Comments
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW - Angie Christides, a twenty-year veteran of the LA County District Attorney's Office, is the kind of judicial choice you can trust to ensure justice is served (www.angie4judge2026.com).
An avid surfer who has ridden the waves of the many beaches of Los Angeles County sees herself as a different kind of candidate that connects with voters far beyond her resume and legal background.
The 48-year-old first time candidate takes pride in her Greek heritage, seeking to become the first judge of her descent here in Los Angeles County. There are roughly 27,000 residents of Greek descent, representing less than 1% of the county's total population and she intends to motivate all of them to the polls come the June Primary.
Greeks are known to be family oriented and very close knit as she commented, "I have a million cousins and there all rooting for me."
Christides, who speaks Greek as well as Spanish graduated from Warren High School in Downey, received her BA from UCLA and her JD from Loyola Marymount (LMU).
Before joining the District Attorney's Office, Christides practiced criminal defense work, but in her capacity as a Deputy DA has spent her career prosecuting criminal cases with an impeccable record of service. She has even posted on her website her employee evaluations dating back over a decade.
"I'm proud of my record and I want voters to see for themselves my commitment to justice, fairness and the rule of law."
Beyond her professional accomplishments, Christides started a not-for-profit called "The Pelican Crew," which empowered underprivileged kids in Bangladesh, as they learned life skills as well as to surf, a core passion. The charity was absorbed by the World Food Program.
I spoke with the candidate this week and here is the full interview below:
How much money have you raised and how much do you anticipate you will spend?
Transparency in judicial elections is very important to me. At this point I am running a fully self funded campaign and I anticipate spending what is necessary to communicate with voters and run a responsible campaign.
Judicial campaigns are different from other races. The focus isn’t on policy promises — it’s on qualifications, experience, and temperament. My goal has been to spend funds ethically, comply fully with all reporting requirements, and keep the campaign centered on my record and commitment to fairness.
I’m also mindful that this is a community election. I’ve been grateful for the support of colleagues, community members, and others who believe in my experience and approach to the law.
At the end of the day, I want voters to evaluate me based on my qualifications, integrity, and readiness to serve — not simply on my fundraising totals.
Would you be in favor of reforming the jury selection process and doubling the juror's stipend and mileage fees?
That’s an important issue because jury service is fundamental to our justice system. Trial by jury is a constitutional right, and the strength of that right depends on having juries that truly reflect the community.
As a judicial candidate, I have to be careful about advocating for specific legislative proposals. Decisions about juror compensation and structural reforms are ultimately policy matters for the Legislature.
That said, I do believe that broad community participation in jury service is critical. If financial hardship prevents people from serving, that can impact the representativeness of juries. Ensuring that jury service is accessible to working people, caregivers, and small business owners is important for public confidence in the system.
From the bench, my role would be to ensure that jury selection in my courtroom is conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law — including enforcing protections against improper exclusion and making sure jurors are treated with respect and appreciation for their service.
Ultimately, a strong jury system depends on fairness, accessibility, and public trust. While compensation levels are for policymakers to decide, I fully support efforts that strengthen participation and ensure juries reflect the diverse communities they serve.
Transition from Prosecutor to Neutral Arbiter:
You’ve spent most of your career as a prosecutor. How will you ensure defendants and defense attorneys are confident in your ability to be a neutral and an impartial judge?
I’m proud of my years as a prosecutor because they’ve given me a deep respect for the rule of law, due process, and the enormous responsibility that comes with seeking justice—not just convictions. Throughout my career, I’ve worked to ensure that every defendant as well as every victim and witness was treated with fairness and dignity, that all evidence was disclosed properly, and that cases were decided on facts and law rather than emotion or pressure.
As a judge, my role would be very different, and I fully embrace that. The courtroom must be a place where every person—defendant, victim, and attorney—knows they will be heard and treated with impartiality. I’ve seen firsthand how critical it is for both sides to have confidence in the process. That’s why I will apply the law consistently, listen with an open mind, and treat every person who comes before me with respect.
My guiding principle has always been fairness. Justice isn’t about one side winning—it’s about making sure the right result is reached under the law. As a judge, I would carry that same commitment forward in every decision I make.
Criminal Justice Reform:
What are your views on recent criminal justice reforms in California, such as changes to bail practices and sentencing laws, and how would those views influence your role on the bench?
California has seen significant criminal justice reforms in recent years — particularly around bail and sentencing — and those reforms reflect real concerns about fairness, equity, and the effectiveness of our system.
As a prosecutor, I’ve seen firsthand how these laws affect victims, defendants, and the community. I believe reforms should strike a careful balance: protecting public safety, ensuring accountability, and also recognizing that not every case — and not every person — should be treated the same way.
When it comes to bail, for example, I support decisions that are based on minimizing the risk to public safety and the individual circumstances of the case, not just on someone’s ability to pay. And with sentencing reforms, I think proportionality matters — sentences should reflect both the seriousness of the offense and the broader goals of justice, including rehabilitation where appropriate.
If I’m elected to the bench, my role changes. A judge doesn’t advocate for or against policy — a judge applies the law as written. My responsibility would be to follow the statutes and appellate guidance, exercise discretion thoughtfully where the law allows it, and treat every person who walks into the courtroom with fairness and respect.
Ultimately, my approach is grounded in balance: protecting the community, honoring victims’ rights, safeguarding due process, and making individualized decisions based on the facts and the law — not politics or ideology.
Judicial Temperament:
How would you describe your judicial temperament, particularly when dealing with self-represented litigants or emotionally charged cases?
Temperament is one of the most important qualities in a judge.
I would describe my judicial temperament as patient, respectful, and even-handed. Every person who comes into a courtroom — whether they’re represented by counsel or representing themselves — deserves to feel heard and treated with dignity. For many people, it may be the most stressful day of their lives. The judge sets the tone.
When dealing with self-represented litigants, I believe clarity is key. It’s important to explain procedures and rulings in plain language, without giving legal advice or compromising neutrality. The goal is to make sure people understand what’s happening and why decisions are being made.
In emotionally charged cases — whether criminal, family, or civil — maintaining calm and professionalism is critical. I’ve handled difficult situations throughout my legal career, and I’ve learned that staying steady, listening carefully, and focusing on the law helps de-escalate tension. A judge must model the behavior we expect in the courtroom.
Above all, I believe a judge should be firm when necessary, compassionate when appropriate, and always guided by fairness and the rule of law.
Discretion and Sentencing:
Prosecutors exercise discretion in charging decisions. As a judge, how would you approach discretion in sentencing, especially in cases involving first-time offenders or diversion eligibility?
As a prosecutor, discretion comes at the front end — in charging decisions. As a judge, discretion comes later, within the framework the Legislature and appellate courts have established.
If elected, my responsibility would be to apply the law as written and exercise discretion thoughtfully and consistently. Sentencing isn’t about personal philosophy — it’s about considering the statutory factors, the facts of the case, the impact on victims, and the individual before the court.
In cases involving first-time offenders, I think it’s especially important to look at the whole picture. The law often provides alternatives — whether that’s probation, treatment-based programs, or diversion — and when someone is eligible and appropriate for those options, they can serve both accountability and rehabilitation. The goal is reducing recidivism and improving outcomes while still upholding the seriousness of the offense. Luckily I have spent several years almost exclusively handling petitions for diversion and requests for alternative sentencing. As such I have a lot of experience in understanding the need for treatment and rehabilitation in certain situations. I have the experience to review each case and each individual’s circumstances and come to a decision as to whether or not treatment is appropriate.
At the same time, discretion doesn’t mean leniency in every case. It means individualized justice. Some cases call for structured supervision and opportunities for reform; others require a stronger response to protect public safety.
My approach would be consistent, transparent, and grounded in the statutory framework — ensuring that similarly situated individuals are treated similarly, and that every sentencing decision reflects careful consideration rather than reflex or ideology.
Addressing Bias:
Given national conversations about implicit bias in the legal system, what steps would you take to ensure your courtroom promotes fairness and equity?
As a prosecutor, I worked within a system that requires constant self-reflection and accountability. We all bring life experiences with us, and part of being a fair decision-maker is being aware of that and committed to setting it aside. If elected, I would approach the bench with that same level of self-awareness and discipline.
First, I would follow the law and the evidence — consistently. Clear rulings grounded in the record and in statutory and appellate guidance are one of the strongest safeguards against bias.
Second, I would maintain a courtroom environment where everyone is treated with dignity and respect — regardless of background, income level, or whether they are represented by counsel. That includes using plain language, ensuring people understand the proceedings, and giving both sides a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Third, I would continue judicial education and training. The courts in California provide ongoing education on issues like implicit bias, procedural fairness, and access to justice. I believe lifelong learning is part of the job.
Ultimately, fairness and equity aren’t about outcomes — they’re about process. If people know they were heard, that the law was applied consistently, and that the judge was impartial, that builds trust in the system. That’s the standard I would hold myself to every day on the bench.”
Community Trust:
Public confidence in the courts is critical. How would you work to build trust in the judiciary, particularly in communities that may feel disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system?
“That’s a very important question. Public confidence is the foundation of the judiciary. If people don’t trust the courts, the system simply doesn’t work the way it’s intended to.
Trust starts in the courtroom. Every person — regardless of background, neighborhood, or circumstance — deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. That means listening carefully, explaining rulings clearly, and applying the law consistently. Even when someone doesn’t agree with a decision, they should leave knowing they were heard and that the process was fair.
I also believe consistency builds trust. Similarly situated individuals should be treated similarly. Clear reasoning on the record, transparency in decision-making, and adherence to the law — not personal views — are essential.
For communities that feel disproportionately impacted, the judiciary can help build confidence by ensuring access to justice. That includes being patient with self-represented litigants, using plain language, and maintaining a courtroom environment that is calm, respectful, and professional.
As a prosecutor, I saw firsthand how deeply court decisions affect families and neighborhoods. As a judge, my role would be different — not to advocate, but to ensure fairness, due process, and equal treatment under the law. When courts consistently demonstrate impartiality and integrity, trust follows.
Ultimately, I believe the most effective way to build public confidence is to show up every day prepared, impartial, and committed to justice — and to let the work speak for itself.”
Professional Accountability:
Have there been any cases in your prosecutorial career that challenged your perspective or changed how you view justice? What did you learn from that experience?
That’s a meaningful question, because if you’ve practiced law for any length of time and haven’t had your perspective challenged, you probably haven’t been paying attention.
There have been cases throughout my career that have stayed with me — particularly cases involving young or first-time offenders. Early on, I remember handling a case where, legally, the elements were met and accountability was appropriate. But as I learned more about the defendant’s background — lack of support, immaturity, underlying issues — it forced me to think more deeply about what outcome would best serve justice in the long term.
That experience reinforced for me that justice is not one-size-fits-all. Accountability matters. Public safety matters. Victims matter. But individualized assessment matters too.
It also strengthened my appreciation for listening — really listening — before making decisions. The facts of the offense are critical, but so is context. And often the most effective outcomes are those that combine responsibility with a pathway to rehabilitation.
What I learned is that justice is both principled and human. As a judge, that lesson would guide me to carefully consider the full record in every case, apply the law faithfully, and exercise discretion thoughtfully. Growth in perspective doesn’t mean abandoning accountability — it means understanding that fairness requires careful, individualized judgment.”
(Nick Antonicello is a thirty-three-year resident of the Westside and is covering numerous races that will appear on the June Primary ballot. Have a take or a tip? Contact him via e-mail at [email protected].)
