Telepeer

Orange County judicial candidate surveys: Ann Cho and Robert Mestman

May 10, 2026

On the June 2 ballot is the post of Superior Court Judge, Office No. 13.

It’s an open seat, with two highly experienced prosecutors running to fill it, Ann Cho and Robert Mestman. Editorial board member John Seiler interviewed both candidates about their campaigns and approach to the office.

Here, we present their responses, slightly condensed for consistency in response length, to surveys sent by the editorial board.

How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Ann Cho: My judicial philosophy is grounded in integrity, fairness, impartiality, and respect for the rule of law. A judge’s role is not to make policy, advance personal views, or favor any party, but to apply the law faithfully and treat every person who comes before the court with dignity and respect. My years in the courtroom have shown me how important it is for judges to listen carefully, manage proceedings with patience and professionalism, and base decisions on the law and the evidence presented. By approaching each case with humility, an open mind, and sound judgement, a judge helps ensure a fair process and strengthens public confidence in the courts.

Robert Mestman: My judicial philosophy focuses on four things:

1) Fairness & Impartiality. A judge must remain fair and impartial at all times and not show bias for or against a litigant, attorney, witness or other party to a proceeding.

2) Respect for the Rule of Law. A judge must follow the law, regardless of the judge’s personal opinions or views.

3) Competence & Hard Work. A judge must be knowledgeable about the law and any legal issues that may arise. A judge must work hard to maintain judicial competence and understand the legal and factual issues of each case.

4) Dignity. A judge must be courteous and show all parties to a case, as well as court staff, dignity and respect.

Does a judge’s personal politics, whether liberal, conservative or something else, affect her or his rulings and courtroom? Do you have a judicial hero of the past or present?

Ann Cho: Judges, like all people, come from different backgrounds and experiences, but our system is designed with safeguards to prevent undue influence of these factors in decision-making. By relying on case precedent, appellate review, the Canon of Judicial Ethics, and rules requiring recusal in certain situations, judges can ensure decisions are grounded in the law and facts, not personal beliefs or preferences.

A judicial hero of the past for me would be Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. As the first female justice of the United States Supreme Court, she was a trailblazer and brilliant legal mind known for her practical approach to the law, recognizing the real-world impact of court decisions on people’s lives.

Robert Mestman: A judge’s personal politics should not affect his or her rulings. Politics – and bias of any kind – must be avoided. As a career prosecutor, my job has always been to seek justice, not simply get a conviction. Whether it is reviewing reports to decide what charges to file, determining what an appropriate offer in a case is, or conducting a post-conviction review, I have always pursued justice with the highest ethical standard, without regard to politics or other outside influence.

My judicial hero is John Paul Stevens, a fellow Northwestern University School of Law alum. I had the opportunity to meet him and see him speak while a law student. Justice Stevens was considered a moderate for the most part, a lifelong Republican who was called a conservative by some and part of the liberal bloc by others at times. He was nominated by President Ford and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Justice Stevens often wrote his own opinions and was considered an open-minded justice, often changing his position if persuaded.

Do you believe the composition of juries adequately and fairly reflects society at large? Why or why not? If not, what can we do to change this?

Ann Cho: Our Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, ensuring an accused individual is tried by an impartial panel of local citizens rather than government appointees. The jury system is one of the cornerstones of our justice system, and it is designed to reflect a cross-section of the community to ensure a diversity of perspectives and viewpoints. That said, no system is perfect and there are times when certain groups may be underrepresented for a variety of reasons.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7 is a recent change in the law aimed at eliminating one of those reasons – discriminatory bias in jury selection. It prohibits the exclusion of jurors based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or similar characteristics.

As a judge, my role is to ensure that jury selection is conducted fairly, that both sides follow the law, and that no one is excluded improperly. Ultimately, my responsibility is to uphold the laws as written and to protect the integrity of the process so every party receives a fair trial before an impartial jury that adequately and fairly reflects the community.

Robert Mestman: The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judicial candidates from making statements or taking positions with respect to cases or issues that are likely to come before the courts. (Canon 5B). One such issue may be a Sixth Amendment challenge arguing that the jury venire does not sufficiently reflect a fair cross section of the community.

However, I can say that California has taken efforts in recent years to increase the participation of a cross-section of the community through enactment of AB 3070, which created Code of Civil Procedure sec. 231.7. The new statute aims to reduce implicit bias in jury selection and restricts peremptory challenges to prevent discrimination based on race, gender, or religion during jury selection. Having diverse juries made up of a cross section of the community is critical to ensuring due process and confidence in our justice system.

What do you believe to be the root causes for the high numbers of juvenile offenders, the so-called school-to-prison pipeline. What changes can the court system make to reduce these numbers?

Ann Cho: Existing juvenile justice reform laws aim to have courts focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. While I cannot speak to the ultimate causes, which are certainly complex and deserving of continuing study by experts in the field, courts can aim to reduce the number of juvenile offenders through various programs. Specifically, courts can prioritize diversion for low-level offenses, ensure that youth are connected to services, and reserve detention for cases where it is necessary for public safety. Courts can also strengthen coordination with schools, mental health providers, and community-based organizations to address the underlying causes of behavior and meaningfully improve the operation of juvenile justice reform laws.

Ultimately, reducing the number of juvenile offenders requires a collaborative approach requiring all stakeholders – prosecuting agencies, juvenile counsel, probation, law enforcement, educators, community service providers, and the court – to work together. The court can aid in this process by ensuring accountability, while also recognizing that long-term public safety is best achieved by addressing root causes and helping young people get back on a productive path.

Robert Mestman: Some of the factors that may have led to high numbers of juvenile offenders include socio-economic factors, tough on crime policies and zero tolerance mandates. But California is headed in the right direction in its efforts to reduce the number of juvenile offenders. The trend over the last decade has seen a decreasing number of juvenile offenders, partly due to the criminal justice reform efforts. California closed its Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and there has been a shift from state level incarceration to local level housing focused on rehabilitation.

Today, the goal of our juvenile justice system is non punitive and focused on rehabilitation. Directly charging juveniles in adult court has been eliminated and now a potential transfer to adult court is only available in limited cases and only after a court hearing. The state has also implemented policies to decriminalize lower level misconduct, particularly at schools (i.e., willful disobedience), with an emphasis on handling problems locally at the school level without involving law enforcement (for all but serious/dangerous situations like weapons, credible threats, dangerous drugs, etc.). In addition, the state has reduced penalties for truancy and moved it out of the criminal justice system.

California has made progress with efforts to reform its juvenile justice system, but we still need an improved system with more resources for counseling, education, job training and wrap-around services. Reducing recidivism should be a top priority. At the same time, we must use common sense. We need accountability that is balanced. Certain juvenile offenders that have committed egregious serious or violent offenses may not be appropriate for our juvenile justice system. And other offenders in our juvenile justice system may need more supervision to ensure both rehabilitation and public safety are taken into account (e.g., convicted murderers released into the community on furlough).

Orange County Register

News Details

Orange County judicial candidate surveys: Ann Cho and Robert Mestman

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS