California Judge Who Shot His Wife Faces Murder Charge Retrial

The California judge who fatally shot his wife after a drunken argument will return to state court Monday for retrial on a charge of second degree murder.

The retrial will likely be an uphill battle for Judge Jeffrey Ferguson, who argues the shooting was an accident, according to two legal scholars who are familiar with the case. They pointed to both the facts of the case and how close prosecutors got to a guilty verdict in the first trial.

Judge Eleanor J. Hunter, the L.A. jurist presiding over the case in an Orange County courtroom, declared a mistrial March 10 after a jury hung at 11-to-1 in support of a second degree murder charge. That ratio is unusual, and suggests the stalemate can be attributed to an “idiosyncratic juror” said Chapman University law professor Lawrence Rosenthal.

“If the prosecutors believe they have a strong case—and from what I know, this should be a strong case—then what you really need is people who can work as a team,” said Rosenthal, a former assistant US attorney in Illinois. “If they didn’t focus on that in questioning the jurors the first time, they should be focusing on that at trial number two.”

The second trial also could offer more details on how Ferguson’s drinking potentially impacted his work as a judge on the California Superior Court, Orange County. His defense attorney said during the first trial that Ferguson was an alcoholic, and the Ferguson admitted from the witness stand that he ordered drinks at lunch before returning to work.

A Challenging Defense

Ferguson’s statements before and after his wife Sheryl’s death make the case particularly challenging to defend, said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in California.

Ferguson made a hand-gun gesture at dinner while arguing with his wife, and he shot her on Aug. 3, 2023 after their argument continued at home as the couple and their son watched “Breaking Bad.”

After the shooting, Ferguson texted his clerk and bailiff, “I just lost it. I just shot my wife.” He can also be heard in a police recording that night saying, “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, convict my ass.”

Ferguson’s attorney argued during the first trial that the judge also said that night, “I didn’t mean to kill her,” and that physical evidence shows Ferguson shot the gun by accident.

The defense “has to do something different than what they did before, because it wasn’t terribly successful,” Levenson said.

Forensic, Physical Evidence

A retrial is likely to feature a more detailed forensic account of how Ferguson fired his gun, supplementing a detective’s testimony during the first trial that prosecutors called “inconsistent.”

“I’d have to hear pretty good good cause” to allow a firearms expert to testify, Hunter, the judge presiding over the case, said to defense attorney Cameron Talley during a March 13 hearing.

Ferguson shot his wife using a Glock Inc. gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit.

Ferguson’s attorney is also expected to bulk up evidence that the longtime criminal judge and former prosecutor was missing three of four tendons in his shoulder, which he says caused his arm to spasm as he tried to set his gun on his living room table.

During the first trial, the defense pointed to the trajectory of the bullet and position of the casings as evidence the gun was fired at an irregular angle, by mistake.

Talley said at the March 13 hearing that he’s “counting on an assurance” that the jury can see a police video from the night of the shooting where Ferguson can be heard asking police not to throw him to the ground on one side due his shoulder condition.

Prosecutor Seton Hunt didn’t object.

“I kind of like that story,” Hunt said.

Alcohol Before Work

Ferguson’s admission of drinking at lunch, with other judges, during the first trial prompted the Orange County district attorney’s office to set up a process for defendants to request another look at their cases.

DA office spokesperson Kimberly Edds said at the end of March that the office hadn’t yet received any requests to review cases based on Ferguson’s testimony.

The information is a “collateral issue” in the trial, said Levenson of Loyola Law School.

“I don’t think that’s going to necessarily impact this case,” Levenson said. “But it raises broader questions about the overall conduct in that courthouse. Why wasn’t this being dealt with, or reported?”

The case is People v. Ferguson, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 23NF1975, retrial begins 4/7/25.