California Judge Stabbed in Court by Murder Suspect

18856406_160x12018856036_160x120Lawyers and court staff are in shock in Stockton, California after Judge Cinda Fox of Stockton, California was stabbed by David Paradiso, 28. Paradiso was then shot to death.

Paradiso is accused of killing his girlfriend of two-weeks, Eileen Pelt, 20, in December 2006 by stabbing her in the neck. He claimed that he was suffering from paranoia after taking methamphetamine at the time and thought that Pelt was going to kill him. His mother was driving at the time of the attack and Pelt died in the car. Paradiso then told his mother to drive to a secluded spot to dump the body.

Sheriff’s Deputy Dave Konecny stated that “The suspect was being cross-examined. The suspect made a move toward the judge with an unknown cutting instrument. A Lodi police officer immediately came forward, striking the suspect and stopping the assault.”

It is unclear what Konecny meant by “striking the suspect”. What is clear is that Lodi Det. Eric Bradley shot Paradiso. However, Chuck Pacheko, Paradiso’s defense attorney, said that the shots occurred when his client “was still grinding away at her neck… two shots, boom, from behind me.”

It also sounds like Paradiso stabbed both Fox and Pelt (no pun intended) in the neck.

What is also intriguing is that the family claims that it Paradiso’s mother, Debra, warned “jailers” that her son was carrying a weapon to court. The mother said that they searched his cell but did not find it.

It is simply amazing that a violent criminal could not only hide a weapon in a cell but get such a weapon into the courthouse. In many courthouses, inmates are not separately screened by machines upon their arrival — under the presumption that they have been screened and controlled through the jail system.

For the full story, click here and here.

17 thoughts on “California Judge Stabbed in Court by Murder Suspect”

  1. mespo727272, its people and judges like you are what is ruining our country judges should be more concerned about whether or their decisions on the facts of the case comply with and meet the requirements of the law not precedent which are completely separate cases decided on facts that have nothing to do with the case that they’re hearing. The dictatorial way the judges acting courts nowadays renders either their jobs or the legislatures jobs useless and a waste of money. The legislative body creates the law, the judicial body enforces it as according to the facts of the case. We the people do not elect a legislative body to enact laws just so overzealous judges can overrule them according to their special interest contributors. And while you may speak as if being someone employee in the legal profession is some sort of holy enlightenment I seriously doubt that nowhere near over 1% of the legal profession and the judiciary combined can actually say that they make a difference in society for the better. In fact the judiciary is the biggest drain on America, it makes just about every other branch of government useless by its singular judicial officers refusing to honor their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws made pursuant thereof making the whole lawmaking process which is Congress passing laws and the administration carrying them out into execution. Meanwhile because the judges unelected sit in their baby highchairs thinking that they are better than everyone else throwing fits and temper tantrums and smacking the baby will on the bench. I think it’s time we put these brats on a timeout.

  2. Thanks for the nice discourse. I sincerely appreciate it.
    If so many people are so disadvantaged as indicated in the Roper poll, why then, do we allow the routine excesses of the system to funnel money that would be better used by the people to flow towards the practitioners. To me, it would be like taking advantage of a seriously dysfunctional individual in my practice so I can upgrade my vehicle or some other petty self-serving aspectmakin a busines of practice. And, of course, the judge is complicit in such events.
    In any event, thank you again for the civil discourse. I remain hopeful.

  3. Dr. Wales:

    Obviously I cannot dispute your impressions of the judges you have seen, since I have no idea or in what context you have seen them. As you say, your experience is limited. My own experience is not so limited and I have tried cases in 5 states in both state and federal courts up to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and two State Supreme Courts. While I have occasionally seen rogue judges, they are the tiniest of minorities. Most judges are genuinely concerned about the law and whether decision meets the requirements of precedent and about the welfare of those citizens who stand before them. Those interests do not always coincide. It is the role of the Judge to decide, and that entails making choices among two or more positions, each of which may contain some measure of justice. It is not easy to decide and that’s why most people run from the chore. Judges do not enjoy that luxury.

    Stating that most people do not understand the legal process, adds nothing to our discussion; most people can’t find Afghanistan on a map* or correctly state the number of the members of Congress. That does not make either inquiry worthless. In fact, it may make it more important that educated and trained men and women be available to assist the general public. In the legal process that is the role of lawyers.

    That you feel the process is flawed can only be met with a resounding “of course it is” by all involved. If you have read this blog you have seen my comments detailing the poisoning role of money and raw economic power on the system. As an example, in a recent medical malpractice case my firm handled, the defense file 116 motions with briefs against our clients. After losing most all of them they settled. Wouldn’t that money have been better spent in payment to the victims?

    My point is that claiming a human created and human maintained system is flawed is hardly novel, but impugning those who do attempt to do their jobs in the right way requires more evidence that your limited field trips to the courthouse; that requires as the Iroquois used to say ” a mile in their moccasins.”

    *According to the Roper poll of young Americans:

    “Six in ten (63%) cannot find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, while three-quarters (75%) cannot find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44% cannot find even one of these four countries…. Other hot spots in the news around the world also fail to register with 18- to 24-year-oldsÂ…
    o Nine in ten (88%) cannot find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.”

  4. Equating the depths of the practice of professional counselling with law is doing a serious disservice to the discussion. Law requires your participation or you might be locked up. Counselling requires the voluntary participation of the patient. At least in private practice as it is for me. And you are right in that meds have become the quick fix when it was originally intended to be used as a bridge in conjunction with counselling to get the patient to a place where he or she can lead a decent and reasonable life. The right to the pursuit of happiness and all that.,..My experience as a professional having made very few court appearances in that capacity is that the entire process is degrading, void of any concern for the human qualities that undoubtedly lead to the court proceedings in the first place. Law is not effective when we see incarcration rates as high as they are with private firms profiting from the great numbers of people who have been removed from life altogether. It is not my contention that law is bad or of no use. I only mean to put forward the way in which the courtroom has morphed into the judges room, not the peoples room. The average person involved in litigation is no more prepared for the complexities of law than they are of the writings of Freud, and given far less time to try and digest the intracacies they are facing in a courtroom. And, also my experience as a psychologist, is that the party with more money wins. That alone sees a great many people are simply shut out from even seeking justice. And those who lose are shut out from much of their past lives altogether. One last point; I have witnesed judges looking at the parties attempting to see who they like and who they dislike. The level of personal judgement coming across from the bench is so severe as to pre-empt the possibility of the judge to be impartial. Introjecting oneself into the courtroom – or the counselling room – in such a way is a grave distortion. How many times have you heard an attorney joke, ‘hope the judge is in a good mood this morning’ and all the other one liners heard so frequently around the courthouse. Perhaps more judges, better pay, open financials on their part would allow them to spend the necessary time to assure some balance as they frequently cite an inordinately heavy workload as part of their own frustration. Something I can elect to avoid in order to provide the finest possible care I can to each patient. Perhaps each claim should be treated as a patient. Perhaps? Often the attorneys are so much smarter and better payed then the judge and ten times more motivated. So, I say these things not with disdain but with hope that we will make the necessary changes to the judicial system to make people feel more secure about availing themselves of their rights.

  5. Dr. Wales:

    You would do well to remember that no judge or lawyer I am aware of ever sought to parse and resolve the often times irreconcilable complexities of two individuals hell-bent on proving the rightness of their positions. In litigation one side must win and another must lose, balance, alas, is found only in the settlement conference.You may dislike our adversary system (I do myself sometimes) but our system of law has developed from centuries of human experience and is still the best method we have for rationally alleviating the unremitting willingness of humans to pray upon each other. That you dislike some of the outcomes places you squarely in the camp of at least 50% of litigants, and perfectly proves the postulate that reasonable minds can differ. I suspect these numbers still exceed the satisfaction obtained from those seeking help from the realm of the behavioral scientists who operate in relative anonymity, and behind the wall of doctor-patient confidentiality utilizing concepts that I am certain confound even the most wise.

    I do note with interest your comment that “the law is based upon words….” That conceded, what does the behavioral scientist employ in his work short of mind-numbing medication?

  6. It is not cynical to tire of abusive law practices. It is simply a disappointment in those who hold titles and use them to favor other people working in their venue. It makes law into a perverted form of monetary practice and lowers it to the station of a job without oversight. Law is based upon words and words can easily become paradoxical and frequently do in the courtroom. Often by design. Attorneys openly play to the judge, stalling until they can get their attention, chatting them up for a favorable disposition and the like. That practice of the egoic entity undermines the purity of the practice of law. What is left is simply a winner and a loser. Nothing more. And, frequently, the loser is overburdened with a life situation that they then cannot change or re-arrange into a viable long-term solution for an on-going healthy life. I get those people in my consult room and find myself routinely disappointed in the judges’ ability to affect a positive outcome by the way of simply being balanced in their findings. It becomes tiring and painful to have to counsel people who would otherwise have continued to lead healthy lives. The damage many judges do lives long after they leave the courtroom. Entire families are compromised, marriages broken, businesses dissolved, employees fired and the future of all the children associated with a ‘finding’ can be so distorted that it takes years to make a correction. We could do better. We should do better.

  7. Robert Wales, PhD:

    With those breathtaking generalities and ill-informed notions of judges gleaned from TV watching all tacitly justifying felonious battery, I can only conclude that the title you hold in addition to your B.S. must mean “Piled Higher & Deeper.”

  8. Dr. Wales: I’ve had to deal with a number of incompetent, rude and obnoxious judges over the past 35 years. Yet, after some serious reflection, I can’t recall a single instance in which I wanted to shank one. Cynicism is one thing; cynicism with extreme prejudice is a bit over the top, dontcha think?

  9. Jeez Dr. Wales, there’s plenty of ass-hole judges out there, but dose that mean this one deserved to be shish-kabobed??!!

  10. It is really hard to sypmathize with judges anymore. We have seen time and time again the abuses of their egoic and false-hearted practices that even when one is threatened I no longer have concern for them. Sorry. Used to. Lost it. The black robe of anonymity is completely lost on our judges. I’ll bet many would not even understand that as a reference.

    Not defending this guy but judges are so smug they are offensive in their manner alone. And, did they really have to kill this guy? Is’nt someone who commits a murder already crazy? Does two crazies equal some level of sanity? Doubtful.

  11. Not only how did the guy get a weapon, but how the hell did the defendant get behind the judge? The sheriff’s office has some explaining to do.

  12. Hmm, I remember that one hearing where a defendant was immediately arrested and handcuffed for not sitting down fast enough in court… And he wasn’t even facing murder charges…

Comments are closed.