Judges and LAPD Scandal

The May 15 commentary by Judge Victor E. Chavez, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, exculpating the judiciary for the frame-ups and mass perjury in the Rampart cases, is a glaring example of the problem with the court system in California. According to Judge Chavez, it is not the fault of the judiciary that injustice occurs in the courtroom. After all, judges have to maintain their popularity. If judges aren’t popular with the lawyers who appear before them, they might not get any cases. If they aren’t popular with the public, they might lose their jobs by being recalled or not being reelected. If it is not the responsibility of the judiciary to assure that justice takes place in the courtroom, whose responsibility is it?

When I commenced practicing law almost a quarter-century ago, judges made tough decisions to make sure the right thing was done. Now, as shown by Judge Chavez, judges are more content to be mere case process facilitators. It is a sad commentary.

HOWARD EVERAKES

Simi Valley

*

I do not elect judges to act as referees in a sports contest. Rather, I expect judges to uphold the law and see to it that justice prevails. But even if one were to accept Judge Chavez’s view regarding a judge’s role, his analogy is faulty.

A referee’s prime responsibility is to enforce the rules and prevent cheating by either side. Lying by a witness and/or falsifying evidence are against the rules; they are the worst kind of cheating. A judge who turns a blind eye to police officers who lie and falsify evidence and prosecutors who encourage or condone such illegal activities is no better than a referee who only calls fouls against one team.

If Chavez is unwilling to “call ‘em as he sees ‘em” for fear that he would be accused of favoring one side, perhaps he should resign.

ROBERT L. SACHS

Newport Beach