Thursday, November 13, 2025
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Reversal on Murder Case Mandated by Judge’s Text Messages
Opinion Says Jurist’s Communication With Employee of Prosecutorial Office, Before Closing, Asking Why Trial Attorney Did Not Call Certain Witness Amounted to Structural Error
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal yesterday held that text messages, sent by a judge presiding over the defendant’s criminal trial to an employee of the prosecutorial office asking, before closing, why the attorney handling the case did not call a particular witness, amounted to a due process violation mandating the reversal of the accused’s murder conviction.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emily Cole, a former employee of the county’s District Attorney’s Office, sent the offending messages to a former colleague, Kevin Sexton, on April 28, 2023 at 3:54 p.m., after both sides had rested their cases in chief, asking why the prosecutor, Yujin Yi, was not calling the witness and writing that “[m]aybe people should talk it over with her???”
Justice Natlie P. Stone authored yesterday’s opinion, characterizing the matter as “an exceptional case with extreme facts that amount to a due process violation and structural error.” She wrote:
“Judge Cole violated a core tenet of our criminal justice system by abandoning her role as an impartial arbiter and taking an interest in [the defendant’s] conviction. Accordingly, we reverse for a [new] trial.”
Acting Presiding Justice John L. Segal and Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer joined in the decision.
The messages brought Cole a “severe public censure” by the Commission on Judicial Performance on May 28 of last year.
2020 Murder
Appealing his conviction was Travis Rockhill, who was accused of murdering Gary Matthews in July 2020. During his first trial—in which the jury deadlocked—Rockhill made a statement in the presence of the courtroom bailiff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Randy Smalls, saying that “I’m going to get off because I didn’t shoot the guy” and “he was only supposed to get beat up and robbed.”
After the statement was disclosed to both sides, Yi declined to call Smalls to testify during either trial.
In May 2023, the second jury found Rockhill guilty. After the verdict, Yi disclosed Cole’s ex parte communications to the defendant and to Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett, who then supervised the Antelope Valley Courthouse.
On May 15, 2023, after speaking with McLaughlin-Bennett, Cole disclosed the communication on the record and recused herself from sentencing. McLaughlin-Bennett reviewed the minute order reflecting the recusal and instructed Cole to correct it to “objectively state what happened…without trying to minimize, explain or distort the facts.”
A modified order was entered on May 26, taking out language indicating that Cole believed the rulings in the case were fair and impartial and that she sent the messages “after hours,” among other changes.
The case was then transferred to McLaughlin-Bennett for sentencing. The jurist denied Rockhill’s motion for a new trial based on Cole’s messages, saying that “[a]lthough the…communication…was…, without question, a violation of the ethical code of judicial canons, such communication, by itself [did] not warrant” a new trial and that “[t]here [was] no evidence that the ex parte communication affected the trial proceedings or the jury’s verdict.”
On Nov. 6, 2023, McLaughlin-Bennett sentenced Rockhill to 35 years to life in prison.
Actual Bias
Stone wrote:
“Rockhill contends the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on Judge Cole’s bias. He argues Judge Cole’s ex parte communications with Sexton demonstrated a constitutionally intolerable possibility that Judge Cole harbored actual bias in favor of the prosecution, resulting in structural error that requires reversal for a new trial. The People agree, as do we.”
Saying that “[i]t is axiomatic that prosecutors and judges must adhere to their distinct roles in our criminal justice system,” she remarked that “[a]n unconstitutional probability of actual bias exists when the trial judge usurps the role of the prosecutor and takes an interest in the defendant’s conviction.”
Considering Cole’s actions, she opined:
“Judge Cole improperly counseled the prosecution on trial strategy….By telling the prosecution (in an ex parte text message, no less) that it should call a witness to the stand, Judge Cole improperly used the weight of her position as a judge to advise the prosecution how to conduct its case.”
The jurist continued:
“Judge Cole’s advocacy could have influenced the trial in favor of the prosecution, considering the timing of her ex parte communications. Judge Cole texted Sexton after Rockhill testified and Yi indicated she did not intend to call any more witnesses. At that time, neither party had begun closing arguments. If Judge Cole’s texts had their intended effect, in that prosecutors in the district attorney’s office persuaded Yi to call Smalls as a rebuttal witness, Yi could have called Smalls to the stand on the next court date. Indeed, when the trial resumed, Judge Cole twice asked Yi if she had any rebuttal witnesses, illustrating Judge Cole’s understanding that there was still an opportunity for Yi to change her mind.”
She added:
“Judge Cole’s ex parte communications thus were not, as Judge McLaughlin Bennett found, made solely ‘to reflect on and criticize a former colleague’s trial performance.’ Instead, the fact that Judge Cole sent the texts at a time when Yi could still call Smalls to the stand suggests Judge Cole intended to influence the prosecution’s case. This was a violation of Rockhill’s due process right to an impartial judge.”
The justice noted that McLaughlin-Bennett relied on Judge Cole’s own representation that she had acted fairly and impartially during the trial in denying the motion for a new trial and said: “[T]he standard for assessing bias is an objective one and ‘not whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias.’ ”
Rockhill raised other claims of error, including an assertion that McLaughlin-Bennett also acted improperly by assigning the case to herself for post-verdict matters despite having personally conferred with Cole regarding the text messages. Responding to this allegation in a footnote, Stone said:
“Because we reverse the court’s order denying the motion for a new trial, we need not address Rockhill’s other claims of error, including insufficiency of the evidence, improper admission of witness testimony, improper exclusion of character evidence, and Judge McLaughlin-Bennett’s alleged judicial bias in ruling on the new trial motion.”
MetNews reached out to Cole and McLaughlin-Bennett for comment. At the time of publication, only Cole responded, saying that “it is inappropriate for a judge to comment on a pending case.”
The case is People v. Rockhill, 2025 S.O.S. 3235.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company