Students Catch Rare Glimpse of High Court

Mojave High School senior James Webb woke up three hours before sunrise to see the California Supreme Court in action.

He and six classmates drove 60 miles to Bakersfield to watch a live broadcast this week of the oral arguments before the high court in a Calabasas murder case.

They also witnessed a small piece of history.

Although the Supreme Court has in the past televised selected proceedings with widespread interest, such as those involving the constitutionality of the three-strikes law, its programming has never before been geared to use in classrooms.

To mark the occasion, hundreds of students from across the Central Valley studied the history and procedures of the high court and some of the legal issues justices would confront during their visit.

The court’s outreach to students is unprecedented, according to Chief Justice Ronald M. George. The goal is simple.

“I hope they get a better understanding of the workings of our system of justice,” he said.

Before getting down to official business, George, dressed in a black robe and surrounded on the bench by the court’s six associate justices, greeted students in the audience and those watching the broadcast elsewhere.

In another break with tradition, the justices took a few prepared questions from their teenage audience before calling the first case.

In his opening remarks, George described the program as “a unique learning experience,” and marveled at how technology can “expand the walls of the courtroom.”

About 120 students watched inside the small Fresno courtroom.

In Bakersfield, four local appellate justices--Dennis A. Cornell, Nickolas J. Dibiaso, Gene M. Gomes and Rebecca A. Wiseman--watched the broadcast with more than 150 high school students in a conference room at school district headquarters. They answered questions about cases, procedure and their job as jurists.

One student asked, “How many times have you been bribed?”

A startled Gomes quickly responded, “Do you mean how many times have there been attempts to bribe us?” he asked. The short answer was never.

Another student, referring to the recent murder of a Bakersfield prosecutor, asked if the justices ever feared for their lives. Gomes told the group that judges learn to live with death threats. He said he has sentenced more than 60,000 defendants during his 11 years as a trial judge “and, you know, not everyone was happy.”

Much of the student program focused on convicted murderer Robert Rosenkrantz, 35, who was denied parole after serving 17 years in prison. He was convicted in 1985 of slaying a classmate who revealed Rosenkrantz’s homosexuality to the killer’s father.

The inmate’s attorneys have accused Gov. Gray Davis of illegally refusing to parole any murderers. Davis’ attorneys said the governor holds the ultimate power to decide about prison releases.

For more than an hour, the Supreme Court justices engaged attorneys in the Rosenkrantz case as students watched for clues about how the court might rule.

Most students--from government classes and mock trial teams--weren’t intimidated by references to habeas corpus or ex post facto. At Bakersfield High School, students had studied the Rosenkrantz case and were familiar with the legal issues.

Reaching out to high school students is part of a larger effort by the California judiciary to build public confidence in its branch of government through increased access to judges and the courts.

As chief justice, George has made community outreach a cornerstone of his tenure. He personally crisscrossed the state, visiting all 58 counties, during his first year in the top job in 1996.

In an interview last week, he stressed the importance of educating the public about the judicial system. Ignorance about the court, he said, is widespread and cuts through all socioeconomic levels.

“I have had educated individuals come to the appellate courts and ask, ‘Where is the jury box?’ ” George said. (Appellate issues are decided by a panel of justices, not a jury.)

As part of the outreach effort, the Supreme Court has begun to take its show on the road. Last year, the court held oral arguments in Orange County.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court meets in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento, with the October session set in Los Angeles.

Presiding Justice James A. Ardaiz of the 5th District Court of Appeal invited the high court to Fresno a year ago. When the justices accepted, he began working on a plan to involve students.

In his efforts, Ardaiz secured seats in the courtroom for students from as far away as Tulare and Kings counties. He persuaded the Supreme Court justices to take a few moments to answer students’ questions. And he enticed local cable channels as well as the California Channel to broadcast the Supreme Court to a broader audience.

“Our objective was to create a program that would show a case argued before the Supreme Court,” Ardaiz said, crediting the justices with being “good sports” for consenting to the arrangements.

Kern County educators worked with the court to prepare a study guide that was widely distributed over the Internet.

The government class at Bakersfield High School studied the Rosenkrantz case for a week before watching the oral argument.

Several seniors conceded that the case was sometimes difficult to follow. Yet they were conversant with its key issues and had their own opinions on a just outcome.

“I think they should put him on parole,” said Nicole D. Yap, noting that Rosenkrantz was 18 when he entered prison.

One of the issues in the case is whether Davis has the power to review Rosenkrantz’s parole, because California governors lacked that authority at the time Rosenkrantz was convicted.

Yap never used the Latin terms favored by attorneys and judges in explaining her opinion of the case. But she proved that she had picked up some of those concepts in the classroom.

She compared the deal Rosenkrantz had with prison authorities at the time of his conviction to her cell phone plan: You can’t change the conditions after you’ve signed up for the service.

Her friend, Claudia Flores, was less interested in the televised proceedings. She liked the live discussion with the local appellate court justices much better.

But she was a bit disappointed.

“I thought it would be more like ‘Judge Judy,’ ” Flores said.