Vote NO on Judge Sean Lafferty

Judge Sean Lafferty currently serves as a Judge on the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. This page outlines publicly available information that raises concerns about his fitness for re-election. This site presents publicly available information relevant to the re-election of Sean Lafferty, with careful distinction between allegations, opinions, and judicial findings. Statements are labeled clearly to distinguish documented findings from allegations or contested claims.  

Based on publicly available court records, civil pleadings, appellate opinions, news reporting, and courtroom-experience commentary, voters may reasonably conclude that Sean Lafferty’s record raises concerns about prosecutorial judgment, oversight, and perceived fairness, even though no court has formally found him guilty of misconduct.

2010–2014: Parker Murder Case (Allegations in Civil Lawsuit)

• In 2010, Roger Parker was arrested and held for murder in Riverside County.  
• According to internal memos attached to a civil complaint, some prosecutors initially questioned the strength of the case.  
• Parker’s case was dismissed in 2014 after almost four years in custody. 

2021: Civil Rights Complaint Filed (Allegations)

• Parker filed a lawsuit claiming that the prosecution continued despite reasons to doubt guilt and that evidence of another suspect was not timely disclosed.  
• The lawsuit names Sean Lafferty (then a supervising prosecutor) among defendants, alleging decisions to continue prosecution and control case handling. 

2023: Ninth Circuit Appellate Decision (Finding)

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on procedural grounds in Parker v. County of Riverside, reversing a district court ruling related to due process claims but did not make a finding of constitutional violation.  

(Important: the appellate ruling addressed legal standards — it did not determine that Judge Lafferty committed a constitutional violation.)

Source: Civil complaint and appellate case materials.
Claim: Lafferty, acting as a supervising prosecutor, reassigned the case and continued prosecution against internal counsel recommendations.
Public court filings and reporting describe allegations that, while serving as a supervising prosecutor, Sean Lafferty played a role in decisions involving:

• Continued prosecution despite internal doubts 
• Handling of potentially exculpatory evidence 
• Oversight of a case that resulted in years of pretrial incarceration before dismissal 

These allegations appear in civil rights pleadings and are summarized in appellate-court procedural decisions.
They are not findings of misconduct, but they raise legitimate questions about judgment and supervision in a role that demands restraint and constitutional vigilance.

Status: Allegation — this is derived from civil complaint pleadings and is not an adjudicated finding against Lafferty.

Source: Portions of the civil complaint and reporting summarizing claims.
Claim: Lafferty instructed a deputy to not disclose recorded evidence of another suspect to defense counsel. 

Status: FACT (duration) + ALLEGATION (responsibility)

Established fact:

• The defendant in the referenced case spent nearly four years incarcerated before charges were dismissed. 

Allegation:

• That supervisory prosecutorial decisions contributed to that prolonged detention. 

Voters may reasonably weigh whether such outcomes reflect the level of caution and fairness they expect from someone now serving as a judge.
Status: Allegation — not a judicial finding; contested by County lawyers in filings.

• Parker was detained for years before dismissal of charges.  
• Case remains unsolved, and Parker claimed lifelong impact from incarceration.  
• These consequences are real, but attribution to individual actions by Lafferty is based on allegations in the lawsuit.

Status: PROCEDURAL FINDING (not personal liability)

Federal appellate opinions addressing the underlying case discuss constitutional standards (e.g., disclosure obligations), emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged conduct without making findings against Lafferty personally.

This matters because appellate courts rarely spend time on hypothetical misconduct unless the issues are significant.

Online judge-rating platforms (e.g., The Robing Room) host comments from individuals about courtroom experiences with Judge Lafferty. 

Public judge-review platforms contain multiple comments from litigants and attorneys describing:

• Perceived lack of fairness 
• Demeanor concerns 
• Inconsistent rulings or communication issues 

These comments are not verified facts, but they do reflect public perception, which is relevant in a position that depends on public trust.

Status: Anecdotal opinion — not independently verified, not legal findings.

• There are no publicly available records from the California Commission on Judicial Performance indicating formal discipline against Judge Lafferty. 
• Absence of discipline is not confirmation of no concerns—it simply means no public disciplinary decision has been issued.
   

Even without formal findings, certain patterns raise questions about judicial temperament, discretion, and judgment:

• Case Handling: The Parker matter involved internal disagreement among prosecutors about probable cause and disclosure of evidence. 
• Duration of Detention: Parker was held nearly four years before dismissal; voters may question prosecutorial oversight and judgment in prolonged detentions.  
• Perceptions of Fairness: Public commentary on judge review sites suggests some litigants felt treated unfairly; while not verifiable, these perceptions affect public trust.