Journalist Seeks Clarification After Court Record Shows Plea That Was Not Entered in Open Court

Los Angeles, CA — December 5, 2025

Investigative journalist Michael Phillips is requesting clarification from the Los Angeles Superior Court after the public docket in People v. Giselle Farias Smiel (Case No. 25CJCF03564-01) began displaying a Not Guilty plea for November 19, 2025—despite the fact that no plea was taken or entered on that date.

Phillips, who attended the hearing remotely as part of ongoing reporting on court transparency, observed that the defendant did not enter any plea and that the judge directly acknowledged this on the record.

During the November 19 hearing, the judge explicitly stated:

JUDGE: “If she does not want to plea today, I’ll make a record of that… She’s indicating in her judgment she cannot plea today.”

DEFENSE: “Yes, your Honor.”

JUDGE: “I’ll note for the record Ms. Smiel has been charged with five counts… I’ll keep a day she has not arraigned… I’m going to set a pretrial hearing… December 19th.”

Despite this exchange, the Court’s online docket now lists:

• “Plea of Not Guilty to Information/Indictment – 11/19/2025”
• “Arraignment – Held – Proceedings”
• “Day 0 of 60 (Information filed 10/15/25)”

Additionally, the same docket includes the defendant’s date of birth as 1967, implying she is 59 years old. Public records confirm her birth year is 1976, creating a nine-year mismatch that raises further questions about the accuracy of the file. Is Los Angeles County prosecuting the wrong person?

Phillips emphasized that the purpose of raising these concerns is to ensure accuracy, not to make allegations.

“My goal is simply to understand how the public docket came to reflect a plea that did not occur in open court,” Phillips said.
“The judge clearly stated the defendant did not enter a plea and had not been arraigned. I’m seeking clarification so the public can have confidence that court records accurately reflect courtroom proceedings.”

A plea is a constitutionally significant act that must occur in open court. Clerical creation or modification of a plea after the fact raises important questions about due-process protections and record integrity.

Phillips has submitted a California Public Records Act request seeking:

• Minute orders (all versions)
• Metadata and clerk modification logs
• Audio from the Nov. 19 hearing
• Internal policies governing plea entries
• Any communications related to the docket entry

He has also contacted the Presiding Judge’s office requesting clarification on whether the entry was made in error, automatically generated, or requires correction.

The broader implications extend beyond this single case.

If official plea entries can be modified without transparency, it may undermine confidence in the judicial process. Accuracy in minute orders and docket entries is essential for maintaining lawful timelines and ensuring accountability in criminal proceedings.

Phillips welcomes clarification from the Court and remains available to provide the date, time, and method of his observation.

---

Contact:

Michael Phillips
Investigative Journalist
The Thunder Report / Bay News Network
Email: mike@thunderrpeort.org
Phone: 240.428.0202 (Signal)