[X] Donna Tryfman

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Page 8

Donna Tryfman

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 131

eputy Public Defender Donna Tryfman is, in our view, the best choice among the four contestants for Seat No. 131. She is straight-talking—which offends some—but we find that markedly preferable to what we perceive to be an opposite propensity on the part of her chief opponent, Deputy Alternate Public Defender David Ross.

Ross, who arguably has the aptitude for judicial service, is discussed in a column on the adjoining page.

Looking at Tryfman: In her annual office performance evaluations, she receives the overall rating of only “competent”—lower than “exceeds expectations” or “far exceeds expectations”— but nonetheless draws such comments as these:

•“She willingly accepts the most challenging and serious felony cases. And volunteers for cases that might be daunting to others.”

•“She is respected for her willingness to fight for her clients and protect their rights. She asks for the most serious cases and never backs down from a challenge. She supports her colleagues in all ways. She is the consummate public defender.”

Despite the lackluster rating, Tryfman’s office obviously vests a high degree of confidence in her. She is a member of the elite Major Cases Unit and is assigned exclusively to defend clients facing a possible death sentence. Lightweights would hardly be entrusted with such cases.

From 2016-19, Tryfman was deputy in charge at the Eastlake Juvenile Court, supervising about two dozen attorneys. One common-sense action she took in that role is reflected in this comment in a performance evaluation:

“Ms. Tryfman initiated a new protocol of assigning the Eastlake cases as soon as the office receives them, rather than waiting until the day of the court appearance, enabling lawyers to begin case preparation at the earliest possible time.”

ne judge remarks that “Tryfman has a solid reputation as a capable trial attorney who is not afraid to take her cases to trial, yet something of a realist when it comes to negotiating the best settlements for her clients.”

The jurisr adds that she is “[w]ell-regarded by colleagues, prosecutors and judges for being prepared, reasonable, and personable.”

Another judge has this to say:

“Donna appeared before me while I was assigned to felony courts at Airport. I watched her advocate for many years on numerous felony cases—some very serious. I think she would be a great judge. She is incredibly smart and practical—she has always known when and how to pick her battles. If there was an advantage to be gained for her client, she argued politely and forcefully. Her sense of fairness and practicality made her credible. When she pushed extra hard, I often found her position was just and fair.

“Donna is extremely articulate and mature. She would immediately bring great experience and a sense of command to the bench. Donna is friendly. Donna is always professional. Donna cares about the quality of her work. I believe she will be an exceptional judge.”

he does have detractors, however. One respected person in her office says that Tryfman has a “caustic personality.” Even a supporter of hers, who authored an article denigrating Ross that appeared in the MetNews on March 2—with the author’s name withheld by request—acknowledged that Tryfman “can have an abrasiveness or directness about her.”

From what we discern, she is not one to simply shrug her shoulders when she encounters what she sees as an injustice, but speaks out, forthrightly. However, we are aware of no allegation that she has, in expressing her views, employed inappropriate wording or dishonest argumentation.

On Nov. 6, 2023, the Jewish Public Defenders Association (“JPDA”), of which she was president, wrote to members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors criticizing Public Defender Ricardo D. Garcia for not demonstrating leadership in seeking to deter hate speech within the office. It set forth that on Oct. 7, “Hamas terrorists perpetrated the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust”; in the aftermath, there occurred “a dangerous and rapid proliferation of hate speech directed against Jews by members of the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s office” including a head deputy posting a swastika on her socal media account; Garcia, initially, was mum. After weeks, he issued a prerecorded video statement in which, the JPDA said, he “called upon us, the targets of hate, to forgive our colleagues for their hate-filled posts, though no apology was offered by those who spread the abhorrent messages.”

The letter bears no signature at the bottom, but at the top of the JPDA letterhead is Tryfman’s name, indicating her presidency of the group. Of significance is that Garcia, though assailed in that communique, has endorsed Tryfman for election to the Superior Court.

Some blamed Tryfman, in part, for the dismantling of the office listserv in light of post-Oct. 7 exchanges in which she participated. We cannot see how she can be faulted for exercising her First Amendment prerogative—again noting the lack of any indication by critics of a single remark by her of an improper nature.

Notwithstanding Tryfman’s dedication to her faith and allegiance to its members, she recognizes the obligation of her office to provide a defense to any who need it, and has defended a neo-Nazis in a burglary case, ganing a favorable disposition.

In connection with speaking out: On Dec. 10, 2006, Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez quoted Tryfman as saying of a 25-years-to-life sentence by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard M. Goul of one of her clients, a man she maintained deserved leniency based on his mental illness:

“It was outrageous to me. Completely unreasonable and completely unjustified, and the judge was cold as a cucumber when he did it.”

The Court of Appeal for this district in 2008 affirmed the sentence. Goul, by the way, has endorsed Ross.

hat she has played the role of an advocate—both for clients and causes—does not mean that Tryfman would be incapable of conforming her conduct to that expected of a judge, a neutral arbitor. Surely she knows, from more than 30 years of courtroom experience, what a judge should and shouldn’t do and say.

We would hope that, on the bench, she would be nether adversarial nor abrasive.

Tryfman is clearly not incapable of cordial interplay with others, as reflected by leadership roles that have been conferred on her in various organizations. She was president of the statewide Public Defenders Association from 2015-20. The candidate is vice chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s delegation to the California Conference of Bar Associations, and she has chaired the organization’s Criminal Justice Section.

Other legal community activities have included participating in the Los Angeles Superior Court’s “Teen Court” program and serving as a member of the County Bar’s President’s Advisory Committee on Women in the Legal Profession.

In addition to a bit of actual judicial experience, as a participant in the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Temporary Judges Program, Tryfman has served—though not to a major extent—in a quasi-judicial capacity as a member of the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Commission from 2019-24, which she chaired in 2022.

lso vying for the open seat are two administrative law judges. One of them, Carlos Dammeier, is a buffoon who, two years ago, ran for a Superior Court judgeship in two counties. This year, he tried to scare others out of entering the same contests as he by proclaiming that he would place $1 million in his campaign coffers. He’s come up a bit short, transferring $80,000.

The other ALJ is Troy W. Slaten, a former child actor who is running for the third time. He’s a fabulist. Four years ago, he was an attorney who appeared as a supposed legal expert on various news shows, billed as a “former prosecutor.” He was never a prosecutor. As a law student, he did some volunteer work for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

While Tryfman and Ross display on their respective campaign websites the names of dozens of judges who endorse them and a slew of deputy district attorneys and deputy public defenders, and others, it is noteworthy that neither Dammeier nor Slaten lists a single person who is cheering him on. These Executive Branch quasi-judicial officers preside over administrative hearings, not courtrooms; before gaining their jobs, they were not trying one case after another; they do not have identities within the legal community. Ross, like Tryfman, has three decades of courtroom experience. As a judge, he would have the ability to conduct court proceedings proficiently, with regard to the mechanics. However, we do perceive a lack of a commitment to fairness and accuracy on his part, lessening the prospect that justice would be attained in his courtroom in any give case.

Ross is a former television news reporter. He has presence; he’s personable. While Tryfman is a straight-talker, he’s a smooth-talker.

Taking all into account, we view Tryfman as the clear choice, and endorse her.