Judge S. Robert Tice-Raskin

Judge S. Robert Tice-Raskin serves on the Nevada County Superior Court as an elected judge, holding a law degree from Harvard Law School. The available public record documents his active role on the bench in Nevada County, where he has presided over criminal matters including constitutional questions of defendants' rights. In July 2025, Judge Tice-Raskin issued a ruling in the Pocock case addressing a defendant's right to self-representation in future court appearances — a ruling touching on Sixth Amendment Faretta rights, which require careful judicial balancing of a defendant's autonomy against the orderly administration of justice. Beyond this specific ruling, the data available for Judge Tice-Raskin is limited. He is an elected judge, meaning he is accountable to the voters of Nevada County rather than having been appointed through an executive process. The Nevada County Superior Court is also in a period of institutional development, with a new Nevada City Courthouse environmental impact scoping process underway as of 2026, reflecting a growing court system. No ruling analyses, attorney observations, or additional case data are currently available to support broader characterizations of his judicial philosophy or tendencies.

The one documented ruling from Judge Tice-Raskin involves a criminal defendant's right to self-representation. Attorneys handling criminal matters before him — particularly those involving pro per defendants or Faretta hearings — should be prepared to address the constitutional framework governing self-representation rights with precision. The Pocock ruling signals that Judge Tice-Raskin engages directly with defendants' procedural and constitutional rights in criminal proceedings. Because Judge Tice-Raskin is an elected judge, attorneys should be mindful that his decisions are subject to public scrutiny in a small county community. Nevada County is a smaller jurisdiction, and courtroom conduct and professional reputation carry weight. Beyond these observations, the data does not support additional strategic characterizations of his preferred argument styles, motion practices, or evidentiary rulings. Attorneys should seek out local practitioners with direct courtroom experience before Judge Tice-Raskin to supplement this limited profile.

• critical

  Research Faretta and Self-Representation Doctrine

  The only documented ruling involves a defendant's right to self-representation. Any criminal matter before Judge Tice-Raskin that touches on pro per status or Faretta rights requires thorough preparation on the governing constitutional and procedural standards.

• critical

  Consult Local Nevada County Practitioners

  Given the very limited data available on Judge Tice-Raskin's courtroom preferences and ruling tendencies, consulting attorneys who regularly practice in Nevada County Superior Court is essential to supplement this profile before any appearance.

• important

  Review Nevada County Superior Court Local Rules

  With the court undergoing expansion and a new courthouse scoping process as of 2026, local rules and administrative orders may be in flux. Confirm current local rules and any standing orders from Judge Tice-Raskin before filing or appearing.

• important

  Prepare Legally Precise Written Submissions

  Given Judge Tice-Raskin's Harvard Law background, briefs and motions should be analytically rigorous, well-cited, and precise in their legal reasoning rather than relying on broad equitable appeals unsupported by authority.

• ›Maintain formal professionalism consistent with a small-county elected court where the judge is directly accountable to the local community.
• ›Be prepared to address constitutional and procedural rights questions directly if they arise, as the Pocock ruling demonstrates the judge engages substantively with such issues.
• ›Arrive fully prepared on the law; the judge's Harvard Law background supports an expectation of precise legal argument rather than general advocacy.