Comments
CAMPAIGN 26 - The campaign between Donna Tryfman and David Ross has turned into a barn burner of sorts with Tryfman edging out a first-place finish in the June 2nd Primary, capturing 37.21% of the vote or 612,858. Ross was a close second also advancing with 33% or 546,032 votes.
Carlos Dammeir, who finished third, has endorsed Ross, while fourth-place finisher Troy Slaten is backing Tryfman, in a contest that tallied over 1.7 million voters.
Tryfman, who previously ran for a seat on the Beverly Hills school board in 2020, currently serves as a volunteer, temporary Judge pro tempore, assigned to traffic and small claims cases.
The candidate is 59 years old, and a graduate of the University of La Verne School of Law. Originally from Queens, New York, Tryfman is a widow of seven years and has one daughter.
Tryfman, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, describes herself as a critical thinker, who views public advocacy and service as her life's passions.
A lover of musicals and concerts, the candidate enjoys the rigors of the campaign trail and speaking with the electorate.
"I love pounding the pavement," noted the candidate.
Whether greeting voters at Griffith Park or meeting with members of the numerous democratic clubs and organizations she has addressed, Tryfman has secured the endorsement of the Stonewall & San Fernando Democrats as well as California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (CA-46).
Assigned to the Major Cases Unit of the LA Public Defender's Office, Tryfman serves with honor and integrity, and sees herself in this public trust as "fair to a fault."
Below is our extensive interview on her overall approach to becoming "everyone's judge" here in Los Angeles County:
Your legal career has been spent primarily as a public defender representing criminal defendants. How would you assure victims, prosecutors, law enforcement, and the broader public that you would approach every case from a neutral judicial perspective rather than an advocacy role?
My career has certainly included serving as a public defender, but it has also encompassed decades of substantive courtroom experience handling a wide range of complex criminal matters. Throughout that time, my professional responsibility has been to uphold the Constitution and ensure that legal proceedings are fair.
My experience has also taught me to set aside personal opinions, listen carefully and respectfully, and dignify the process by taking it seriously. A judge's responsibility is not to advocate for either side, but to serve as a neutral decision-maker who faithfully applies the law to the facts. I understand that distinction, and my career has prepared me well for it. Every day as an attorney, I have analyzed evidence, assessed the strengths and weaknesses of cases, negotiated resolutions when appropriate, litigated motions, conducted trials, and worked professionally with prosecutors, law enforcement officers, victims, witnesses, and the court.
Those experiences have reinforced the importance of objectivity, careful legal analysis, and treating everyone with respect. My experience has also given me a unique perspective on the criminal justice system. I have represented individuals from all walks of life, while working alongside dedicated prosecutors, law enforcement professionals, and victim advocates who share the common goal of promoting justice and public safety.
The oath of a judge requires complete impartiality. If entrusted with that responsibility, I will approach every case with an open mind, decide each matter solely on the evidence presented and the applicable law, and ensure that every person who enters my courtroom is heard fairly and treated with dignity. My commitment will not be to any party or perspective—it will be to the rule of law, the integrity of the judicial process, and equal justice for all.
Los Angeles courts continue to struggle with case backlogs and delays. What specific steps would you take as a judge to improve efficiency while still protecting due process rights for all parties?
My years of handling demanding criminal calendars have taught me that efficiency is not achieved by rushing cases. It is achieved through preparation, consistency, thoughtful case management, and respect for everyone's time.
When a courtroom is well organized and expectations are clear, cases move more efficiently, litigants have greater confidence in the process, and due process is fully protected. My goal would be to ensure that every case is resolved as promptly as the law allows, without ever sacrificing fairness, impartiality, or the integrity of the judicial process. Specifically, my custom and habits as an attorney directly translate to the bench.
First, I would be prompt. Being on time is respectful to all the litigants and staff. Second, I'd be prepared. There is no replacement for actually doing the work. I would ensure I know all the cases I am handling and prepare them to be called---reading motions, doing research, scheduling further status conferences.
Finally, I'd be polite. In a hectic courtroom setting, the judge must project and model the behavior expected from everyone in the courtroom and that begins with proper courtroom decorum. When a courtroom is well organized and expectations are clear, cases move more efficiently, litigants have greater confidence in the process, and due process is fully protected.
Having handled homicide and other serious felony cases, what lessons have you learned about sentencing, rehabilitation, and public safety, and how would those experiences influence your decisions from the bench?
Over the course of my career, I have handled homicide cases and many of the most serious felony matters in our criminal justice system. Those cases have taught me that there are no easy answers in criminal law. Every file represents real people, not just numbers—victims and their families whose lives have been forever changed, defendants whose liberty is at stake, and communities that rightly expect both justice and public safety.
One of the most important lessons I have learned is that sentencing is among the most significant responsibilities a judge undertakes because liberty is involved often after another human being has been impacted by that person's actions. It requires more than simply knowing the applicable law. It requires careful listening, thoughtful analysis, and the discipline to consider all of the statutory sentencing factors before reaching a decision.
My experience has reinforced that public safety must always be the guiding principle. In cases involving violent offenses or individuals who present a continuing danger to the community, protecting the public is paramount, and the sentence imposed must reflect both the law and the seriousness of the offense. At the same time, not every case presents the same circumstances. Hence, reducing cases to numbers without considering humanity is a flawed practice.
California law recognizes that rehabilitation, treatment, and diversion may be appropriate for certain offenders and certain offenses. When those options are authorized by law and supported by the facts, they can reduce recidivism, promote accountability, and ultimately enhance public safety. Thus, in appropriate cases, especially involving juveniles, and if legally appropriate, it would be a disservice to society not to consider a diversionary sentence. Handling homicide and other serious felony cases has also taught me the importance of never viewing people as simply the charges they face. Every sentencing decision must be individualized, grounded in the facts of the case, and based on the law—not assumptions, emotion, or personal philosophy. It is how judges ensure both fairness and consistency.
You have experience in juvenile court and collaborative drug courts. Do you believe diversion and treatment programs are underutilized in Los Angeles County, and where do you believe they are appropriate?
My experience in juvenile court and collaborative drug courts has reinforced that diversion and treatment programs are valuable tools when they are used thoughtfully, consistently, and in accordance with the law. They are not appropriate for every case, but when they are available to the right individuals at the right time, they can improve outcomes for participants, reduce recidivism, and enhance public safety. There are equally as many success stories for every lack of success stories.
While there have been some great ideas and implementation of diversion programs, I do believe there are opportunities to make more effective use of diversion and treatment programs in Los Angeles County. One of the challenges is not simply the availability of programs which sometimes proves inadequate, but the coordination among the agencies responsible for delivering services. Courts, probation, behavioral health providers, substance use treatment programs, housing agencies, veterans' services, and community-based organizations often work toward the same goal, but too frequently they operate in separate systems. Better coordination and communication among these programs can improve access to services, reduce unnecessary delays, and help ensure participants receive the support they need to successfully complete their programs.
My experience in the juvenile drug collaborative court during my time as a supervisor at Eastlake Court has shown me that successful diversion depends on accountability as well as treatment. Participants benefit most when there are clear expectations, regular judicial oversight, timely information sharing among stakeholders, and appropriately-structured support services. A coordinated approach not only helps individuals address the underlying issues that contributed to their involvement in the justice system, but also makes the process more efficient for the court and more effective for the community.
As a judge, my responsibility would be to faithfully apply the law in determining eligibility for diversion while ensuring that public safety remains the paramount consideration. Diversion should never be viewed as avoiding accountability. When implemented effectively—with meaningful supervision, coordinated services, and measurable expectations—it is a form of accountability that can produce lasting behavioral change and stronger, safer communities.
Public confidence in the judiciary depends on impartiality and transparency. What principles would guide you when making unpopular decisions that may draw criticism from elected officials, advocacy groups, or the media?
Throughout my career, I have learned that doing what is right is not always the same as doing what is popular. As a public defender, I have routinely stood next to the most unpopular person in the courtroom—the defendant. The role required me to uphold the Constitution, protect due process, and ensure that every individual received the representation guaranteed by law, regardless of the allegations against them or the public sentiment surrounding the case. Those experiences taught me that the integrity of our justice system depends on professionals who are willing to make principled decisions even when they are unpopular.
That same principle has guided my leadership outside the courtroom. As President of several public defender associations, I have advocated for attorneys and the fair administration of justice, even when doing so required taking positions that were difficult or unpopular. Leadership means listening respectfully to differing viewpoints, making decisions grounded in principle rather than politics, and accepting criticism when necessary.
Those experiences have prepared me well for judicial service. A judge's obligation is not to satisfy public opinion, respond to political pressure, or follow the preferences of advocacy groups or the media. A judge's obligation is to faithfully apply the law, protect the constitutional rights of all parties, and decide each case based solely on the facts and the law presented in the courtroom.
When difficult or unpopular decisions are required, the principles that will guide me are independence, integrity, impartiality, and transparency. Independence means deciding cases free from outside influence. Integrity means applying the law consistently, even when the outcome is personally difficult or publicly criticized. Impartiality means treating every litigant with equal dignity and respect, regardless of who they are. Transparency means explaining my rulings clearly on the record so that the parties understand not only the outcome, but the legal reasoning behind it..
What distinguishes your candidacy from your runoff opponent, and why should voters choose your judicial philosophy over his?
Both my opponent and I have dedicated our careers to public defense, and I respect anyone who has devoted their professional life to serving indigent clients. Voters have a choice between an experienced attorney and a rounded, even more experienced, attorney. While our professional titles are similar, my record speaks to my more substantive qualifications.
What distinguishes my candidacy is the breadth, consistency, and depth of my experience over more than three decades. Throughout my career, I have consistently sought out the most demanding assignments in the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office. Today, I serve in the Major Cases Unit, where I handle homicide cases with special circumstances—the most serious and complex cases in our criminal justice system. I have also served in juvenile court, collaborative drug court, supervised attorneys as a Deputy-in-Charge, and tried more than one hundred jury trials across courthouses throughout Los Angeles County. That broad range of experience has given me a comprehensive understanding of the issues judges face every day, from high-volume calendars to the most consequential felony cases.
My career has also been marked by sustained leadership and service to the legal profession and the community. I served for five years as President of the Public Defenders Association, advocating for professionalism, training, and the fair administration of justice.
Ultimately, I believe judicial service requires more than trial experience alone. It requires demonstrated leadership, sound judgment, unwavering integrity, and the courage to make difficult decisions fairly and independently. Judges are often called upon to make decisions that will be criticized by one side or the other. The measure of a judge is not whether those decisions are popular, but whether they faithfully apply the law and are made impartially, without fear, favor, or outside influence.
My judicial philosophy is straightforward: uphold the Constitution, apply the law fairly and consistently, treat every person with dignity and respect, and have the courage to do what is right—even when it is difficult.
Should judges consider broader social consequences when interpreting the law, or should they apply statutes strictly regardless of outcome?
This is an important philosophical question, and one that judges confront in different ways throughout their careers. The law governs human affairs, and human affairs are rarely simple. People's lives, relationships, and circumstances can be complicated, and the consequences of judicial decisions are often significant. That is precisely why judges must approach every case with humility, careful thought, and fidelity to the law.
A judge's primary responsibility is not to make policy or reach a preferred social outcome---that responsibility belongs to the Legislature. A judge's duty is to interpret and apply the Constitution, statutes, and binding precedent to the facts before the court. The rule of law depends on judges who are impartial and who resist the temptation to substitute their personal views for the law enacted by the people's elected representatives.
At the same time, the law itself often requires judges to exercise discretion and consider the real-world circumstances of the people who appear before them. Whether determining bail, sentencing, diversion eligibility, or fashioning an appropriate remedy, California law frequently directs judges to weigh multiple statutory factors. That is not policymaking—it is faithfully carrying out the responsibilities the Legislature has assigned to the judiciary.
A good judge listens carefully, understands the facts, applies the law faithfully, and takes the time to explain the reasoning behind the decision. Being mindful of the human consequences of a ruling does not mean allowing those consequences to override the law. It means recognizing that justice requires both legal discipline and sound judgment.
My guiding principle would be to faithfully apply the law as written, exercise judicial discretion where the law permits it, and ensure that every decision is grounded in the facts, the law, and the Constitution—not in personal philosophy or public opinion.
(Nick Antonicello is a thirty-three-year resident of the Westside who is covering the numerous judicial contests on the fall election ballot. A regular contributor to City Watch, he can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].)
