Orange County DA to review cases decided by Judge Jeffrey Ferguson

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said Monday that he would review "any and all cases" decided by Judge Jeffrey Ferguson, who admitted during his murder trial that he drank heavily during work hours.

"We understand that we have to review those cases," Spitzer told a news conference shortly after a mistrial was declared on charges related to Ferguson shooting to death his wife in August 2023. During the trial, Ferguson testified that he drank most days, and his lawyer, Cameron J. Talley called him a "functioning alcoholic."

"He admitted on the stand under oath that while he was a magistrate, he was considering cases while he may have been under the influence of alcohol," Spitzer said. "I'm announcing at this moment that we will be reviewing any and all cases by Judge Ferguson while he was a magistrate where the individual comes forward.

"We will have a process that we will have on our website and we will announce to the defense bar and anybody who represented them, say for example, in pro per as an individual, without counsel, that we will have a process if somebody believes that their sentence, the way they were treated, was inappropriately or unprofessional, we will review all of those cases and those allegations," Spitzer said.

Orange County Public Defender Martin Schwartz said in an email he welcomes "the District Attorney's review of cases impacted by Judge Ferguson's admission that he would drink during lunch and return to court to preside over criminal hearings."

Schwartz added, "If we independently become aware of any cases where our current clients were negatively impacted by the judge's actions, we will investigate accordingly and seek legal remedies on behalf of our clients supported by the facts and the expressed interests of our clients. "

The public defender's office is hampered with less funds and resources than the district attorney to conduct an overall review. The office believes there may be 100 cases that were tainted by a jailhouse informant scandal in recent years but does not have the resources to review them all, Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders said in a recent interview regarding another matter. The previous district attorney and sheriff's office were found by a judge to have illegally placed informants in cells with defendants and deliberately did not inform the defense.

Elisa Guadan of Guadan Law Group PC in Newport Beach responded in an email that she believes Ferguson mostly handled felony arraignments in recent years.

"His rulings would have been limited to bail motions, continuance requests, and preliminary procedural matters rather than substantive trial decisions. While the extent of his impairment's impact on these cases remains unclear, this situation underscores the critical need for judicial oversight," Guadan wrote.

"If Judge Ferguson was drinking on the job for years, then there is no doubt that a concerted effort was made to shield him from being found out. It is difficult to believe that no one--court staff, attorneys, or colleagues--noticed any signs of impairment. This raises serious questions about the culture within the judiciary and the extent to which concerns about a judge's conduct are overlooked, minimized, or even actively suppressed," Guadan continued.

"More importantly, this situation highlights the defense bar's long-standing concerns about accountability within the judiciary. When defense attorneys bring issues regarding trial court judges to the attention of the presiding judge or the State Bar, these concerns are often dismissed or ignored. The lack of meaningful oversight allows judicial misconduct to persist, sometimes for years, before any corrective action is taken. The defense bar has been demanding oversight on these issues, yet our voices remain largely unheard," Guadan concluded.

Lauren Johnson-Norris, a criminal defense attorney at the Johnson Criminal Law Group in Irvine, agreed.

"He sat in judgment of other alcoholics and addicts while he himself was impaired. Now, someone is going to have to look at each of his cases and figure out if his impairment affected the outcomes and all of these people's lives. This process will take enormous resources and time if done correctly and will cost the taxpayers at the end of the day. However, it is necessary for there to be justice in all the impacted cases," Johnson-Norris wrote in an email.