Page 1

C.A. Appellant Alleges Judge’s Collusion With Recused Colleague Infected New-Trial Ruling

Convicted Murderer Asserts That Then-Supervising Judge McLaughlin-Bennett Acted Improperly, Under Circumstances, in Assigning Case to Herself

By a MetNews Staff Writer

One of the grounds on which a man convicted in Los Angeles Superior Court of first-degree murder is seeking a reversal is that that after the jurist who presided over his trial, Emily Cole, recused herself based on admitted misconduct, Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett—who then supervised the Antelope Valley Courthouse—assigned the case to herself for post-verdict matters despite having personally investigated the ethical breaches.

The appellant underscores that McLaughlin-Bennett conferred with Cole and acted as an advisor to her, in the immediate aftermath of missteps in 2023. The conduct brought Cole a “severe public censure” by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) on May 28 of last year.

McLaughlin-Bennett, the appellant asserts, ruled against his new-trial motion—based on Cole’s attempt to help the prosecution in the case—without disclosing that Cole counseled her in the matter, violating his “due process rights to a fair hearing and an impartial judge.”

Advising Prosecution

Cole’s major transgression was to contact a former colleague in the District Attorney’s Office and seek to have advice conveyed to the prosecutor in the murder case, then in progress, to call a particular rebuttal witness. Later, Cole amended a minute order, pursuant to counseling by McLaughlin-Bennett, to eliminate a falsehood.

She substituted language that was literally true but, the CJP said in its decision, was designed to perpetuate a false impression. Although the CJP did not make a finding that the truth-bending was pursuant to guidance by McLaughlin-Bennett, briefs filed by appellant Travis Rockhill in Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal proceed under the notion that, in light of the circumstances, it was.

“[A]t the Supervising Judge’s instruction,” Rockhill’s reply brief asserts, “Judge Cole…replaced the false statement with a misleading statement.”

Motion Denied

Having taken over the case, McLaughlin-Bennett proceeded on Nov. 2, 2023, to deny defendant Travis Rockhill’s motion for a new trial and sentenced him four days later to the maximum prison term of 35 years to life.

Rockhill is contending that McLaughlin-Bennett committed structural error in personally grabbing the case and then spurning the new-trial motion based on notions she developed in the course of conducting an informal investigation and in engaging in ex parte communications with Cole. The Office of Attorney General maintains that Rockhill forfeited any such complaint because he did not object below to the judge routing further proceedings to herself.

The appellant counters Rockhill was oblivious to any basis for a challenge, noting that that between June 15, 2023, when McLaughlin-Bennett reassigned the case to herself, and Nov. 2 of that year, when she denied the new-trial motion, she “never disclosed” having met with Cole and, through counseling, causing the revamping of the minute order.

In his reply brief, Rockhill maintains:

“Reversal is…warranted because the undisclosed ex parte communications between the Supervising Judge and Judge Cole before the Supervising Judge personally heard and denied appellant’s new trial motion create the specter of judicial collusion and brings disrepute on the judiciary….

“Respondent does not contest anything in this argument. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.”

Cole’s Email

An initial trial of Rockhill, presided over by Cole, ended on May 13, 2022, when the jury was deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. A short time before the case was submitted to the jury, Rockhill allegedly made certain inculpatory statements in the presence of the bailiff, Sheriff’s Deputy Randy Smalls.

That deputy was assigned to a different courtroom during the second trial of Rockhill so that either side could call him as a witness.

On April 28, 2023, Rockhill testified. Among the spectators was Deputy District Attorney Kevin Sexton who had been a colleague of Cole; she was a Los Angeles County prosecutor at the time she was elected to the bench in 2020.

Both lawyers in the Rockhill case, in an off-the-record conversation with Cole, indicated a disinclination to call any additional witnesses. Taking issue with that decision on the part of the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Yujin Yi, Cole texted Sexton at 3:54 p.m., drawing a three-word response from him, prompting a further text message from her.

There was this exchange:

At that point, Yi had not rested as to the rebuttal stage. After the jury on May 8, 2023, found Rockhill guilty, Sexton revealed the text messages to Yi; she informed her office; it shared the information with the defense and apprised McLaughlin-Bennett of the gaffe. The supervising judge contacted Cole; she proceeded to put the matter on the record and disqualified herself.

A May 15, 2023, minute order said, in part:

“The Court disclosed that after each side rested, after hours, the Court made inexcusable ex parte communications with another district attorney.”

The prosecution had not rested and the texting took place during court hours.

On May 17, McLaughlin-Bennett met with Cole and criticized the minute order. According to facts, stipulated to in proceedings before CJP, the supervising judge “instructed Judge Cole to ‘objectively state what happened in chronological order without trying to minimize, explain or distort facts.’ ”

On May 26, 2023, Cole modified the minute order to read:

“The Court discloses that after both side[s] rested their case in chief, trial had ended for the day, the Court made inexcusable ex parte communications with another district attorney that had been watching the trial.”

The amended minute order, the CJP said in its May 28, 2024 decision and order imposing a severe public censure, was “factually accurate,” but “was misleading because it still implied that the trial had concluded when it had not.”

The commission added:

“Judge Cole also modified the May 15 minute order to rephrase ‘after hours’ to ‘the trial had ended for the day, which was similarly misleading because it implied that the texts were sent after the workday had ended. It was not apparent from the new wording that the prosecutor still had an opportunity to call rebuttal witnesses.”

Rockhill’s Contentions

Rockhill is arguing on appeal that McLaughlin-Bennett was obliged “to disqualify herself from personally hearing and deciding appellant’s motion for new trial,” explaining: “She had personal knowledge of the core disputed evidentiary facts concerning appellant’s new trial motion and there exists a substantial doubt as to her capacity to be impartial….She instead violated appellant’s constitutional due process rights to a fair hearing and an impartial judge and denied him a new trial.”

His brief continues:

“While the Supervising Judge had a duty to investigate Judge Cole’s misconduct…, she also had a duty to disclose the full extent of her ex parte communications with Judge Cole when she decided to transfer the case to her court and decided to hear appellant’s new trial motion….But she failed to disclose any ex parte discussions that had occurred with Judge Cole, much less the full extent of the discussions on May 17, 2023, or other ex parte discussions that occurred during the investigation.

“Appellant thus did not know that the Supervising Judge had personal knowledge of the core disputed evidentiary facts concerning his new trial motion and had no reason to doubt her capacity to be impartial….He could not know that the Supervising Judge had instructed Judge Cole to correct the false statements in the initial minute order after Judge Cole had been disqualified from the case….He could not know the rephrasing of the modified order conformed to the Supervising Judge’s investigating findings or that it was misleading.

“Had the Supervising Judge properly disclosed her ex parte communications with Judge Cole, appellant could have moved to disqualify her and be heard before a neutral and impartial judge….He could have added grounds supporting a new trial based on the rephrasing of the minute order that attempted to protect Judge Cole by replacing a false statement with a misleading one.”

A.G.’s Position

The Office of Attorney General argues that Cole’s “improper ex parte communication with her former colleague in the prosecution’s office had no effect on the trial” and, “[a]ccordingly,” McLaughlin-Bennett “could not have abused” her “discretion in denying the motion for new trial nor did” she “thereby violate appellant’s right to due process.”

It declares:

“Even if the ex parte communication between the two judges in this case was improper, it could not have resulted in prejudice to appellant.”

That’s so, the Attorney General’s Office explains, because “there is no indication” that McLaughlin-Bennett “failed to exercise independent discretion” in denying Rockhill’s motion for new trial.

McLaughlin-Bennett declined to comment. She said through a spokesperson:

“Canon 3B(9) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judges from commenting publicly about a pending or impending proceeding in any court and requires that court staff under the judge’s direction and control similarly abstain.

“Consistent with Canon 3B(9), Judge McLaughlin-Bennett politely declines your request to discuss this matter.”