Van de Kamp Hits Supreme Court’s Delay on Key Issues

The California Supreme Court for too long has left unresolved key legal issues involving the death penalty and the so-called “victims’ bill of rights,” state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp said Wednesday.

Speaking at the semiannual meeting of the California District Attorneys’ Assn., Van de Kamp said his office will take new steps to try to speed resolution of those questions so local authorities will no longer have to prosecute serious criminal cases “in the dark.”

Despite his criticism of the high court, Van de Kamp told reporters he will neither support nor oppose Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and four other justices when they run in uncontested confirmation elections in 1986.

Van de Kamp made his remarks against a backdrop of deep dissatisfaction among prosecutors with the state Supreme Court.

Heavy Opposition More than 93% of 981 association members who responded to a poll said they would oppose Bird’s confirmation. The prosecutors gave unfavorable ratings ranging from 81.3% to 55.9% to three other justices. The poll results were announced Tuesday.

Five of the seven high court justices will be on the November, 1986, ballot. They are Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso, Joseph Grodin, Stanley Mosk and Malcolm Lucas. Bird, Reynoso and Grodin have been targeted for defeat by an anti-liberal group.

No organized opposition has surfaced challenging Lucas, the only appointee of Gov. George Deukmejian and the court’s sole conservative. Mosk, the court’s dean with 20 years on the bench, has said he has not decided whether he will seek reconfirmation. Mosk had the 55.9% unfavorable rating from the prosecutors.

Animosity No Surprise Van de Kamp said he believes the animosity, although not necessarily deserved, is to be expected from prosecutors who perceive the Supreme Court’s decisions as favoring the rights of criminal defendants over the rights of crime victims.

But, Van de Kamp said, the court’s rulings, however adverse to law enforcement, are of less concern than the justices’ failure to quickly adjudicate the 153 pending death penalty appeals and render opinions on key questions about Proposition 8, the victims’ bill of rights, which was approved by voters in June, 1982.

“I think, and there may be some disagreement here, that prosecutors can live with, let’s say, a Carlos decision,” Van de Kamp told reporters, referring to a December, 1983, court ruling that neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment without parole can be imposed on a defendant who did not intend to kill.

“What you cannot live with, though, is a situation where decisions like that are delayed, so that we’re trying cases in the dark for a couple of years.

“It’s the same thing with Proposition 8,” Van de Kamp said. “While we may disagree periodically with decisions of the court, I think what I’m seeking to do is to get resolution of many of these issues so that prosecutors can go forward and get the underbrush cleared away.”

Van de Kamp said he will take action on two fronts.

In a process that began last month, the attorney general said he has personally begun filing motions with presiding judges of courts throughout the state to speed the so-called certification process of death penalty cases. Simply stated, certification involves making all the necessary corrections of trial transcripts and completing other paper work so that the case can begin the automatic appeal process.

According to Assistant Atty. Gen. Edward P. O’Brien, who also addressed the prosecutors, there are about 20 death penalty cases in California that have not yet been certified, even though the verdicts were returned more than two years ago.

Van de Kamp also said he will put the weight of his office behind efforts to resolve outstanding issues raised by Proposition 8. Among those issues are the legality of the proposition’s stricter standard for criminal insanity, a provision that would allow into court all “relevant” evidence, even if gathered illegally, and an outright ban on plea bargaining in many serious felony cases. Van de Kamp said he has begun personally signing petitions seeking a high court review of cases that would decide those questions.

Despite his disagreement with some of the court’s decisions, Van de Kamp said he is concerned about emotional attacks on the justices that have been mounted by groups representing victims, law enforcement agencies and other constituencies.

“I tend to get worried . . . that it will become part of our history and tradition to go after judges simply on the basis of their philosophy,” the attorney general said.