Comments
WESTSIDE -Anthony "A.J." Bayne is a longtime trial attorney running for judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, specifically for Office 87, in the November 3, 2026, general election.
He advanced from the June 2nd Primary and received a top rating from the L.A. County Bar Association in his quest for a seat on the bench. Bayne received 42.04% of the vote or 694,004 votes on June 2nd in that very competitive, three-way contest.
With over 30 years of courtroom experience, including more than 25 years as a deputy public defender in L.A. County. Bayne has handled numerous felony jury trials and has secured the endorsement of several judicial officers as well as members of the law enforcement community.
A 1994 graduate of Trinity Law School. Bayne is also an inventor with pending patents as well as designing "AI" assisted attorney workflows. Outside the practice of law, He is a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu purple belt — a discipline that has taught him "patience and how to stay calm and think clearly under pressure, qualities I'd bring to the bench as well," noted the candidate.
A dad and husband, he is married to Tammy Hayashi Bayne, and they have two daughters. She is also a practicing attorney.
Here below is the unedited interview with the candidate:
You have spent your legal career as a Public Defender representing indigent clients. How would that experience shape your approach as a judge, particularly in balancing defendants' constitutional rights with public safety concerns?
My experience as a deputy public defender has taught me that protecting constitutional rights and protecting public safety are not competing responsibilities — both are essential to a fair justice system.
As a deputy public defender, I focus on the process — making sure my client's rights are protected at each step (e.g., detention, arrest, trial, etc.). As a judge, my duty to protect constitutional rights would broaden to ensure that the rights of all participants — not only the accused, but attorneys, jurors, law enforcement, and victims as well — receive the fair treatment guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the State of California.
I understand what's actually at stake — for the defendant, for victims, and for public safety — and my decisions on matters like release and sentencing (things where balancing is done) would be made case by case, based on the law and the record before me.
Los Angeles courts continue to struggle with case backlogs and delays. What specific steps would you take as a judge to improve courtroom efficiency while ensuring fairness and due process?
“Justice delayed is justice denied!” I agree that there are backlogs. An area that I have identified and submitted suggestions to speed things along is how HS 11395, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, is currently executed for indigent defendants.
The statute requires a concurrent order for a substance abuse evaluation and a case worker eligibility determination. In practice, these aren't truly concurrent — the case worker can't identify an appropriate treatment program until the expert's evaluation is complete, and that evaluation is often delayed because counsel must locate an available expert and separately secure court approval for payment. The result is repeated continuances and unnecessary transport of in-custody defendants.
I would work with the defense bar, the DA's office, and court administration to establish a rotating panel of pre-cleared experts and case workers, compensated through the existing PACE system, who agree in advance to accept referrals from a courtroom for a set period — similar to the model already used for the Dependency Court's 730 Expert Panel. This would let a judge issue an appointment order the same day, rather than case by case, while each defendant would still receive an individualized evaluation. It would streamline how quickly an appointment is made, save a substantial amount of time for attorneys, sheriff resources, and move qualifying cases along quicker.
Many criminal defendants face challenges involving mental illness, addiction, and homelessness. What role should judges play in addressing these underlying issues while still enforcing the law?
As a judge it would not be my role to diagnose a defendant's condition or decide what they need. But the Legislature has given judges a real, specific role in this space — through mental health diversion (PC 1001.36) , treatment-mandated felony provisions supra, and collaborative courts — and I would apply that framework faithfully once the defendant's defense attorney initiated the process.
Where the law authorizes it, I'd make legal findings based on expert evidence: whether a diagnosed condition was a significant factor in the offense, what treatment is appropriate, and whether public safety allows for community-based treatment rather than custody. Those are judicial findings, not clinical ones. I'd decide only what the law asks a judge to decide.
I'd also look for ways to make programs function as the Legislature intended, without inserting myself into a defendant's medical or social circumstances. My proposal on HS 11395 evaluations is one example of that — a purely administrative fix, not a judgment about any individual case.
Public confidence in the justice system has declined in recent years. What can judges do to improve transparency, trust, and confidence in the courts?
Judges can improve transparency, trust, and confidence in the courts by treating people well in the courtroom every day - not just attorneys, but witnesses, law enforcement and jurors too. Most people's opinion of the justice system is formed by a single hearing: whether they felt heard, the process was explained clearly, and the judge was fair and on time.
That means running an orderly, punctual courtroom; explaining rulings in plain language rather than just citing a code section; and making sure self-represented litigants and non-English speakers can meaningfully participate. It also means welcoming the press — courtrooms are already open to the public, and I would exercise my discretion under Rule of Court 1.150 to permit media coverage whenever proper notice has been given and it wouldn't compromise a fair proceeding. An observable courtroom lets the public see for itself that the process is fair, rather than just being told so.
Having spent your career advocating for one side of criminal cases, how would you assure voters and litigants that you would be an impartial and fair jurist on the bench?
My record answers this better than my words alone can. The Los Angeles County Bar Association's independent Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee rated me "Well Qualified" — the highest rating given in my race - Office 87. My endorsements include many prosecutors I opposed at trial for years, sitting judges, and law enforcement organizations including PORAC, representing over 85,000 public safety professionals statewide. People who watched me work, including my professional opposition, are the ones vouching for my fairness.
That's because being a defense attorney was about the process - protecting my client's rights. On the bench, that same discipline applies to every party, not just the defense. My duty would be to rule based on the law and the record before me, not on which side I previously represented.
What is the biggest misconception voters have about public defenders, and how would your experience challenge those assumptions if elected to the bench?
The biggest misconception voters have is that public defenders are "anti-law." In reality, a public defender protects the constitutional rights of the entire community by defending the rights of the individual in front of them. Many of the defenses I raised over my career turned on whether law enforcement itself followed the law — the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land — in an arrest or a search. That's not anti-law; it's the law working as designed, with someone in the room whose job is to hold every party, including the government, to the rules that bind/protect everyone.
As a judge, I'd apply that same principle to every case, since the Constitution applies equally to the prosecution and the defense. Holding law enforcement to its own legal standards is not a defense-side value, it's a rule-of-law value. My experience means I've spent a career applying that principle carefully, in real cases — which is exactly the temperament the bench requires.
I am a full-time felony trial attorney who has completed three (3) felony jury trials so far this year. That kind of active, day-to-day courtroom experience means I could step onto the bench and contribute immediately, without a learning curve.
(Nick Antonicello is a regular contributor to City Watch LA and exclusively covers the numerous judicial races on the November general election ballot. He can be reached online via e-mail at [email protected])
