Judge Craig B. Van Rooyen

Judge Craig B. Van Rooyen has served on the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court since his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown on June 28, 2016, making him part of a cohort of 18 judges appointed simultaneously — a signal that his selection was part of a deliberate effort to staff California's trial courts with qualified, vetted candidates during a period of judicial expansion. A graduate of UC Hastings College of the Law (now UC College of the Law San Francisco), Van Rooyen brings an academic foundation from one of California's most rigorous public law schools, which historically emphasizes doctrinal precision and procedural rigor. The most publicly visible aspect of Van Rooyen's judicial record is his handling of the Kristin Smart murder case, one of the most high-profile cold cases in California history. In September 2021, he ruled that both Paul Flores and his father Ruben Flores would stand trial for the 1996 killing — a ruling that required careful evaluation of decades-old evidence, circumstantial proof, and complex preliminary hearing standards. This case demonstrates a willingness to engage with difficult evidentiary questions and to allow serious criminal matters to proceed to trial when the evidence meets the legal threshold, rather than dismissing on close calls. His record also includes presiding over sex crimes convictions, suggesting regular assignment to serious felony criminal matters. Because no analyzed rulings, attorney observations, or ingested content are available beyond the biographical profile, all assessments in this report are inferred from career trajectory, appointment context, case type exposure, and general patterns associated with Brown-era appointees. Attorneys should treat this intelligence as a baseline framework to be updated with direct courtroom experience.

Given Judge Van Rooyen's demonstrated exposure to complex, high-stakes criminal litigation — including a multi-decade cold case murder trial and sex crimes prosecutions — attorneys appearing before him in criminal matters should prioritize evidentiary precision above all else. His willingness to send the Kristin Smart case to trial on circumstantial evidence suggests he applies the preliminary hearing standard faithfully rather than using it as a gatekeeping tool to dismiss difficult cases. Defense attorneys should not assume he will grant 995 motions lightly; prosecution-side attorneys should ensure their evidentiary foundations are airtight before relying on circumstantial chains. As a UC Hastings graduate and a Brown appointee, Van Rooyen likely responds well to well-organized, legally grounded arguments that demonstrate command of California statutory and case law. Brown-era appointees as a cohort tended to be selected for professional competence and temperament rather than ideological signaling, suggesting a pragmatic, case-by-case judicial approach. Attorneys should avoid rhetorical overreach and instead anchor arguments in specific statutory language, controlling authority, and factual record citations. For civil practitioners who may appear before him, the absence of civil-specific data means preparation should default to fundamentals: thorough briefing, organized exhibits, and clear statements of the relief sought and the legal basis for it. Until more direct observational data is available, attorneys should invest time in reviewing any publicly available tentative rulings or minute orders from his courtroom through the SLO Superior Court's online portal, as these will provide the most reliable real-time intelligence about his current preferences and procedural expectations.

• critical

  Research SLO Superior Court Online Docket for Recent Rulings

  Before any appearance, search the San Luis Obispo Superior Court's public case portal for recent minute orders, tentative rulings, and hearing outcomes in Van Rooyen's courtroom. This is the fastest way to build a real-time picture of his current procedural preferences and ruling tendencies in the absence of aggregated data.

• critical

  Consult Local SLO Bar Practitioners

  Attorneys unfamiliar with Van Rooyen should contact members of the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association who regularly practice in his courtroom. Local practitioners will have direct observational knowledge of his temperament, preferred argument format, and courtroom rules that no database can currently provide.

• critical

  Prepare Evidentiary Foundations Meticulously for Criminal Matters

  Given his demonstrated engagement with complex evidentiary records in the Kristin Smart case, any criminal matter before Van Rooyen should include thoroughly organized exhibits, clear chains of custody, and explicit legal arguments tying evidence to the applicable standard. Do not assume he will fill in evidentiary gaps favorably.

• important

  Brief All Motions with Controlling California Authority

  As a UC Hastings-trained jurist, Van Rooyen is likely to expect and reward citations to controlling California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority. Avoid over-reliance on persuasive out-of-state authority unless California law is genuinely silent on the issue.

• important

  Review Kristin Smart Trial Record for Evidentiary Rulings

  The Kristin Smart case generated substantial public reporting and some publicly available court documents. Reviewing his evidentiary rulings and procedural decisions from that proceeding — to the extent accessible — may provide the best available window into his judicial reasoning style.

• Nice

  Prepare a Clear Statement of Relief and Legal Basis

  For any motion or hearing, prepare a concise, written summary of exactly what relief is sought and the specific legal authority supporting it. Judges with complex criminal dockets often appreciate advocates who can quickly orient the court to the precise issue without extended preamble.

• ›Arrive early and be fully prepared before the matter is called — judges managing serious felony dockets typically have little tolerance for attorneys who are not ready to proceed when their case is called.
• ›Address the court formally and avoid casual or conversational tone; Van Rooyen's high-profile case experience suggests exposure to polished advocacy, and informal presentation styles may register as unprofessional.
• ›Do not interrupt the judge or opposing counsel; given the complexity of the cases he has managed, Van Rooyen is likely accustomed to structured, orderly proceedings and will expect advocates to observe basic courtroom decorum strictly.
• ›Have all exhibits pre-marked, organized, and ready for immediate reference; complex evidentiary proceedings in his courtroom history suggest he expects counsel to manage their own record efficiently.
• ›If you are unfamiliar with his local rules or standing orders, obtain and review them before your first appearance — SLO Superior Court may have department-specific rules that govern motion filing deadlines, tentative ruling procedures, and oral argument requests.