[X] Ben Forer

Monday, March 9, 2026

Page 8

Ben Forer

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 66

en Forer is a deputy district attorney. Too, he’s a lecturer at USC in cyber law and is an adjunct assistant professor of technology and applied computing practice at that university’s School of Engineering. He writes scholarly articles for various legal journals. Forer is author of a textbook—“Privacy & Cyber Law, Cases and Materials”—as well as a book with a collection of materials including cases and articles, “Law Without Borders: Law in a Cyber Universe.” And he’s an ordained rabbi.

This unique candidate is viewed as a man of intellect, with a high degree of competence, coupled with gentleness and an eagerness to serve.

He will roll up his sleeves and get done what needs to be accomplished—including shouldering tasks assigned to others, in a spirit of helpfulness, not intrusion. An entry in a District Attorney’s Office performance evaluation tells how a deputy asked for Forer’s help in an embezzlement case in which a reduction to a misdemeanor charge was being contemplated; Forer provided guidance in seeking search warrants for additional information; and, ultimately, without causing disgrace to the assigned deputy, took over. There had been an admitted theft of about $500,000; with information Forer gathered, it emerged that about $5 million had been pilfered.

The internal report notes:

“On August 26, 2019 the defendant pled no contest to grand theft and admitted the white collar fraud enhancement and was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months in state prison and ordered to pay $5 million in restitution. DDA Forer’s willingness to help out his fellow DDA and take over the investigation and prosecution of this case show what a hardworking and conscientious prosecutor he is.”

here has not been a performance evaluation of Forer since one prepared on Feb. 9, 2021. He received the overall rating of “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good),” which he customarily obtained. Reports for that year and the three previous years contain such comments as:

•“DDA Forer is a nationally recognized expert in the areas of cyber law and 4th and 5th Amendment issues affecting electronic evidence. DDA Forer frequently assists his colleagues and other members of the office with complex and novel legal issues….”

•“DDA Forer is friendly and outgoing and is always willing to help out his colleagues by handling a case or making an appearance whenever necessary.”

•“DDA Forer has exceptional analytical skills and his supervisors frequently assigned him the most complex fraud and cyber cases.”

judge advises: “DDA Benny Forer has been considering a run for judicial office for at least eight years and is, apparently ‘all in’ for the seat. A well-respected and genuine genius of the DA’s Office Hi-Tech/Cyber Crimes Division,…Forer would be a valuable addition to the bench given his understanding of computer systems that currently appear to increase the workload of bench officers, while the promised benefits remain elusive.”

Former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley remarks:

“I know Benny Forer pretty well. He is well respected and liked in DA’s office. Would make a great addition to the bench.”

A high-placed person in the District Attorney’s Office says:

“My impression is that Mr. Forer is in court a lot and comfortable in that setting. He seems to get along well with others.”

A veteran prosecutor of high rank observes:

“I have known Mr. Forer for about 20 years….[H]e is brilliant and capable of understanding and communicating highly complex and technical matters. What is most impressive about Mr. Forer; however, is how courageously he pursues truth, even in his tight-knit religious community. He has very publicly addressed what he sees as wide-spread sexual abuse in that community, which as you can imagine has come at a great personal cost to him and his family.”

ne negative comment comes from a former deputy public defender. That person recounts unearthing facts in 2023 establishing that the defendant was factually innocent and turning over the information to the District Attorney’s Office. Forer “met with their alleged victim and then offered my client diversion,” according to the account, but with “volunteer hours at an LGBTQ center” as a condition of dismissal; the client agreed. The critic says: “I…sent a strongly worded email to Mr. Forer about how I thought it was awful and fundamentally unethical to ask a man that he knows is not guilty to do free labor when he is homeless under threat of being charged with a felony…if he doesn’t.”

Forer responds:

“I have no independent recollection of the specific case described, but I believe I was supervising the preliminary hearing unit at the time. Over the course of many years, I have reviewed and disposed of thousands of cases, always striving to understand both the facts and the individual circumstances of each defendant.

“I have never, and would never, condition a case resolution on any requirement if I believed the defendant to be factually innocent. In the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, I have dismissed many cases I judged unprovable or unsupported by the evidence. I also recognize that, in an adversarial system, defense counsel and prosecutors may view the strength or fairness of a case differently.”

We find it significant that despite the criticism, the former deputy public defender adds that “[t]here is a good probability I will endorse” Forer, and provides this assessment of him:

“I do think he is knowledgeable and personable. He has a good temperament and a demonstrated commitment to public service. He is open to being educated on legal issues, which I think is a tremendously important quality in a judge.”

lso running for the seat is Cheryl C. Turner. She’s president of the Board of Directors of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles; she’s served on the Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority; she’s been a representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

But what is it that she’s done as a lawyer that qualifies her for a seat on the Los Angeles Superior Court? We don’t know.

The answer should be set forth by her on her campaign website. We looked.

As it happens, she does have a campaign website—but it relates to the bid she had intended to make, as a Democrat, for a state Senate seat. The website says that “she’s managed her own legal practice with an emphasis on civil rights, consumer rights, business, tax, real estate, transportation and law” but mentions nothing beyond that reflecting fitness for a judgeship.

Turner also toyed with the prospect of candidacy this year, as a Democrat, for the State Board of Equalization.

She’s been a candidate for four offices in the past, each time as a Democrat. She sought a state Senate in 2022, capturing 40.1% of the vote in a November run-off; was a candidate for the Assembly in a 2021 special election, emerging third among six contenders with 9.6% of the ballots; vied with seven others for a state Senate seat in 2021, in a special election, placing fourth, with 5.4% of the votes; garnered 16.9% of the votes as an aspirant for the Board of Equalization in the 2018 primary.

The question arises as to why this Democratic Party loyalist, given her desire for a judgeship, has not been granted one by the governor, a Democrat. Gov. Gavin Newsom has appointed her, as a public member, to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians (on which she no longer serves). Assuming she has asked for a judgeship—she won’t say whether she has—why was she turned down?

We know of no basis upon which to conclude that Turner is qualified to sit on the Superior Court other than meeting the state constitutional requisite of licensure in the State Bar for 10 years.

With Forer, his fitness is evident. We strongly endorse him.