# Justice Gregory J. Weingart *legal · Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2019-04-16 to 2026-10-27. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 15 sources) Gregory J. Weingart, a former federal prosecutor, Munger Tolles partner and family-law Superior Court judge, joined Division One in November 2022 [Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart biography; Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments]. The State Bar's evaluation commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified" [Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. From October 2024 to October 2026 he wrote 18 published majority opinions (some listings are reissued versions) and no separate opinions, spanning civil, family, juvenile and criminal cases [Published opinions by Gregory J. Weingart, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. His 2026 opinions read statutes by their verbs and decide on narrow grounds: the 'Yelp law' allows penalties only when a seller enforces a non-disparagement clause [Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)]; Torrance waived privilege by defending its Fair Chance Act assessments [Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)]. In In re Melson (July 2026) he vacated a murder conviction because the prosecution let false eyewitness testimony stand [In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)]. Outcomes vary by party: a business, the state and child-welfare agencies prevailed in some cases, and a habeas petitioner and a domestic-violence petitioner in others [R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart); In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart); In re X.A. (B350895, 2026-07-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart); Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart); Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)]. ### Record highlights - Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 18 authored published opinion listings, 0 separate opinions; includes at least five criminal matters (published opinions only). [Published opinions by Gregory J. Weingart, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct. 2026, Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance: affirmed order compelling Fair Chance Act assessment files; at-issue waiver of privilege. [Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] - July 2026, Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee: no private penalty suit for merely including a non-disparagement clause. [Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] - July 2026, In re X.A.: affirmed termination of parental rights after renewed ICWA inquiry. [In re X.A. (B350895, 2026-07-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] - July 2026, In re Melson: habeas granted; murder conviction vacated for uncorrected false testimony. [In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] - June 2026, R.M. v. A.G.: reversed dueling restraining orders; indirect online contact can be abuse under the DVPA. [R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] - Feb. 2026, Jogani v. Jogani: largely affirmed a $6.85 billion partnership judgment but required remittitur of an undisclosed $1.98 billion expert projection. [Jogani v. Jogani (B338590, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 2/24/26, published); Court slashes $6.85bn judgment in California apartment partnership war] - Mar. 2024, Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms: a browsewrap link did not bind a consumer to arbitration. [Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms, LLC (B323430, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 3/25/24, published)] ### Stated positions - No campaign statements, interviews or questionnaire answers were found; his views appear only through his opinions. [Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices; List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] ### Where sources disagree - The court newsroom dates his Superior Court service 2018-2019 and from 2020; the court biography gives a December 2017 appointment. [Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart biography; Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments] ### Gaps - No criticism of his record from any source. - No separate opinions, oral arguments or interviews. - Unpublished opinions, most of his output, are not covered. - No independent analysis naming him as author of the 2026 opinions. ### Arguments for / praise - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" before appointment. — *Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation* [Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Sample follows a fixed rule applied to every appellate justice: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), all separate opinions (newest first, up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts. Weingart has no published separate opinions in the period, so the sample is his 5 most recent authored majority opinions (court_opinion), June to October 2026: Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (S1, privilege waiver), Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (S2, the 'Yelp law'), In re X.A. (S3, ICWA inquiry), In re Melson (S4, habeas; about 61,000 characters, read selectively) and R.M. v. A.G. (S5, domestic violence restraining orders). Civil, family, juvenile and criminal habeas; no dissents, concurrences, oral arguments or unscripted remarks. All five fall in a five-month window. A text-focused statutory reader who also polices how parties and lawyers use procedure. In S2 he reads the statute's verbs closely and uses legislative history only to confirm plain meaning; in S5 he applies the DVPA's broad text against a narrow trial-court reading. On review of trial courts he defers where the law calls for it (abuse of discretion in S1, substantial evidence in S3) and reverses on legal error (S5). In S4 he applies recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Glossip) to vacate a murder conviction and holds the prosecution, not defense counsel, responsible for correcting false testimony. Outcomes vary by party: government wins in S1 and S3, a business in S2, a habeas petitioner in S4, and a domestic-violence petitioner in S5. The sample does not support a political label. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Each opinion frames a single question and answers it early (S2: "This case presents a narrow question of statutory interpretation"). Arguments are tested with concrete consequences, such as S2's comparison of a $25 million exposure for fine print against $5,000 for actually penalizing a review. The prose is plain and often pointed ("Both things cannot be true" in S1). S4 integrates a long trial record into a clear materiality analysis. Consistency: **adequate**. Within the sample the same habits recur: close textual reading, narrow grounds of decision, and attention to whether a party's procedural position matches its substantive claim (S1, S3, S5). No position changes appear. All five opinions date from June to October 2026 and none is a separate opinion, so consistency over time cannot be judged. - Private penalties under the 'Yelp law': Consumers may sue for penalties only when a seller threatens or seeks to enforce a non-disparagement clause; merely including one is not a violation. - "Any such verbs are missing from this portion of the statute." [Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-07-29) - "We infer the lack of equivalent language in section 1670.8 to reflect a deliberate choice by the Legislature." [Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-07-29) - Privilege and at-issue waiver: An employer that defends its compliance with the Fair Chance Act cannot shield the assessments behind that defense as privileged. - "Both things cannot be true." [Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-10-27) - "To comply with the statute, an employer may not go through the motions." [Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-10-27) - Prosecutors' duty to correct false testimony: The duty to correct false testimony rests on the state, so a defendant does not forfeit the claim by failing to object. - "The forfeiture doctrine places the onus on defense counsel to recognize an error and make a timely objection to preserve the issue on appeal." [In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-07-02) - "Take away those errors, and the evidence at the retrial was basically the same as it was the first time around when three jurors voted to acquit." [In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-07-02) - Domestic violence restraining orders: DVPA abuse includes indirect contact such as social-media posts and calls to third parties; civil-harassment standards do not apply. - "The court’s statements about R.M. making no attempt to contact A.G. are true only if the court excluded indirect contact from its consideration." [R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-06-25) - "The standard for the issuance of a CHRO does not govern here." [R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-06-25) - ICWA inquiry after remand: An agency must contact reasonably available relatives but need not keep pursuing those who refuse. - "DCFS was not required to stalk them in the vain hope they might change their mind." [In re X.A. (B350895, 2026-07-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart)] (2026-07-27) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most decisions are unpublished and this sample omits them. Majority opinions are joined by colleagues, so wording is not his alone. No separate opinions exist in the period, the five texts cover only five months, and Melson was read selectively. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-27** — Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance certified for publication (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-27** — Published: Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-10-27** — Certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-09-29** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-07-29** — Published: Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-07-29** — Opinion filed affirming (Weingart, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-07-27** — Published: In re X.A. (B350895, 2026-07-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-07-27** — Opinion filed affirming (Weingart, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-07-02** — In re Melson (B336211A) filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-07-02** — Published: In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-07-02** — Opinion filed granting habeas relief (Weingart, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-06-25** — Published: R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-06-25** — Certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-05-27** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-04-02** — In re Melson filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-02-26** — Published: Court slashes $6.85bn judgment in California apartment partnership war (Mortgage Professional America) - **2026-02-24** — Jogani v. Jogani filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-02-24** — Court of Appeal issued published decision in Jogani v. Jogani (Mortgage Professional America) - **2026-02-24** — Published: Jogani v. Jogani (B338590, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 2/24/26, published) (California Courts) - **2026-02-24** — Opinion filed conditionally affirming the Jogani judgment with remittitur (California Courts) - **2026-02** — Published: Jogani v. Jogani (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2026) (Counsel Stack (opinion text)) - **2025-12-01** — Juvenile court found ICWA inapplicable and reinstated termination (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2025-02-19** — Arzate v. ACE American Insurance filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-01-31** — First appeal: conditional reversal for ICWA inquiry (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2024-10-24** — CRD filed director's complaint against Torrance (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2024-05-09** — Trial court entered roughly $6.85 billion judgment (Mortgage Professional America) - **2024-04-26** — R.M. petitioned for a DVRO (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2024-03-25** — Published: Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms, LLC (B323430, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 3/25/24, published) (California Courts) - **2024-03-25** — Opinion filed affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration (California Courts) - **2023-12-20** — Class action filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2023-10-27** — Applicant filed complaint with CRD (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2022-11-30** — Published: Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-11-30** — Weingart confirmed to Second District, Division One (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-11** — Unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments (California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal)) - **2022-10** — Nominated to the Court of Appeal by Gov. Newsom (California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal)) - **2020-04-01** — Direct appeal largely affirmed (nonpublished) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2019-04-16** — Published: People v. Medina (B286117, 2d Dist., Div. 1, 2019, partially published; Weingart sitting by assignment; review granted) (California Courts) - **2019-04-16** — Opinion modified and rehearing denied (California Courts) - **2019-03-19** — Original opinion filed (California Courts) - **2017-01-13** — Shooting of Samuel Navarrete (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) ## Sources ### Civil Rights Dept. v. City of Torrance (B352855, 2026-10-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-10-27 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Bendix, J.). Affirmed an order compelling Torrance to give the Civil Rights Department its Fair Chance Act assessment files: by telling the Department it complied with the law, the City put the adequacy of its counsel-assisted assessments at issue and waived privilege. - Applies the Wellpoint at-issue waiver doctrine; does not decide whether the documents were privileged in the first place. - Agrees with the trial court that otherwise an employer could avoid the law by 'delegating that task wholesale to in-house counsel.' - Rejects a document-by-document demand: the City bears the burden on privilege and drew no distinctions. - On the City's claim it never put its assessments at issue: 'Both things cannot be true.' ### 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist's guide to the LA and Orange County appellate retention races explains what Court of Appeal justices do and lists each candidate with a State Bar evaluation rating. It lists Gregory J. Weingart as an Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2022). - State Bar evaluation rating for Gregory J. Weingart: Exceptionally well qualified (2022). - Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. - Retention votes are yes/no; justices serve 12-year terms, and new justices may first serve the remainder of a predecessor's term. - Voters elect appellate justices by district, not division. - Reference: SoS certified list of candidates - Reference: Court biography of Gregory J. Weingart - Reference: Appellate retention elections (California Courts) ### List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-08-24 · stance: not_applicable - The Secretary of State's list of judicial ballot questions for the Nov. 3, 2026 election includes "Shall Associate Justice GREGORY J. WEINGART be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" under the Second District, Division One. This confirms the justice is on the ballot. - Gregory J. Weingart appears as a yes/no retention question for Associate Justice, Second District, Division One. - Second District voters: Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties. ### Arterberry v. Peet's Coffee (B344295, 2026-07-29; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-07-29 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., M. Kim, J.). Affirmed dismissal of a class action under California's 'Yelp law': a consumer may sue for civil penalties only when a seller threatens or seeks to enforce a non-disparagement clause, not merely for including one in website terms. - Adopts the trial court's textual reading: only subdivision (a)(2) defines an act by a person that can be 'violated.' - Contrasts statutes where the Legislature expressly penalized entering a void contract (Bus. & Prof. Code 16600.5). - Legislative history used only to confirm the plain meaning. - Notes the plaintiffs' reading could expose a small business to $25 million in penalties for fine print but only $5,000 for actually penalizing a review. ### In re X.A. (B350895, 2026-07-27; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-07-27 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Bendix, J.). On a second appeal, affirmed termination of a mother's parental rights after a remand for Indian Child Welfare Act inquiry, holding the agency's renewed inquiry of relatives adequate and formal tribal notice unnecessary. - Sidesteps the split on forfeiture in repeat ICWA appeals: no error either way. - Agency need contact only relatives 'reasonably available' and was 'not required to stalk them' after refusals. - Mere suggestion of ancestry does not trigger notice; the court could find the mother's tribal-enrollment claim not credible after the Comanche Nation said she was not enrolled. - Comments that this case shows incentives for delay after a conditional ICWA reversal, while the children 'waited for permanency.' ### In re Melson (B336211A, 2026-07-02; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-07-02 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Bendix, J.). Granted habeas corpus and vacated a Watts gang-shooting murder conviction: at the retrial the only two eyewitnesses gave false testimony about what they told police, the prosecutor failed to correct it and repeated it in closing, and defense counsel was unprepared to impeach them. - Applies Napue and Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025): materiality is presumed, and the People must show beyond a reasonable doubt the false testimony could not have contributed to the verdict. - Rejects forfeiture: Glossip puts the duty to correct false testimony on the prosecution, not defense counsel. - Treats counsel's lack of preparation as part of materiality rather than a standalone Strickland ruling. - Stresses that the first trial hung 9-3 on essentially the same evidence. ### R.M. v. A.G. (B342515, 2026-06-25; opinion by Gregory J. Weingart) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-06-25 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Bendix, J.). Reversed both orders in dueling domestic-violence restraining-order requests: the trial court wrongly ignored the ex-boyfriend's indirect contact (demeaning social-media usernames, calls to the woman's mother), and mutual requests require a primary-aggressor analysis of both parties together. - DVPA 'disturbing the peace' reaches conduct 'directly or indirectly,' including through electronic means and third parties. - Civil-harassment standards do not govern DVPA requests, which are construed liberally. - Vacates the order for R.M. even though substantial evidence supports it in isolation, so the court can apply section 6305. - Directs the court to consider abuse during the relationship, not just after it ended. ### Court slashes $6.85bn judgment in California apartment partnership war - Mortgage Professional America · news · published 2026-02-26 · stance: neutral - Trade-press account of Jogani v. Jogani (Feb. 24, 2026): the Second District, Division One, largely upheld a $6.85 billion family partnership judgment but cut the undisclosed $1.98 billion expert projection through a conditional remittitur. It does not name the authoring justice. - Recounts the 1995 oral real estate partnership and Haresh's later denial of it. - Reports the court upheld the partnership finding and evidentiary rulings but found the S&P 500-based lost-gain opinion was not properly disclosed. - Gives the reduced damages figures and the new-trial option. ### Jogani v. Jogani (B338590, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 2/24/26, published) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-02-24 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Rothschild, P.J., and Bendix, J., concurring) in the 23-year Jogani brothers' partnership litigation. It largely affirmed a roughly $6.85 billion judgment against Haresh Jogani and partnership entities. It held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an undisclosed expert opinion that investments sold in 2008 would have grown to $1.98 billion, and ordered a remittitur or, if refused, a new trial on real estate damages and punitive damages. - Rejects six of seven challenges, mostly on evidentiary rulings (discovery inferences, hearsay, translations, former joint counsel's testimony). - Faults appellants' "stilted factual narrative" but declines to treat the appeal as forfeited. - The expert's $1.98 billion S&P 500-based projection was not disclosed in his declaration or deposition, so defendants had no fair chance to respond. - Removes the full lost-gain component rather than guessing a lesser amount, citing precedent that "we may not insert our own assessment for that of the jury." - Reduced real estate economic damages, if accepted: Shashi $808,846,000; Rajesh $161,769,200; Chetan $105,149,980. ### Jogani v. Jogani (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2026) - Counsel Stack (opinion text) · court opinion · published 2026-02 · stance: not_applicable - ### Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms, LLC (B323430, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 3/25/24, published) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2024-03-25 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, J. (Chaney and Bendix concurring). Affirmed denial of a motion to compel arbitration: a "browsewrap" link to terms of use at the bottom of an e-commerce site did not give a consumer inquiry notice, so no agreement to arbitrate was formed. The court declined to depart from Long and Nguyen and held the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California browsewrap law. - Calls the seller's claim about consumer expectations "pure speculation" and places the burden on website designers, who can use clickwrap. - Keeps the "reasonably prudent user" standard and declines to raise the duty of inquiry for supposedly sophisticated consumers. - Preemption: California formation law applies to all contract terms, not only arbitration; cites a non-arbitration browsewrap case. - Says the FAA makes arbitration agreements as enforceable as other contracts, "but not more so." ### Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2022-11-30 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council release: the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Weingart as Associate Justice, Second District, Division One, filling the vacancy left by the removal of Justice Jeffrey Johnson. It notes he served as a Justice Pro Tem in Division One in 2019-2020. - LA Superior Court judge 2018-2019 and since 2020; Justice Pro Tem, Division One, 2019-2020. - Munger Tolles partner 2004-2018; AUSA 1995-2004; J.D., Harvard. - Confirmed by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, AG Bonta and Presiding Justice Gilbert. ### People v. Medina (B286117, 2d Dist., Div. 1, 2019, partially published; Weingart sitting by assignment; review granted) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2019-04-16 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Weingart, then a Superior Court judge sitting by assignment (Rothschild, P.J., and Chaney, J., concurring), with an April 2019 modification order. The published part held it was error to give a "kill zone" instruction in a gang shooting into a crowd because there was no evidence of a primary target or of intent to kill everyone in the zone. The unpublished part found the error harmless, affirmed the convictions, and remanded on sentencing. The header says the Supreme Court granted review. - Kill-zone theory requires a primary target and specific intent to kill everyone around that target, "not some or most, but everyone." - Respectfully disagrees with other appellate courts that allowed the instruction on a natural-and-probable-consequences basis, saying it substitutes implied malice for the required express malice. - Notes a defendant who shoots into a crowd without a primary target can still be convicted of attempted murder without the instruction. - Defendant-favorable on the legal rule; the error was held harmless, so the convictions stood. ### Published opinions by Gregory J. Weingart, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Weingart's published opinions for Division One from October 2024 to October 2026: 18 authored majority opinions and no dissents or concurrences. - Mix of civil, family, juvenile and criminal work: at least five criminal matters (four People v. cases and the Melson habeas petition). - Civil topics include partnership litigation (Jogani), consumer law (Arterberry), insurance (Jacobson, Arzate), land use (Fix the City) and an employment-privilege dispute (Torrance). - Two cases appear twice (Melson, Jacobson), apparently as a modified or reissued opinion. ### Former prosecutor, family law judge seeks full 12-year appellate term - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official 2026 voter guide lists Gregory J. Weingart as an Associate Justice of the Second District, Division One, among the 18 Second District justices on the retention ballot. The page is a roster only; it links to court biographies and gives no qualifications or evaluations. - Lists Gregory J. Weingart, Associate Justice, Division One, Second District. - Second District sits in Los Angeles (Divisions 1-5, 7, 8) and Ventura (Division 6). - Reference: Court biography of Gregory J. Weingart ### Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart biography - California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal) · other · published undated · stance: neutral - Official court biography. Weingart, on Division One since 2022, was a federal prosecutor (1995-2004, chief of Major Frauds), a Munger Tolles & Olson partner for nearly 15 years in complex civil litigation, criminal defense and investigations, and an LA Superior Court judge (from 2017, mainly family law). - Nominated by Gov. Newsom in October 2022; rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the JNE Commission; unanimously confirmed November 2022. - Clerked for U.S. District Judge Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr. - Twice won the DOJ Director's Award; argued frequently in the Ninth Circuit. - Superior Court work focused on family law and domestic-violence initiatives. - Pomona College; Harvard Law School, magna cum laude. ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.