, and to those many without much money, I hope that heretofore unknown circumstances will prove that nothing unfair happened here. Again, this is a hope — and definitely not an expectation.
I haven’t yet mentioned one detail of the Register’s story about that night. When Judge Ferguson came out of his front door, proclaiming at he was unarmed, he was told by the APD officers to get down on his knees. He told them again that he was unarmed — and that he would not get down onto his knees.
No officer shot this suspected murderer. No officer cracked open his skull with a blunt object. No one tazed him; no one pepper sprayed him; no one shot sandbags or pepper balls or whatever else at this elderly wealthy Caucasian well-respected man.
So … the police do know how to do this when they want to. Let’s see them treat more suspects like they did here.
One final thought, for the many good people of the Orange County Superior Court bench.
If Sheryl Ferguson had shot Jeffrey Ferguson, I believe that you would have had an avalanche of hand-wringing over, and testimonials to, and celebrations of the departed jurist.
What I would ask, and I don’t know the decedent any more than I knew the accused, is this:
Treat and honor Sheryl as you would have treated Jeffrey.
Treat Jeffrey as you would have treated Sheryl.
(Ask your partners at home if you need help with this. I’ll bet that they have opinions.)
Finally, lead in committing the profession to doing more to address the issues of degression and substance abuse and rage among lawyers. You know better than I do the emotional debilitation that affects too many in our profession. Being a good judge or a good attorney is very hard. Maybe the example of Judge Ferguson cracking like this, if that’s what happened, can be put to good use.
This iron is hot. This is a time to act.
Happy Day…… Greg, Sir. This is the NEW NORM for APD…. they no longer take things personally, and, arresting a person intact is the goal….. killing people may be a thing of the past….
recently a woman was screaming bloody murder while walking up and down the street…. possibly a victim of domestic violence… two officers arrive in one vehicle, and for 30 minutes, they negotiate…. then the cuffs go on… but she is not forced into the squad car…. for a solid 5 minutes, she walks around while cuffed, then the officers shine the light in the back seat, and she reluctantly, albeit, peacefully enters the vehicle…..
the amazing thing about this …. no one cares…. not one person, other than me, is talking about the arrest, because, nothing really happened…. and while jail may not be the best place, at least, she was able to go there, and begin to heal from what was ailing her, she did not have to nurse the wounds from the police….
Nothing requires a defendant to be arraigned before posting bail. Certainly, if the DA wishes to, he/she can request a modification, but unless special circumstances exist, the scheduled bail remains. Of course, the judge can be ordered to turn his passport over, wear an ankle monitor, or submit to any other appropriate conditions. That will be addressed at arraignment unless a new arrest warrant is issued setting no bail.
Any idiot and any corrupt miscreant can get elected judge in Orange County. Christ, look at Shawn Nelson.
Thank you for the information, Richard. I am but a mere civil litigator with scant experience in the land of arraignment.
But, I have to say: someone who seems to have been credibly charged with the murder of his wife last Thursday is free to travel and do anything else until Monday. That is unusual, correct? And I have difficulty imagining that such a courtesy would be extended to the less well-connected.
We’re talking about a judge, yes, and that shades our judgment of him. It doesn’t seem odd for a judge to get a break, and to be expected to comport himself well.
So let’s stop calling him a “judge” for a moment. Let’s call him a credibly accused murderer.
Using that frame, do we have any concerns about his being given almost have a week to “settle his affairs,” or “live his best life,” or whatever he’s up to?
If a murderer (let’s just posit that for a moment) expects to spend the rest of his life behind bars anyway — what deters him from killing again? “Settling affairs” may generally refer to financial affairs and such — but it can also refer to “settling scores.” If a murderer — just positing! — wants to murder again (or to arrange a murder for hire), this offers a great opportunity for it! And this opportunity is being extended … why?
So why I may have to concede that it’s possible for such a thing to happen, it seems not to be a “best practice” — and May in fact be a “worst practice.” And it is not a courtesy routinely — or ever? — extended to those of lesser social status.
The notion that normal procedures can still be followed with the accused murderer after a few days of liberty seems predicated on the presumption that the accused murderer will comport himself “judiciously.” Is that fair to presume? Even if it turns out well — was it a good way to bet, given the costs of error?
DUI Dave is a dolt. Shooting someone you know or set up is not a “random” shooting. The judge isn’t charged with allegedly shooting someone he didn’t know. The 19 year old was allegedly murdered in a set up. It was a planned execution. Sheesh! Someone needs to get DUI Dave a dictionary. Random = done without conscious decision.
Just more progressive propaganda promulgated by a politician. Misinformation much.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid029rp5sKf2cyMZDivPUpuR91d1BatPACotqXkM5DxYkSSvdEhsEPUH888RNzds3cCtl&id=100057808399312
Ok, I have to admit that his calling the murder of Sheryl Ferguson “random” is pretty … random.
DUI Dave claims to be an advocate for victims of domestic violence and then when the opportunity arises to speak for a victim of domestic violence refers to the alleged act of domestic violence as a random act of violence. Domestic violence is not random. DUI Dave has got to go.
Top of that, Dave likes to bang on the gun control drum, as he’s doing here. Admittedly the nation needs a lot more gun control, although not so much California.
But what law is he seeking that would have prevented the ownership of a certainly legal and registered firearm by a judge?
Maybe he was drinking when he wrote this post?
Just piping in to remind people that if Dave Min were not supportive of Pakistani Mayor and Turkey-admirer Farrah Khan, Eric would not be attacking him. So his attacks (as opposed to Vern’s) have a flavor of “if you don’t change your stand you can expect much more of this criticism.
Regardless of how much I agree about Min (or Farrah), I don’t like to see this blog’s comments used as leverage — to choose a polite word for it.
Actually it seems to me like Eric takes his anti-Farrah thing to a more irrational extreme, where if somebody EVER supported Farrah, even if they recanted, they are forever racist.
Still don’t like Dave. Especially as a Democrat standard bearer with a DUI while Weiss is much better.
Vern,
Identify anyone who has recanted or condemned Farrah for anything. Note, don’t name yourself.
And, you use DUIs to decide who to vote for. Now, that’s petty. We all make mistakes, right, Vern? Perfectly human!
I already didn’t like Dave because of his personality and a lot of his conservative positions. THEN he had the DUI, and now I think he’s not a good gamble for Democrats to take in that race, when it’s so important for us to regain the Congressional majority. I’ve written very clearly about this before.
If he beats Joanna in the primary, I’ll keep quiet. The most important thing is to regain our majority in DC.
I’m also strongly supporting Allyson Damikolas over Joe Kerr in CA-40 because I don’t trust Joe. If he beats Allyson in March, I’ll keep quiet on that too.
I agree about Min. But my point is that you and I would be willing to support Min under some circumstances. Eric is just out to destroy his enemies. When you and I give our reasons for who we like or dislike, I think that people can presume that they are our actual reasons. With Eric, there’s a pre-existing reason that leads him to seek out ammunition.
It can be a pretty good stance in court. Less so in blogging.
Greg, you, agreed with me re DUI Dave’s “randomness”. It was a sharp take regardless of your perceived basis for my comment.
I should have said “would be” rather than “is” random.
My problem was that I trusted your representation of what he said before I read it for myself. I’ll try to remember not to do that again.
He was a law and order candidate, silly.
Career prosecutor. But, I’m not claiming his work history as a county prosecutor had or has anything to do with this case. But, it will be curious to see if this case gets tried by the OCDA or AG in this county. Those are far more interesting questions. So far, notwithstanding the gravity of what for he appears to have been arrested, his bailing out appears pro-forma. What if he was wrongly arrested for premeditated murder. Would it be fair and usual for him to remain in custody??
You really think that it’s “pro forma” for someone who appears to have shot his wife dead to be allowed back on the streets this quickly, without time for prosecutors to challenge his bail?
Do you think that it’s also “pro forma” for anyone who isn’t rich or well-connected?
If anyone is wrongly arrested for any crime, is it “fair” for them to be in custody? What sort of a question is that? WE DON’T KNOW whether he was “wrongly arrested” at this point — although a big pool of blood on the floor suggests that he wasn’t. Would you favor releasing ALL those accused of violent crimes on their own recognizance just because “maybe they’re innocent”?
And even if Judge Ferguson IS found innocent — well, retention in jail IS “usual” in this sort of situation; it’s being able to make that sort of bail that isn’t.
“$1 MM bail” for this sort of murder is a guideline, not a mandate. If there were concerns about mixing him with other prisoners, he could have been put in solitary confinement until Monday morning — even with electronics, so long as they don’t involve communication with people outside.
I wonder he’d have been left free if, rather than his wife, he’d have shot a cop.
It’s now early Monday afternoon. I’ve been searching, without success, for any recent update on what has happened (or might be happening) to Judge Ferguson. No luck so far. If anyone finds an updated source, please let us know!
From what I could surmise via search of cases on calendar on court’s website, his honor has not been charged as of yet. Which goes back to senselessly sitting in jail. If you are in jail, a bail agent is the person who gets you out the quickest.
https://courtcalendar.occourts.org/search.do?caseYear=&dept=ALL&numRecordsPerPage=50&sort=title&title=+&dateFrom=Aug-09-2023&dir=asc&caseNo=&caseType=CM&dateTo=Aug-09-2023&eventTime=ALL&jc=ALL&action=Search&page=9#resultsAnchor
He wouldn’t be “senselessly” sitting in jail. He’d be sitting in jail because there is good reason to think that he murdered his wife.
If he had not been bailed out on Friday, then I am quite confident — and I suspect that you’d agree — that he would have been arraigned Monday morning, albeit with the added inconvenience of a prosecutor there perhaps pointing out that he may have enough money to be a flight risk. In that case, we wouldn’t need to worry about his “senseless” imprisonment — it would either be sensible or non-existent.
It follows that the only reason that he hasn’t been arraigned is because he’s already free on bail, so why hurry? As I said, part of me really hopes that he does flee to Costa Rica (or wherever) so that we could be entertained by relevant officials saying that this was completely beyond predictability and pointing fingers at each other over who was responsible.
Seriously, at what point does the judge STILL not having been charged with a crime for the shooting of his wife, while remaining free on bail, become a story somewhere other than here? One week from the killing? A month? A year?
So are you claiming the judge got special treatment or that his constitutional rights were respected?
And, Foley and others jumped ship on DUI Dave for Weiss over his inability to hold his liquor.
Just remember, DUI Dave came after me like a little b*tch. Couldn’t even identify me by name and accused me of something I didn’t do. Just desserts.
He had no constitutional right whatsoever not to be held in prison until he had been arraigned, at which time the prosecutors would have had their chance to give their input and demands. Zero. This “Friday night until Monday morning” thing happens to people have been arrested for far less than murder all of the time. But in this case, something was different. I wonder what it was.
Let me give you an example of how this works. I had nothing against Judge Ferguson (so far as I can remember) until I learned that he had shot his wife dead.
And, as I’ve said, I would soften my stance if it turned out that she was in tremendous pain with no chance of survival and this was a mercy killing, even though this is not the preferred way to do that. (The legal way is for someone in hospice to administer opiates for pain relief until the person finally stops breathing — but not before substantial death rattling which is absolutely awful. I’ve been through this three times — mother, uncle, brother-in-law — and I would far prefer to be shot in the head, but that’s not what the law allows.) And if she was trying to kill him at the time, I’d be open to revising my beliefs.
You, on the other hand, have a grievance against Min because he “came after you like a little bitch, didn’t know your name, and made (what you say is) a false accusation about you. THAT, rather than the merits of any situation — even one like this case, where there are merits to be found — is your ACTUAL motivation.
As such, no one can trust you to be fair to him, to put things in context, to consider ameliorating circumstances, or anything else, because (as we face in our courtroom work) you are not trying to be fair. You are trying to cause injury to an enemy. So that undercuts your credibility both as to your representation of the facts and of their implications.
I believe that you could do better if you wanted to — but you don’t, so you don’t. But that’s why I’m leery of giving you a forum for your slashing and burning and salting of soil here: because whatever you do is not reliably fair.
I, like Vern, do go after people who I think deserve it — but it’s not because what they’ve done to me, but what they’ve done to the citizenry as a whole. To the extent that you go after people based on what you think (or imagine) they’ve done to the citizenry you seem to care most about — Armenians — it obviously colors your judgment and presentation, but at least you’re honest about that.
You are wrong re my motivations re DUI Dave. He started his campaign claiming to be a voice for the marginalized and a fighter against fraud and corruption. He was silent re Farrah Khan (even after the city pledged to build a AG memorial) and he was silent about the “report”. He doesn’t speak up for what is right, just politically expedient. He also appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Have Republicans infiltrated the OC Dems?? Khan and DUI Dave appear to have been flipped.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna760156
https://sd37.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-dave-min-stands-lgbtq-community-huntington-beach-leaders-seek-remove-pride-flag
https://sd37.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-dave-mins-statement-orange-county-power-authoritys-vote-terminate-ceo
https://sd37.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-dave-min-condemns-hate-filled-flyers-targeting-lgbtq-and-jewish-communities-huntington
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrat-dave-min-federalist-society-joanna-weiss_n_64c18467e4b0dcb4cabb2fca/amp
Prominent Armenian-American attorney indicates Ferguson case will be tried in an another county.
https://abc7.com/amp/orange-county-judge-superior-court-ferguson/13614452/
Well, yeah — the only reason for the OCDA’s office to keep it here would be a “Tony Rackauckas screwing up prosecution of officers who killed Kelly Thomas” style de facto coverup.
And that’s not “indicating,” it’s “predicting.” But it’s a pretty easy prediction.
“Orange County Superior Court Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez released a statement to multiple news outlets wishing Sheryl Ferguson’s family thoughts and prayers.
‘Although no case has been filed with our court, when appropriate, we will take all necessary steps to ensure full compliance with our legal and ethical obligations,’ she said. ‘As this is a pending matter still under investigation, the court is unable to provide any further information at this time.’”
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/judge-who-allegedly-gunned-down-wife-in-their-home-was-previously-rebuked-for-baselessly-accusing-da-of-having-sex-with-defense-lawyer-in-case-she-prosecuted/amp/
Well, that’s at least some improvement. Were any “thoughts and prayers” for Sheryl in a separate paragraph, or was that just your embellishment?
Under this wait-and-see approach, though, it’s sort of surprising that they’re not allowing him his bench again. They could reassign him temporarily to traffic court, after all.
^^^^^ = sarcasm in my paragraph 2, in case anyone wonders.
Anger is a gift.
https://youtu.be/H_vQt_v8Jmw
I don’t think that this sort of thing is what they were targeting.
Suffice it to say if you can’t distinguish between a random act of gun violence and domestic violence, you probably are not a good candidate to advocate for victims of either. Pffft.
I hate that you’re putting me in a position of defending him, but: it’s likely that he intended to apply the word “random” to the Irvine shooting and not to the tragedy in Anaheim Hills — and just didn’t express himself clearly.
Jumping to a conclusion of what he actually believes is your embellishment. But it’s very lawyerly of you; I’ll grant you that.
Go back and look at the post. He identifies both cities and has OC Rag headlines of both events. He wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote. Or one of his aides did.
You do not know — nor care that you do not know — that he wrote what he meant. He was using a modifier to apply to a compound noun phrase when it applied to only one of the the nouns but not the other. In quick and informal writing, it’s not unusual for people to mess that up.
The alternative is that he really does think that the murder of Sheryl Ferguson was “random” — and that’s risible enough that it’s likelier that he just messed up the sentence.
Neither event was a random act of gun violence, schmegegge Greg.
It was a “hit” job in Irvine – the victim was set up. The parties appear to have known each other.
Explain to me how the death in Irvine was a random act of gun violence.
If you kill a person you know, or, kill a particular person on purpose with a gun, guess what, it’s highly unlikely it was a random act of gun violence.
It was a thoughtless post by Dave, literally. He was just quickly reacting to two news stories he thought would help with his campaign, since he is associated with gun control. But I still don’t know what laws he is proposing that would have prevented either of these killings, especially the Ferguson one.
OK. I haven’t been paying attention to the Irvine story and I didn’t realize that you were criticizing him on both assertions.
But, at the time that he made the statement, would Min have known that the Irvine murder was a hit job rather than random violence?
I think I’ve already explained why I feel the need to ask.
Ass on Liberal OC claiming Greg has three readers / commenters besides me which I guess makes four.
Don’t tell anybody this story has 1,548 readers so far. Not everybody comments. I used to complain to Gus Ayer about that and he said, “Sometimes your stories are so perfect that there’s just nothing anyone can add.”
That reminds me: Dan C. recently commented in response to this witticism about fat people (of which, um, he himself is as well):
with this
I’m wondering two things:
Why is he sure that I’ve felt my penis since 1996?
Why does he seem to think that having felt my penis sometime in the past 27 years is some kind of sick burn against me? Are we to presume that Dan C. never feels his penis?
(Actually … that would explain a lot!)
Sorry for the digression; now back to more serious matters.
U talkin about THIS Dan C?
Yes, emerging from the waves like the birth of Venus, by which I mean the planet.
I don’t believe he has seen his Venus in many years, although he may have touched it.
Young adults and married people can’t own guns. Those are two laws he can propose. He can get his wife to testify in favor of them.
Female advocacy groups should be up in arms over DUI Dave claiming the Ferguson event was a random act of gun violence.
Let me quote something the sagacious Vern Nelson once said:
“It was a thoughtless post by Dave, literally. He was just quickly reacting to two news stories he thought would help with his campaign, since he is associated with gun control.”
But, by all means, write and call feminist advocacy groups and try to get them to put their time into your prescribed action! Let us know how it goes!
Umm, they buried Franken over humor. It was really funny. That’s what he does. Spare me.
They burned Franken over miming fondling a female airman’s breasts while she slept. That may be humor, but its being humor doesn’t insulate it from criticism.
This has very little to do with whether feminists are obligated to step in and slam Dave Min. And — surprise! — it’s not your call, Counselor.
I’d be happy to spare you. You mean the “do without” definition?
The OC Rag is reporting the OCDA will be handling Ferguson’s prosecution.
Same.
“OCDA Director of Public Affairs Kimberly Edds said the California Attorney General’s Office has determined the DA’s office does not have a conflict of interest and will prosecute the case against 72-year-old Jeffrey Ferguson.”
…
“Ferguson has not been charged for the alleged murder of his wife, 65-year-old Sheryl Ferguson, inside of the family’s Anaheim Hills home.
The Anaheim Police Department has not turned the case over to OCDA, but Edds said they will review it when they do, and make a filing decision.”
https://abc7.com/amp/orange-county-judge-wife-murder-prosecute/13625006/
One thing for certain, Judge Ferguson is a 2nd Amendment aficionado.
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ee/14/48D6E52F-FB07-48DA-8217-DE9A0E242183/IMG_9377.jpeg
https://twitter.com/abc7/status/1690026569778233344?s=57&t=jhF3cKeD-1cIlr3qzgvZmQ
Gee, he definitely sounds like someone who was safe to release on bail, right?
I wonder if he was released because they expected him to commit suicide out of remorse.
I stand by my opinion that releasing him was crazy. What if he became homicidal instead of suicidal? And what would keep him from buying another gun — his judicial oath?
The people who let him go free really [phrase I’ve decided not to articulate explicitly] on this one. At least so far.
He had a caseload to unload.
But wait there is more. He likes mixing his guns with booze.
https://twitter.com/salhernandez/status/1690041031675482112?s=57&t=jhF3cKeD-1cIlr3qzgvZmQ
Well, in a sense, his wife won the argument.
“Why don’t you get a real gun [as opposed to the finger and thumb representing a handgun he was “brandishing”] and shoot me?” had a rational answer: “because I’d go to jail.” He was just too drunk and too armed not to defend his challenged masculinity with a bullet.
I predict that, though this should be murder, they will charge him only with manslaughter. That that would be absurd — he diminished his own capacity! — won’t stop them.
Based on what he said, he should just offer to plead guilty to murder, as he didn’t decide to shoot himself.
The “guns don’t kill, people kill” and “good guy with a gun” crowd should have to wrestle with this one. His son might have had time to intercede if he’d brought out a knife, which is a lot less prone to thoughtless action and might have allowed him to think twice.
Well the Fat Lady sang on that one.
“It seemed like a morbid joke, the late-night text prosecutors say Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson sent to his court clerk and bailiff:
“I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I’m so sorry.”
At first, the clerk and the bailiff didn’t take the text seriously, court documents say.
But minutes before the text was sent, prosecutors say, Judge Ferguson pulled a Glock .40 pistol from an ankle holster and fatally shot his wife, Sheryl, in the chest at close range in front of an adult son.
Slurring his words, smelling of alcohol and still wearing his now-empty ankle holster, a prosecution court filing says, the judge made a series of expletive-laden, seemingly remorseful confessional comments to responding officers.
“What the (expletive) did I … well, I guess I’m done for a while,” the judge said to police, according to prosecutors. “Oh my God. … My son. … My son. … (Expletive) me. … What an (expletive) I am, Jesus Christ. I’m sorry. … I (expletive) up. … Oh man, I can’t believe I did this.”…
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/08/11/i-just-lost-it-oc-judge-texts-his-court-staff-prosecutors-say-i-just-shot-my-wife/
This piteous soliloquy should be taken as a warning by anyone who keeps firearms too readily available inside their house: You’re making the job of your tormenting demons way too easy.
Those Western State graduates are DANGEROUS!!!
Color re the “random” shooting er ambush in Irvine. Compare and contrast bail details with judge’s case. Bail vs. no bail.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-12/irvine-rattled-by-shooting-ambush-that-killed-19-year-old
The Orange Lady reports today that Judge Ferguson has pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder. The story does not specify what degree of murder was charged.
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/08/15/oc-judge-ferguson-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering-his-wife-in-their-anaheim-hills-home/
Ferguson is represented by attorneys Paul Meyer and John Barnett. They stated after the hearing that this was an “unintended” and “accidental” discharge of his firearm.
Barnett is quoted saying: “There was no intent to kill, no malice and they will find him not guilty.”
His attorneys will have to surmount his excited utterance to police, in which I’m replacing deletions seen elsewhere with my educated guesses as a longtime curser as to what words he actually said (because someone has to do it) :
The trial will be heard in Los Angeles, as was fleetingly in doubt by some here other than myself.
Readers should really read the Register’s story, which includes comment from deceased Sheryl Ferguson’s brother Larry Rosen, who is very pissed at his former brother-in-law and whose concern is for his nephew’s welfare.
For the benefit of readers, if you pull out a gun (even if dared to) during an argument and point it at your spouse, you have still committed a crime if it discharges and kills them. It may be manslaughter — which is what I expect he’ll try to plead to, depending on the sentence offered — rather than murder, but lack of intent to shoot only reduces culpability to a limited degree.
This case, once again, underlines the point that having a gun at home tends to make people more likely to be involved in a suicide or the murder of a loved one. If he had had a knife rather than a gun, it would have been less likely to “go off” accidentally. People have guns largely because they believe that doing so allows them to control a situation — but the effect of having a gun can leave someone with less control.
Also, in case there are any Republican U.S. Senators reading this: it is not an affront to one’s masculinity to simply walk away from a fight with one’s spouse.
What the hell, I might as well go on a little more:
Penalties for voluntary manslaughter (Cal. Pen. C. Sec. 192(b): 3, 6, or 11 years in state prison, fine up to $10,000.
Penalties for involuntary manslaughter (Cal. Pen. C. Sec. 192(b): 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison, felony probation, fine up to $10,000.
Of course, whoever is or becomes California Governor is entitled to commute a sentence. I expect that the victim’s mother Larry Rosen will want to weigh in on that; so might any of the judge’s professional friends and associates.
Is there any update on this one? I didn`t find any information dated later than Aug-Sep 2023. The fact that they decided to keep the case within Orange County Court is just absurd!
Not so far as I can tell. Yeah, it really should have been moved to LA County.
Well it seems that they did transfer it to LA. Didn`t publish that update though https://apnews.com/article/california-judge-ferguson-wife-murder-shooting-ce8b2cf0f3864ca3e8e492eb3286be5a
Yeah, there’s an update, which I had intended to add here, but … you know.
I think that I may have been worried about LA Times and OC Register paywalls, so here’s a piece from USA Today (which seems almost identical to at least one of them) that everyone should be able to access.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/06/21/orange-county-judge-jeffrey-ferguson-sheryl-shooting/74164268007/
You will get A LOT MORE from my discussion below if you first read the above link. I’d stop short of calling it necessary, but it will help you put in a lot less effort understanding my analysis (if you’re inclined to do so at all.)
Again, being someone relatively innocent of the specifics of the relevant law here, I can imagine that the murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter in a plea agreement. (Of some relevance, I do remember that premeditation can be instantaneous and fleeting, Certainly his brandishing the gun at his wife was itself a premeditated act. I think that doing so would qualify as aggravated assault given the circumstances (under the definition of assault putting someone in reasonable immediate apprehension of battery, less likely of attempted battery). Aggravated assault is so attenuated a necessary aspect of murder that I don’t know that it’s even formally charged as a lesser included offense. (But the trial judge has the final call on instructing the jury about the law )
Having watched too many Law and Order episodes over the years that involve invoking the “the gun just went off!” excuse, I wonder if merely brandishing the weapon — a “wobbler” offense under Cal Penal Code 417 (meaning that it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony given the underlying facts — can itself turn the shooting into murder via the “felony murder rule.” Aggravated assault is a felony — but would it necessarily suffice under that rule?
At one time I think it would have — but California limited the scope of the felony murder rule in 2019; the determinative necessary finding in this case would now seem to be whether Judge Ferguson had acted with “reckless indifference to human life” even before the shot was fired. An interesting question!
Personally, I think that brandishing and pointing a loaded gun at a spouse with whom one had been having a heated argument probably should qualify as such “reckless indifference” the canonical example of which (if I remember correctly my Crim Law class from, uh, a quarter-century ago) would be intentionally driving a speeding car into a crowd without a specific intention to kill anyone in particular. Alas, domestic violence is still taken less seriously than other violence — remember the young woman killed at that right wing rally in Virginia last decade — and gun owners don’t want to see their rights infringed, so I’m not sure that a judge or a unanimous jury would buy this.
But: the value of a plausible pathway existing towards a felony murder conviction is less about obtaining that conviction than in opening the possibly that that outcome might well result from a trial — with jurors probably having the right to convict only on a lesser charge. I think that this circumstance passes that test.
If the prosecution were inclined to raise only lesser charges, it could seek a voluntary manslaughter conviction. Below that would be “involuntary manslaughter with gross negligence” (the mildest choice that I think would make any sense), then “unlawful act manslaughter,” and below that would be aggravated assault, which seems so laughably wan that I doubt the prosecution would even include it as an option.
If the judge is contrite — as he seems to be — I hope that he’ll volunteer to plea to voluntary manslaughter, but expect that he’d aim for involuntary, with the argument then being between the presence or absence of gross negligence. But I’d certainly enjoy hearing from criminal prosecutors or defense lawyers about their perspectives.
Now go read that linked story if you haven’t already!
Thank you Greg for the detailed response. Sorry, I haven`t had time to visit your blog since.
Well, the news is coming! Now the judge was jailed due to drinking alcohol while on probation, but then they released him on $2 million bail.
Am I the only one who questions how the judge has $2 to put on the table?
Well, if my recollection is right (and I rarely practice criminal law), he would have been able to get a bond for 10% of the 2MM, and $200,000 is something that one might get from the equity in one’s house. But … the idea of a Judge becoming beholden to bail bondsmen really doesn’t sit well with me. I forget how old Ferguson is, but I think that he’s reached his own proper retirement age. He could make good money as a mediator, especially among people who don’t read the papers.
Hi Greg,
Is there a way to contact you? I have some legal questions, and I believe you might be the right person to ask