O’Neil, Christopher J.

Meet the Justice

Division:
Division II
Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
Meets JPR Standards
Bio:
View Candidate Bio

Responses

Response Legend

  • *Comment
  • −Declined to respond
Question Response Comments/Notes
1. Please describe your judicial philosophy — how you understand the role of a judge, and how you go about deciding the cases that come before you. −
2. Is there a jurist — from any court, living or deceased — whose approach to judging you particularly admire? Please name the jurist and briefly explain why. −
3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism” at one end (1) and “purposivism” at the other(10)? −
4. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Roberts on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree:
“Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”
 −
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree:
"Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."
 −
6. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree:
"The Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties that are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.
 −
7. Is there anything else you would like Arizona voters to know about how you approach your work as a judge? −

Judicial Decisions

STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT GUY DAYTON, JR. 
Case Date: 02/08/2024Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2022-0087Question Presented: Whether the trial court erred in closing the courtroom to “nonessential people” during a portion of the victim’s testimony in violation of defendant’s right to a public trial as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.Decision: Because the court committed structural error by closing the courtroom without satisfying the requirements set forth in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)—convictions and sentences are reversed.Judge Position: Dissented from the 2/1 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. O'Neil: "When a trial court has made insufficient findings to allow for appellate review as required by the fourth element of the Waller test, the “appropriate remedy” is not necessarily a new trial (as the majority does here) but a remand to the court for appropriate findings."
STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES B. BEELER 
Case Date: 04/20/2023Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2020-0131Question Presented: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence under the Arizona Rape Shield Law, codified as A.R.S. § 13-1421 and violated the right to present a defense in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.Decision: The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Beeler had failed to meet his burden so the court’s exclusion of Beeler’s proffered evidence pursuant to § 13-1421 did not deprive him of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.Judge Position: Joined the 3/0 decision.