Confidential File

Some Judges Deal in Real Justice

Two weeks ago I quoted you a rather amazing conversation between an attorney and Los Angeles Municipal Judge George B. Ross.

At least, to me it was amazing.

The gist of the judge's remarks to the attorney, who was questioning the severity of the sentence given his client, was:

If
a man pleads not guilty and asks for a jury trial, and he's found
guilty, and I believe he was obviously guilty, it's going to cost him a
lot more than if he pleaded guilty in the first place.

The
attorney, Louis Romero, argued that trial by jury was the right of
everyone, rich or poor. It was not a privilege reserved only for the
wealthy.

He added that levying heavier fines against individuals who used their right of jury trial was a deterrent to justice.

Judge
Ross replied, "Maybe so, but that is what I am doing. That is what
other judges are doing, and you are going to have a to persuade a lot
of judges to change their minds…"

At the time, I questioned Judge Ross' statement that it is a common practice of our courts to soak someone for exercising a constitutional right.

And last week, Mirror News reporter Paul Weeks polled several judges, who both denied and criticized the use of such a policy.

I thought, then, that possibly Judge Ross' attitude was a unique one.

But
today I received a copy of "The Open Forum," official publication of
the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

In it was the following article:

 "A
Long Beach judge who habitually set excessive bail when a defendant
insisted on a jury trial was officially condemned in a ruling handed
down by Superior Judge Frank G. Swain last month.

"The court granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the appeal of Emery Newbern, merchant seaman, and ordered his bail reduced from $500 to the customary $25.

"Judge Swain appointed ACLU counsel A.L. Wirin to represent Newbern in the appeal of Municipal Judge Charles T. Smith's bail policy.

"Wirin argued that the Long Beach jurist had denied Newbern's constitutional rights to reasonable bail solely because the defendant has exercised another constitutional right, trial by jury.

Bail Held Excessive

"Judge Swain held that $500 bail on a drunk charge is 'excessive' and penalizes the petitioner for demanding his constitutional rights.

"
'It is undisputed that the purpose of bail is to assure defendant's
presence in court at the required time and bail set at a figure higher
than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is
excessive under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution,' Judge Swain ruled.

"At Newbern's
arraignment, Judge Smith remarked from the bench, 'My policy is that if
you plead not guilty and demand trial by jury and are found guilty, you
are going to get 90 days in jail; and I will bet you 100 to 1 that the
jury finds you guilty.' "

Judge Smith's quoted remark is about
as shocking a statement as I've ever heard attributed to a man paid by
the taxpayers of our country to administer justice.

If it
weren't for the cynicism which accompanies my advancing age, I'd say
that a judge's betting a defendant that a jury will find him guilty is
an inconceivable bit of dialogue. It sounds like something out of a burlesque routine or out of a Moscow courtroom.

However, such bizarre interpretations of justice in our courtrooms are more the exception than the rule.

It's
reassuring to know that there are dedicated men like Judge Swain who
don't feel that the robe is so sacred that its wearers aren't subject
to public criticism when the occasion warrants.

And if Judge Smith made the remarkable statement attributed to him, the occasion certainly warrants.