Los Angeles Times Interview : Ronald George : Defending the Role of Judges in ‘Three Strikes’ and Beyond

The aura of serenity that surrounds Chief Justice Ronald M. George is deceptive.

Since he took over the California Supreme Court in May, following the retirement of former Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, the amiable George has been a whirlwind of activity. The state Judicial Council, which he now chairs, has imposed controversial new limits on the use of cameras in the courtroom and is considering a series of changes in the conduct of jury trials. An aggressive advocate for judges, George hopes to broker a legislative deal that could stabilize funding for the state’s beleaguered trial courts. Shortly after he was elevated to chief justice--George joined the Supreme Court in 1991--the justices took the unusual step of voting to revisit their April decision upholding California’s 1987 law requiring minors seeking an abortion to get parental consent.

And last month, in a unanimous decision, the court held that the 1994 “three- strikes- and- you’re- out” law did not eliminate a judge’s discretion to reduce the 25-years-to-life prison term mandated for a convicted third-strike felon. The decision prompted immediate reaction: Judges and defense attorneys generally support the court ruling, while prosecutors and their legislative supporters are pushing a new bill to again restrict judicial discretion. George cannot talk about either the three-strikes decision or the law itself since the court has been asked to rehear the case.

Such activity is hardly out of character for the 56-year-old Los Angeles native. A former deputy attorney general, George first came into the public eye in 1981, while on the Los Angeles Superior Court, as the judge in the Hillside Strangler trial. During the two-year trial, which resulted in conviction of defendant Angelo Buono, George also served as the court’s supervising criminal judge and president of the California Judges Assn. He took up running at the beginning of the Hillside Strangler proceedings, after a colleague warned that the stress of such a long trial could cause him health problems.

Married with three grown sons, the soft-spoken jurist is still running--five miles during the workweek and double that on the weekend. George’s last marathon was a few years ago, but he still participates in such feats as a relay from Mt. Rainier to the sea. George was interviewed in downtown Los Angeles, in the chambers the chief justice uses when the court sits here.

*

Question: Most members of the current California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican “law-and-order” governors. Statewide, the bench is now heavily represented by former prosecutors. Are you surprised then at the continued efforts by the Legislature to limit the discretion of judges?

Answer: It is almost cyclical. . . . Bear in mind that the courts don’t reach out for these issues; we get only what people bring to us to resolve. But, periodically, cyclically, the courts have to exercise their function in a way that brings them into direct collision with the other branches and possibly with the public will. When that happens, persons who do not appreciate how judges come to a decision react in ways that perhaps would be more appropriate if they were dealing with the other two branches of government . . . The courts are not representative bodies. Their obligations are to apply the law and serve all the people of the state. It’s happened before; it will happen again--at least until such time as there’s a better appreciation, all around, of what the judicial function is.

Q: Many other states have laws similar to three strikes. Voters in those states were perhaps motivated by the same frustration that prompted three strikes here: a sense that judges were releasing repeat criminals. How do you respond to voters who say, “I want criminals locked up and you aren’t listening?”

A: Again without reference to three strikes in particular, I think most judges view their function as applying the law that is made by the other two branches of government and doing so even when the law is not one the judge particularly favors . . . . On occasion, the voters don’t understand that it is not really a question of result--who wins, who loses--but how and why a judge arrived at a particular result. If the law is changed by the Legislature and the executive [branches], then the judge’s obligation is to apply the new law unless there is something in the Constitution that precludes that. The role of the judiciary is not very well understood by many members of the public and sometimes not by the other two branches of government, either.

Q: How do you make that understood? Judges generally speak through judicial opinions that rely on the facts of the specific case before them. How do you convince the public of a need for a separation of powers?

A: It’s a long-term effort. There are things that judges can do in terms of speaking to community groups. In my capacity as chief justice, I have some good forums to convey that message, and in [my] State of the Judiciary Address to the Legislature, to a certain degree.

. . . And very frankly, I think we’re, to a large degree, dependent on the press to convey to the public, as the eyes and ears of the public, what judges are doing when a judge decides a case. Some news accounts are very much result-oriented, without any indication of how and why a judge arrived at the decision or the court did, as opposed to a thumbs up, thumbs down, who won, who lost. It would be helpful . . . to have the press focus more on the process than just the result.

Q: Are you concerned that politics may be encroaching on the traditional function of judging?

A: Without reference to three strikes or any particular case, I can just say that, from time to time, . . . judges will make decisions on a nonpolitical basis but inevitably there will be some political ramifications of the decision. That’s not something new . . . . And a judge has to be mindful of the need to put out of his or her mind any consideration of political ramifications--either the judge’s own political views or the effect on the court politically. Once one starts worrying about political ramifications, one’s position as a judge would be severely compromised, and the job will not be worth having.

Q: Each time we get “tougher on crime”-- through three strikes or harsher juvenile-justice laws--we end up limiting the discretion of judges. California, like other states, is granting more and more discretion to prosecutors, in terms of who to charge with which crimes, while limiting the discretion of judges. As a former prosecutor, are you comfortable with this trend?

A: I favor allowing judges the maximum discretion. I have full confidence in the ability of most judges to apply the law in a proper fashion. To the extent we deny judges discretion, . . . we lose a lot. The judge is in the best position--having heard all the evidence, being aware of the legal considerations, how one case compares to other cases--to impose an appropriate punishment. I favor, and most judges do, leaving the range of punishment to the broad discretion of the judge.

Q: You now oversee all the state’s courts and 1,554 judges. What are your administrative goals?

A: The most critical issue facing the judicial system as we approach, literally, the next millennium, is securing a stable and dependable source of funding for the trial courts. The counties have become less and less dependable as a source of revenue in all sorts of areas--libraries, welfare or anything else. It’s very troubling to consider that the quality of justice, which is one of the most basic functions of government, would vary from county to county depending upon the vagaries of how much money a particular board of supervisors is able to or desirous of allocating to the court system . . . . We had to go to the Legislature this year for an unprecedented supplemental appropriation . . . because some courts--including Los Angeles, Orange and some others--said that they actually would run out of funds and close courtroom doors before June 30 . . . . That was just to keep them going the last few weeks.

That’s why trial-court funding is so crucial. The Legislature, some time ago, set a goal that the courts should be 70% state-funded. That never came to pass, and we’re down in the 30% range. This legislation, if it passes, would put a cap on the county’s commitment . . . and any increase would be the state’s.

Another concern that I have is . . . the trend toward private judging . . . It is a mixed blessing . . . . It provides an outlet for the pressure on the courts, which are very much overburdened with increasing caseloads . . . . The other side to that is . . . it may provide an excuse for the Legislature not to create new judgeships, because we have had none since 1987.

I am pushing for legislation this year to add 20 new trial-court positions and 5 new court-of-appeal positions. This is just a fraction of what we actually need . . . . But more disturbing than that is the fact that private judging fosters the perception, if not the reality, that there is a two-track system of justice and that those with the resources to hire judges of their own choosing can have their disputes resolved readily, . . . whereas the ordinary citizen has to wait much longer. That has some troubling overtones . . . . It is something we should study.

Q: Last month, the state Judicial Council, which you chair, adopted more restrictive rules governing cameras in the courtroom. What were the problems with the operation of California’s previous rule, adopted in 1984, that necessitated this change?

A: There were no guidelines, really. It was total discretion . . . . The proposal that was ultimately adopted by the council strikes a balance between . . . total exclusion and providing some guidelines to judges in the exercise of their discretion. With the exception of very limited types of proceedings--bench conferences, preliminary hearings--there are now some factors listed to assist a judge in deciding. And that is an improvement over the prior system we had.

Q: The Judicial Council is also considering several major changes to California’s jury system, including a limit on preemptory challenges, improvements in the conditions of jury service and permitting jurors to discuss the case before formal deliberations. What prompted this?

A: What’s very disturbing to me is the extremely low incidence of reply to jury summons. As a result, we are not getting representative panels of jurors. Many lawyers feel they would consider reducing the number of preemptory challenges permitted if they were really getting a full cross-section of the population . . . . This, in turn, ties in to the whole idea of citizen participation in the justice system. What bothers me is that most citizens have two types of contacts with our court system. One is perhaps as a traffic offender, and the other is being summoned as a juror and sitting around having a lot of time wasted. What I would like to see happen, . . . is the one-day, one-case approach. I think most citizens would be hard-pressed to decline to participate under those circumstances, they would feel the sacrifice of one day doing nothing would be acceptable but not sitting around for two or three weeks.

Q: Elections for open-seat trial-court judgeships in Los Angeles County, as in other counties, have become more expensive and partisan. Does California’s system need reform?

A: One of the reasons that California has, what I view, as the finest judiciary in the country is that it is a nonpolitical judiciary. Judges do not run on party slates and the process is less political than it is in many places. What I find disturbing is the trend toward more and more expensive judicial races in contested elections. Now, . . . a U.S. district court has held that the provision in California’s Constitution that requires that judicial races be nonpartisan . . . is self-violative of the federal Constitution’s 1st Amendment. In other words, this federal ruling may indicate that . . . judges are free to seek and obtain political-party endorsements. From my examination of what has taken place in states where that system is followed, it is not something that Californians would like.*