Judge Fights Exclusion From Criminal Cases

A Van Nuys Superior Court judge is fighting an attempt by prosecutors to keep him from presiding over any criminal cases.

The judge, Melvin B. Grover, has begun challenging some of the about 100 “affidavits of prejudice” filed by prosecutors in the last week to exclude him from criminal trials. Grover has refused to remove himself from some cases, saying that the affidavits were improperly filed. He also has required prosecutors to step forward in his court to verify their signatures on each affidavit.

In an angry exchange with one prosecutor Wednesday, Grover vowed he would “not be a rubber stamp for anyone.”

“It’s like the Vietnam War,” prosecutor Simon Hiller said of relations between the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the judge. “It’s going nowhere, but it’s expanding.”

The district attorney’s office announced Friday that prosecutors would no longer try cases before Grover because they believe him to be biased in favor of defendants.

‘Blanket Affidavit’

By state law, the defense and the prosecution have one opportunity each per case to “bump” a judge for alleged prejudice, without presenting evidence to support the allegation. Prosecutors said their tactic would be to file such an objection to Grover in every case, amounting to a “blanket affidavit” against him.

Although other judges in the county similarly have been forced out of criminal cases--two in the past year--prosecutors said it was the first time they could recall such an action directed at a judge in Van Nuys.

The district attorney’s office this week released a 31-page memorandum detailing prosecutors’ complaints about Grover. The memorandum served as the basis for the action against the judge, which was approved by Gilbert Garcetti, second in command to Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner.

The document alleges that Grover mistreats certain prosecutors, particularly women and minority members, and slants and misapplies the law.

Prosecutor’s Complaint

The memorandum reports a prosecutor’s complaint that Grover interrupted her in a “vicious, abrasive manner” while she was cross-examining a defendant and asked her why she was taking so long.

The prosecutor quoted Grover as saying: “The jury will wait and I will wait to hear what is so worth making us sit here past 4 p.m.”

The memorandum includes another prosecutor’s comment that Grover’s questioning of prosecution witnesses is “overtly hostile” and that he displays a “deep-seated distrust” of policemen that is apparent to jurors.

Also in the memorandum, Deputy Dist. Atty. Edward Feldman relates a conversation he had with Grover about prosecutors’ complaints. According to Feldman, Grover showed him an appeal filed by a defense attorney who was alleging that he too had been “chastised” by Grover in front of a jury.

“‘See, I’m everybody’s son of a bitch,’ ” Feldman quoted Grover as saying. “I take no sides.’ ”

Grover, who spent 10 years as a law-enforcement officer before becoming an attorney, has declined to comment on the prosecutors’ accusations.

Contrast in Reaction

But his reaction in court has been in marked contrast to that of other judges in the county who have been boycotted by prosecutors, attorneys and judges said. Others have moved quietly to civil courts without fighting the boycott, they said.

Grover, who has served on the bench for three years, has challenged the prosecution’s authority to remove him from hearing about 10 of the 100 cases in which affidavits were filed.

Although the judge has no legal ground to prevent prosecutors from removing him from new cases sent to his courtroom, many old cases are still pending before him, said Feldman, the prosecutor usually assigned to Grover’s court. In the old cases, the judge can reject the affidavit and refuse to remove himself from a case if the document was filed fewer than five days before trial or if he has made certain pretrial rulings in the case.

Grover cited those grounds when he challenged several of the affidavits submitted against him this week. Mike Carroll, head deputy in the district attorney’s Van Nuys office, said prosecutors will appeal Grover’s ruling on some of the affidavits.

The tension between the two sides was apparent Wednesday when Grover asked if the deputy district attorney who had signed one of the affidavits was present in court. Grover has been requesting that the individual deputy step forward to verify the signature on each affidavit.

Carroll responded that the prosecutor was not present but that he, as the man’s supervisor, could attest to the signature.

Grover responded angrily: “You will only attest to it if I ask you to attest to it, Mr. Carroll.”

Grover then refused to remove himself from the case, ruling that the affidavit had been submitted after the legal deadline. On another affidavit, he said the district attorney’s action “borders on fraud” because the document was signed by Feldman rather than by the prosecutor who would be trying the case.

Judge Blames Deputies

In a heated exchange with Feldman, Grover blamed the district attorney’s office for the strained relations, claiming that the deputies who had been assigned to his courtroom showed “inexperience and ineptness.”

Grover and Feldman alluded in open court to a conversation they had had in the judge’s chambers before the district attorney decided to take action against Grover. Feldman said he met with the judge in an effort to resolve the dispute without taking the drastic step of a blanket affidavit.

“Our only desire is to have a fair trial,” Feldman said.

But Grover characterized Feldman’s appeal in chambers as an effort to “sway myself . . . to begin calling cases in favor of the district attorney. I told you I would not be a rubber stamp for anyone.”

The memorandum released by the district attorney’s office also suggests that prosecutors hoped to get Grover transferred to civil court quietly.

Letter to Superiors

In an Oct. 4 letter to his superiors that is contained in the memorandum, Carroll characterized the situation in Grover’s court as “intolerable” and indicated his willingness to resolve it without “the hoopla.” Carroll said the issue could be handled discretely by arranging the transfer.

Judges and attorneys at the courthouse said, however, that Grover refused to give in to prosecutors’ demands and vowed to stay put until he is legally forced from criminal work. His colleagues on the bench in Van Nuys supported his decision to stay, said Thomas Johnson, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Attorneys at the courthouse said they now expect Grover to be transferred to a civil court downtown on Jan. 1, when judges receive their new assignments. He should be able to retain enough criminal work by rejecting affidavits to keep busy through the end of 1985, attorneys said.

Defense of Grover

In the wake of the prosecution boycott, many defense attorneys have defended Grover as an independent jurist who gives both sides a fair trial but will not tolerate unprepared lawyers, be they defense attorneys or prosecutors. Some defense attorneys have accused the district attorney’s office of abusing its discretion and attempting to dictate which judges hear criminal cases.

“A lot of this is sour grapes from district attorneys who aren’t used to judges who are independent and strong,” said James Barnes, a deputy public defender who works regularly in Grover’s court.

Barnes said Grover and Judge James Albracht, who coordinates criminal cases in Van Nuys, both “treat the clients with a lot of respect. They treat the attorneys with a lot of respect, and yet they have a little humor to break the tension and anguish.”

Barnes acknowledged, however, that Grover “does lack tact. He makes his mind up and you’re not going to sway him. But some judges are intimidated by D.A.s. They don’t want the same thing that’s happening to Judge Grover to happen to them.”

Prosecutors Respond

Several prosecutors responded that they expected defense attorneys to support Grover because he treats the defense with more respect than he does prosecutors and routinely issues rulings that favor defendants.

Prosecutor Larry Diamond mentioned two instances this week in which he said defendants were given probation after Grover refused to allow the prosecutor to argue for prison sentences.

“In 11 years on this job, I have never been told by a judge that I cannot speak at a sentencing hearing,” Diamond said.

Barnes, the defense attorney on the two cases, said the judge barred Diamond’s comments because another prosecutor already had agreed to probation in the judge’s chambers. That prosecutor, however, denied that he had entered into any sentencing deal.