David Bernhard is a judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia (Fairfax), in the United States, elected February 23, 2017 by the Virginia Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates, for an 8 year term commencing July 1, 2017. He is reportedly the first immigrant from Latin America to have been elected Circuit Court Judge in Virginia. His election was preceded by a selection process wherein candidates were evaluated by the Fairfax Bar Judicial Selection Committee which issued an Executive Summary on his candidacy, followed by a vote by the Fairfax Bar Association membership. Subsequently, state legislators of the Virginia General Assembly having precincts in Fairfax County, voted as later reported in committee, to unanimously recommend his approval to the full Legislature. Bernhard was sworn into office on June 30, 2017. At his Investiture ceremony of September 8, 2017, State Del. David B. Albo, Chair of the House Courts of Justice Committee, presented Bernhard his official commission, and Judge Patricia A. Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit administered his ceremonial oath.
Video David Bernhard
Education
In 1980, Bernhard received his High school diploma from Northfield Mount Hermon School in Northfield, Massachusetts. In 1983, he graduated from Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, with a B.A. in Economics and Political Science. He completed his law degree in 1985 at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. He is fluent in the English, Spanish and German languages.
Maps David Bernhard
Career
Bernhard was first admitted to practice law in Virginia (1988), Maryland (1989), District of Columbia (1987), Missouri (1986). From 1991 to 2017 he was in partnership with attorney Cheryl E. Gardner at the law firm of Bernhard & Gardner. In 2005, Bernhard with Gardner, co-founded and until May 2017 co-moderated VADefenses Listserv, a criminal law resource.
Bernhard's trial practice included the handling of difficult cases such as a murder case which was only the second instance of a jury trial being televised in the history of the Fairfax County Circuit Court, engendering debate as to the circumstances if any under which cameras ought to be allowed in a courtroom. Notable matters he handled include challenging admissibility of certificates of analysis offered without the presence of a technician in DUI prosecutions and confronting problems with enforcement of Northern Virginia toll road civil penalty cases, in each case contributing to the enactment of changes to the Code of Virginia. His appeals include Virginia's first civil Gideon case, a cooperative effort with Clarence M. Dunnaville Jr., culminating in amending legislation; the seminal Benitez decision policing abusive litigation practices; and the Kim opinion, providing a bright line test as to when private property is subject to the traffic laws of Virginia applicable to "statutory highways." Bernhard helped reconstitute, and from 2011 to 2014, was Co-Chair of the Fairfax Bar Criminal Law Practice Section, serving for the last year in collaboration with Michael J. Lindner, for which effort he was recognized with an FBA President's Award. In 2012 he was named a "Leader in the Law" by Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
As a judge, Bernhard has been a proponent and implementer of developing evidence-based sentencing and pre-trial practices. Similar techniques are already in use by the Virginia Department of Corrections for incarcerated individuals, yielding the lowest inmate recidivism rate of any state. Bernhard has declined to impose cash or surety bonds as a prerequisite for release of those accused of crimes, persuaded of the emerging view that monetary conditions do little to ensure public safety in the case of the dangerous, while conversely serving in many instances to unnecessarily incarcerate those whose release poses little adverse risk that can instead be addressed through other pretrial conditions. He has exercised judicial discretion to inform jurors during jury selection of the penalty ranges a defendant faces in the context of examining sentencing bias and reducing the chance of mistrials, and has set forth his reasoning for advocating such practice in writing. Bernhard has issued a number of Letter Opinion judicial decisions, which in Virginia constitute persuasive authority.
Judicial opinions
Among the issues treated in Bernhard's legal opinions since September, 2017, are: determining probation officers may make sentencing recommendations in their reports; applying the writ of fieri facias to establish liability for conversion; evaluating when a lack of mutuality renders contractual arrangements void ab initio; analyzing when an award for attorneys' fees is applicable under the "hollow victory" concept; determining when summary judgment is inappropriate despite the parties agreeing there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute; exercising the Court's discretion in voir dire to query jurors in criminal cases about sentencing bias in the context of advising of the applicable penalty ranges; analyzing when, if at all, the words of a civilian may make such person an agent of the police for purposes of effecting an arrest; evaluating whether a subcontractor in a commercial transaction may be subjected to liability under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act; determining the reach of litigation sanctions to a "represented party" in consideration of the alter ego doctrine; holding when medical causation testimony is unnecessary to commit the decision as to guilt for a crime to the jury; evaluating the viability of pleading implied breach of duty in the context of an express statutory contract claim; analyzing when fraud claims must be maintained derivatively and when a complaint may include counts factually inconsistent with one another; applying principles of res judicata and party privity to determine whether to stay litigation; adopting and explaining the partial loan subordination approach for analyzing the impact of liens with a circuity of priority; interpreting the scope of statutory preemption of negligence and conversion claims in the context of a fraudulent wire transfer of funds; determining when declaratory judgment actions may be maintained ancillary to an administrative action and appeal; analyzing the applicable scope of habeas corpus and whether the governor of a requesting state may act through an agent, in extradition proceedings.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments