Confidential File

Your Court Chances Are Under Scrutiny

In case you've ever wondered about a poor man's chances in our courts of justice, read on.

I'm going to quote you a conversation
which took place a few weeks ago in Division 69 of Municipal Court
between Atty. Louis Romero and Municipal Judge George B. Ross.

Romero,
who felt that the fine — $250 or 50 days — imposed on his client
(found guilty by a jury of misdemeanor drunk driving) was excessive,
asked and was denied suspension of part of the sentence.

Now, I quote, in part, from the transcript:

"THE
COURT: . . . We have taken the attitude, all of the judges here now,
and I have finally won them over to my viewpoint that wherever there is
a trial, we are adding on something for the cost of the jury.

"MR. ROMERO: Would that not be in the way of penalizing the attorney?

"THE
COURT: No. Most of the judges are doing it and they are doing it in the
Superior Court. We only do it in cases where we think the defendant did
not have a legitimate defense, where he was obviously guilty. The jury
found him guilty here and I think he was guilty. If he has a real
legitimate defense, I wouldn't do it.

"MR. ROMERO: Your Honor, I
know that the court must feel that way about it and, of course, I am
aware of the verdict of the jury. I for one was surprised because I
have never tried on a 502 where I had more witnesses to testify to the
fact that the man was not under the influence of intoxicating beverages. I certainly feel it was a matter of opinion. I even thought perhaps I should make a motion for a new trial…

"THE
COURT: I won't back down from that sentence. That is what I am going to
do in all these cases. There is another one coming up next week and I
am going to do the same thing.

"MR. ROMERO: May I say this, Your
Honor, in the interests of any future cases there may be — I don't
know when I will be coming back to Van Nuys again — but if I should be
faced with this task again, telling the defendant, 'Well, if we have a
jury trial and if you are found guilty, it is going to cost you more'
—

"THE COURT: That is right.

"MR. ROMERO: Then that would be a deterrent, Your Honor, to justice.

"THE
COURT: Maybe so, but that is what I am doing. That is what the other
judges are doing, and you are going to have to persuade a lot of judges
to change their minds…We are going to do it here and they are going
to do it uptown…

"MR. ROMERO: That is what I suspected all along, but this is the first time in my five years of practice —

"THE COURT: The first time a judge ever told you that?

"MR. ROMERO: To say it.

"THE COURT: I believe in saying what we do. I am not trying to hide behind the bushes at all…

"MR.
ROMERO: But I thought our courts were open to anyone, to the poor as
well as the rich. If I should represent a poor client, I should tell
him, 'You can't have a jury trial because if you are found guilty it is
going to cost you more, and you are too poor.' If I run across a client
that is affluent: 'You can afford a trial and perhaps the jury will
believe your defense, where the court may not,' and it is only a
question of belief, Your Honor, and I would tell my poor client that as
to him, he is entitled to a jury trial, 'But you, you are poor, and you
can't have a jury trial.'

'It Is a Common Practice'

"THE COURT: They have been doing that in the federal court for the last 20 years. It is a common practice…

"MR.
ROMERO:…Just because some people may do it, Your Honor, does not
necessarily make it just or right, and it affronts my sense of justice.

"THE COURT: I don't care to argue it any more…"

Personally,
I question the justice of soaking an individual with extra heavy fines
because he exercised his right to trial by jury. But I also question
Judge Ross' statement that it's a common practice of our courts.

I know too many judges, and know of their dedication to the cause of equal justice, to believe that.