Judge in Stanford sex assault case to stop hearing criminal cases

The California judge who faced public scrutiny and a recall effort over his decision to hand down a six-month sentence to a Stanford University swimmer in a highly publicized sexual assault case has opted out of presiding over criminal cases.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky will transfer from criminal to civil court on Sept. 6.

In a statement issued Thursday, presiding Judge Risë Jones Pichon said Judge Persky asked for the transfer in the hopes it might cut down on distractions that have arisen out of his sentencing of swimmer Brock Turner.

“While I firmly believe in Judge Persky’s ability to serve in his current assignment, he has requested to be assigned to the civil division, in which he previously served,” Judge Pichon said in a statement. “Judge Persky believes the change will aid the public and the court by reducing the distractions that threaten to interfere with his ability to effectively discharge the duties of his current criminal assignment.”

In June, Judge Persky sentenced Turner to six months in jail, forgoing prosecutors’ recommendation that he receive six years in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. A poignant 7,000-word statement the 23-year-old woman read in court at the sentencing about the effect the assault had on her was widely shared online and sparked a firestorm of controversy.

Supporters of the victim began a recall effort for the judge, saying the sentence was too lenient.

Stanford professor Michele Dauber, who is leading the effort, said the recall effort will continue because Judge Persky could still transfer back to criminal court at a later time.

Fallout from the Turner case has already caused numerous disturbances in Judge Persky’s court.

This summer, prosecutors filed a challenge that kept the judge from presiding over a hearing in another sexual assault case. The Mercury News reports that last week, the judge disqualified himself from ruling in another pending case that involved child pornography possession. Judge Persky said he and his family were exposed to publicity surrounding the new case, which resulted in “a personal family situation.”

The judge had been set to decide whether to reduce a man’s felony conviction for possession of the pornography to a misdemeanor.