Reconsideration of Another Judge’s Decision Required in Light of New Case, C.A. Holds

Friday, January 2, 2026

Page 1

Reconsideration of Another Judge’s Decision Required in Light of New Case, C.A. Holds

By a MetNews Staff Writer

One judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court erred in declining to review a “no-bail” decision by a member of that same tribunal in light of an intervening appellate opinion rejecting the analysis contained in the decision relied upon by the first bench officer, Div. One of the Court of Appeal for this district has held.

Justice Michelle C. Kim authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday. Her opinion directs the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and orders the Superior Court to hold a new bail review hearing.

The petitioner is Jae Han Chung, accused of sex offenses involving minors. He faces a possible sentence of exposure 60 years in prison to life.

Bail was set at the preliminary hearing at $2 million. Subsequently, Chung moved twice for a review of the amount.

Martinez’s Ruling

The first judge to act on his request was Victor Martinez. Noting Chung’s statement that he could not raise bail in the amount set, Martinez on April 19, 2022, applied the March 14, 2022 decision of Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal in In re Brown. There, then-Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss (now a part-time faculty member at UCLA’s law school) interpreted a California Supreme Court decision to mean that if the amount of bail an accused can afford to put up “is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests, then the trial court’s only option is to order pretrial detention, assuming the evidentiary record is sufficient to support the findings necessary to justify such an order.”

In obedience to that decision, Martinez ordered that Chung be held without bond.

Then came the Nov, 21, 2022 decision by Div. Three of the First District Court of Appeal in In re Kowalczyk. Justice Carin T. Fujisaki wrote that bail should be set in an appropriate amount even if the defendant cannot raise the amount set.

The California Supreme Court granted review in Kowalczyk on March 15, 2023.

Based on the Court of Appeal’s decision in that case, Chung again sought bail review. Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Juan Carlos Dominguez (now back in law practice) on May 16, 2024, denied the motion, finding there were no changed circumstances.

Kim’s Decision

Disagreeing, Kim proclaimed that the decision in Kowalczyk was a changed circumstance. She wrote:

“[U]nder Kowalczyk, the court (Judge Dominguez) could have determined at the May 16. 2024 hearing whether there was an amount of bail sufficient to protect the public and ensure petitioner’s presence in court and set bail at that amount, even if it made a finding that petitioner could not afford to post the bail. The district attorney acknowledges that the court could have chosen to follow Kowalczyk instead of Brown, even though Kowalczyk was (and still is) on review in our Supreme Court.”

Kim added:

“We express no opinion on whether a court should follow Brown or Kowalczyk. Our holding is a narrow one: Given the conflict between Brown and Kowalczyk, the court erred in concluding Kowalczyk did not constitute changed circumstances and in declining to conduct a new bail review hearing based on the changed circumstances….In failing to address the conflict between Brown and Kowalczyk that was a primary basis for petitioner’s motion, the court abused its discretion.”

The case is In re Chung, B347815.