Judge Karlin Fights Back
It is understandable that an appeal would be filed in the Latasha Harlins-Soon Ja Du case over which Judge Karlin presided.
Looking at the case from a rational basis it is understandable why Karlin gave Soon Ja Du probation instead of prison time. What is not understandable is why a group wants that decision to have been based on retaliation instead of legal precedents.
The appeal is only being pressed because Reiner wants pre-election publicity. In spite of also being up for election, Judge Karlin based her sentencing on legal precedents, not a group’s outcry for retaliation.
Just because a group doesn’t agree with a judge’s sentence, it doesn’t mean that judge’s decision is legally incorrect.
A group’s outcry for retaliation has no business entering a judge’s decision. When a judge has to base a decision on a group’s cry for retaliation, or fear of political ramifications or pre-election publicity, rather than on legal precedents--then not only does the judge lose, we all lose!
CHRISTY M. HAYS, Canoga Park
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
