Judge Stephanie Clarke

Judge Stephanie Clarke was appointed to the Contra Costa County Superior Court by Governor Gavin Newsom on May 3, 2024, filling the vacancy left by Hon. Jill Fannin. Her entire pre-bench career was concentrated in criminal defense and appellate work. She served as a deputy public defender in Connecticut beginning in 1987, transitioned through private practice, and then spent the bulk of her career — spanning more than two decades — as a staff attorney at the First District Appellate Project, with an interlude as a deputy state public defender at the Office of the State Public Defender from 1998 to 2003. Her career is defined by indigent criminal defense and appellate advocacy, not civil litigation or prosecution. Clarke also served as an adjunct professor and lecturer in law at UCLA from 1994 to 2022, a 28-year academic engagement that ran concurrently with her appellate practice. This sustained commitment to legal education signals a judge who values precise legal reasoning, careful briefing, and doctrinal rigor. Her J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law (1986) and undergraduate degree from Mount Holyoke College round out her academic background. Because Judge Clarke was appointed in May 2024 and no ruling analyses, attorney observations, or ingested content are available, no patterns in her judicial decision-making can be reported at this time. Attorneys should treat appearances before her as an opportunity to establish early impressions, while recognizing that her career background is rooted exclusively in criminal defense and appellate work.

Given Judge Clarke's career-long focus on criminal defense and appellate advocacy, attorneys in criminal matters — particularly those involving constitutional rights, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, or sentencing issues — should expect a judge with deep substantive familiarity with defense-side arguments and appellate standards of review. She is not a former prosecutor, and her institutional experience was entirely on the defense side of the criminal docket. Attorneys for the prosecution should be prepared for rigorous scrutiny of constitutional arguments and procedural compliance. Her 28-year concurrent role as an adjunct professor and lecturer in law at UCLA indicates a strong orientation toward academic legal reasoning. Attorneys should prioritize well-organized, citation-rich briefs and oral arguments that engage directly with controlling authority. Sloppy or under-researched submissions are inconsistent with the standards a long-tenured legal educator would expect. Because no ruling data is available, attorneys cannot yet rely on observed patterns to calibrate their approach. The most prudent strategy is to treat every submission and appearance as foundational — establishing credibility through thorough preparation, precise legal argument, and professional conduct. Attorneys handling civil matters should be aware that Judge Clarke's pre-bench experience was concentrated in criminal and appellate work, and should not assume familiarity with civil procedure nuances that were outside her prior practice.

• critical

  Prepare Thorough, Citation-Rich Briefs

  Clarke's 28-year academic career at UCLA and her appellate practice background make precise legal citation and doctrinal rigor a baseline expectation. Every legal proposition should be supported by controlling authority.

• critical

  Review Constitutional and Appellate Issues in Criminal Cases

  Her career at the First District Appellate Project and the Office of the State Public Defender means she has deep familiarity with constitutional criminal procedure. Attorneys on either side of a criminal matter must be prepared for substantive engagement on these issues.

• important

  Ensure Full Preservation of Issues for Appeal

  An appellate practitioner-turned-judge will recognize when attorneys are or are not properly preserving the record. Make timely objections, state grounds clearly, and build a complete record at every hearing.

• important

  Research Her Early Rulings as They Become Available

  Because no ruling data exists yet, attorneys should actively monitor Trellis and court records for her early decisions to begin building a pattern profile before their matter is heard.

• important

  Prepare for Substantive Oral Argument

  Her background as both an appellate advocate and a law lecturer suggests she engages with legal substance. Attorneys should be prepared to argue beyond the surface of their papers and respond to pointed doctrinal questions.

• ›Present legal arguments with precise citations to controlling authority — her appellate and academic background sets a high bar for doctrinal accuracy.
• ›Do not misstate the record or overstate the holdings of cited cases; an appellate practitioner will recognize inaccuracies immediately.
• ›Be prepared to engage substantively on constitutional and procedural issues in criminal matters, where her expertise is deepest.
• ›Treat every hearing as an opportunity to build a clean appellate record — she has spent decades reviewing trial court records from the appellate perspective.
• ›Maintain professional decorum consistent with a courtroom presided over by a judge with an academic and public-interest background.