Bell judge refuses Robert Rizzo’s call to step down in corruption hearing
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Henry J. Hall denied a defense motion for a new "impartial" judge in the second wave of hearings for Bell officials charged with corruption and misappropriation of public funds.
James Spertus, an attorney for former City Administrator Robert Rizzo, filed a motion asking Hall to recuse himself because he was not coming to the hearing with "an open mind" and already had formed strong, negative opinions about the matter.
But Hall said, "As far as I'm concerned, the first [preliminary hearing] never happened. We're starting from scratch." Hall told defense attorneys that they should not refer to the first hearing in their remarks.
Spertus had cited Hall's statements last week when he ordered six current and former Bell council members to stand trial on charges that they misappropriated public funds. He described the allegations as "appalling" and ordered the defendants to "not be involved in the running of that city in any shape or form."
"I'm very concerned about getting a fresh assessment from this court," Spertus said. "It's very important that we get a fair, fresh and impartial look at the evidence."
Tuesday's hearing marks the second of three to get underway for eight current and former Bell officials charged in the corruption scandal. Rizzo, former Assistant City Administrator Angela Spaccia, Mayor Oscar Hernandez and former Councilman Luis Artiga are facing charges in the second hearing.
RELATED:
Judge reduces bail for Bell councilman
Bell defense attorneys express concern about judge
Robert Rizzo wants judge in Bell case to recuse himself
-- Corina Knoll and Jeff Gottlieb
twitter.com/corinaknoll
EDITOR'S PICKS:
Rizzo heading off to hopefully not get so fat - anymore
Posted by: keith | February 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Nice try. Move on.
Posted by: Ned Flanders | February 22, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Rizzo is just delaying the inevitable. The hog heading to slaughter. He kinda reminds me of the Warrant's "Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich" album/CD cover.
Posted by: Kittybarfola | February 22, 2011 at 01:50 PM
Judge should NOT recuse himself, just defense attorney tricks.
Posted by: Bill | February 22, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Who cares about Rizzo and the rest? Let them rot in hell for what they did.
Posted by: scot | February 22, 2011 at 01:57 PM
Of course another Judge may fix it (City of Bell misaproppriations,good idea. Why does not that person also request a ,"change of venue"too. Maybe the planet Mars?
Posted by: bill jablonski | February 22, 2011 at 02:24 PM
the defense just trying to stretch this trial along.....get it done quickly and toss his butt in prison already.
Posted by: Chuck | February 22, 2011 at 02:44 PM
His carreer isn't over yet, they're remaking "Deliverance" and want Rizzo to play Ned Beatty's part.
Posted by: John Cromwell | February 22, 2011 at 03:33 PM
Still, after seeing the judge's decision in the previous hearing, I question whether or not this hearing is impartial.
Posted by: Concerned Individual | February 22, 2011 at 03:42 PM
These clowns got it coming...
Posted by: Noel Corona | February 22, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Has anyone noticed they are all registered Democrats. Ummmm
Posted by: The Answer | February 22, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Ratso Rizzo, you fat cat, you ripped off the people of Bell and now you are going to Jail !!!
Posted by: Macca Doo | February 22, 2011 at 04:41 PM
A judge should always be impartial and not already be judging before the evidence and witnesses are presented. I'm not saying they are innocent. But I am also saying they aren't guilty until they have their say in court.
I know everyone believes they are guilty. And they probably are. However, my belief is based on the limited information I read in the news and hear from "news freaks" from work. This information is almost always one-sided to generate buzz and headlines (today's news is fueled by gossip). If I were to be accused of a crime, I would want my say in court. I would want my chance to prove my innocence. I wouldn't want a judge that has already reserved judgment. And I do not think anyone here would want that either no matter how strong you THINK you are right without hearing based on a newspaper.
The day we start locking people away in based on anger, and not facts, is not a road we want to travel no matter how strong those feelings are.
Posted by: db | February 22, 2011 at 05:37 PM
Preliminary hearings are usually a mere formality. Nearly all are granted. Its sole purpose is to determine if there is "some" evidence against the defendants that warrants a trial.
Posted by: djcionemarco | February 22, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Okay everyone...drop what you are doing and brush up on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest - especially the section on the Czar of Poisonville. You'll get the idea.
Posted by: Mike W | February 22, 2011 at 06:01 PM
Dear” concerned individual”
A “hearing” doesn't have to be impartial; it's just a hearing. The trial is what needs to be impartial. I hearing is a formality, not a trial.
Posted by: JayW | February 22, 2011 at 06:34 PM
Hahahaha!!!! Maywood employees that Spaccia lied to can laugh now, as she awaits the inevitable. Jail time... I guess Angela is a fat pig, and that's the good part of her!
Posted by: John | February 22, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Meanwhile, former Bell Police Chief Randy Adams is at home preparing to run more 5k's by completing spin classes with his new California taxpayer funded personal trainer!
Way to go prosecutors. Us taxpayers don't mind disability fraud on top of outrageous salaries anyway.
Posted by: WillIam | February 22, 2011 at 09:38 PM