Reynoso Uses Media Campaign in Effort to Retain Judgeship

These are unusually demanding times for Justice Cruz Reynoso of the California Supreme Court.

Facing strong opposition in the fall election, he finds himself in a role rarely played by a judge: appealing for votes in 30-second television commercials, answering questions before newspaper editorial boards, appearing on radio talk shows and making campaign speeches throughout the state.

Attacked for his liberal judicial record, he tries to appeal to conservatives by pointing to his strict religious upbringing, his summer labor as a youth in fruit and vegetable fields and other elements of his hard-working past that prefaced his rise to become the first Latino on the state’s highest court.

Assailed for voting to uphold the death penalty only once in 45 cases, he denies that he is morally opposed to capital punishment and predicts that the justices will affirm more death sentences in the future.

Ability Questioned

Criticized for a lack of legal ability, he points to his wide pre-court experience as a lawyer, government official and law professor--and remembers that as a youth, he had to fight classmates who jeered him as el profe (the prof) because of his love for books.

“All this is a completely new experience,” he remarked recently as he busily prepared to leave his chambers here for a campaign luncheon address downtown.

“I sometimes think of suing Jerry Brown for consumer fraud,” he adds in a playful reference to the governor who nominated him to the court in 1981. “He never told me I’d end up like this.”

The 55-year-old Reynoso is one of three Brown appointees facing organized opposition to their confirmation by voters Nov. 4.

Along with Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justice Joseph R. Grodin, Reynoso is being opposed principally for his record on the death penalty and for what critics see as excessive zeal in protecting the rights of criminal defendants.

High on the List

Observers believe, as polls have indicated, that except for the embattled chief justice, Reynoso faces greater danger of being removed from the court than any other justice.

But Reynoso says he believes the opposition can be overcome if the majority of voters realize that the court does not decide guilt or innocence in criminal cases, but only whether the procedures used to obtain convictions have met the requirements of the law. The independence of the judiciary is at stake in the election, he says.

“We are dealing with the notion of a constitutional democracy,” he said in a typically rapid-fire campaign address to a receptive audience of about 50 people at Golden Gate University Law School.

“The question is whether we in California will have a Constitution that serves all of the people--or one dominated by special interests.”

Reynoso was born in Brea, one of 11 children of Mexican immigrant parents who later were to settle on a one-acre plot in La Habra. He spent summers with family members migrating to the San Joaquin Valley to work in the fields. At home, there was emphasis on what he recalls as “traditional moral concepts--the difference between right and wrong.” The family was religious--and today Reynoso remains a church-going Baptist who neither smokes, drinks nor curses.

In elementary school, he came to love reading--and found himself in “more than my share” of fights, defending his honor against classmates who ridiculed his bookishness.

He graduated from Fullerton Union High School and went on to Fullerton Junior College, Pomona College and Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley. He also served two years in the Army’s Counterintelligence Corps. He is married and the father of four children.

Reynoso’s professional career has been wide-ranging. He maintained a law practice in El Centro from 1959 to 1966 and spent time as assistant chief of the state Fair Employment Practices Commission, staff secretary to Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, and associate general counsel to the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in Washington.

In 1968, he became director of California Rural Legal Assistance--and entered the national limelight as the leader of a pioneering government-funded legal services agency that was to endure years of controversy and yet win wide acclaim for its efforts to serve the rural poor.

Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan sought to block CRLA funding and Reynoso led a long fight to withstand the attack, winning support from the organized Bar and in Congress and eventually obtaining the backing for continued funding from the Nixon Administration.

Saved the Agency

Its supporters today credit CRLA’s survival in large part to Reynoso, whose invariably open and friendly manner, conservative appearance and calm and reasonable defense of the agency stood in sharp contrast to critics’ portrayal of CRLA as a group of fiery young radicals out to reform society at taxpayers’ expense.

“He was the one who saved CRLA,” says Robert L. Gnaizda, a former deputy director of CRLA and now an attorney with Public Advocates in San Francisco. “He responded to charges magnificently and brought us respectability. . . . The Bar and others came to appreciate that this was a group of responsible people who sought responsible solutions to the legal problems of the poor--and it was Reynoso who conveyed that.”

In 1972, Reynoso left California to teach constitutional and labor law at the University of New Mexico. He returned in 1976 to accept an appointment by Jerry Brown to the state Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

In late 1981, Brown named Reynoso to the state Supreme Court to succeed the late Justice Mathew O. Trobiner, who had retired. The nomination set off a fierce fight. Law enforcement groups and their supporters assailed decisions he wrote protecting criminal defendants while Latino organizations and other backers rose to his defense.

2 Opposed Him

In an unusual action, two justices who had served with Reynoso on the state Court of Appeal publicly opposed his appointment.

Justice Hugh A. Evans accused Reynoso of being too slow in producing opinions and of being a “true racist,” showing bias in favor of Latinos, other minorities and the poor. Retired Justice George E. Parras called Reynoso a “professional Mexican,” whose lack of productivity had “bottlenecked” the court.

But other appellate justices testified in favor of Reynoso, and he was confirmed 2 to 1 by the state Judicial Appointments Commission over a dissent by then-Atty. Gen. George Deukmejian, who cited Reynoso’s votes against the prosecution and questioned his ability to process cases.

As a member of the state Supreme Court, Reynoso has remained as part of a sometimes shifting liberal majority that has extended the protections of criminal defendants and broadened the ability of civil plaintiffs to bring suit and collect damages against government and business.

Studies indicate he is a frequent ally of Chief Justice Bird, generally regarded as the most liberal member of the court.

Voting Record

According to research by state Administrative Law Judge Barry Winograd, a supporter of all six justices on the fall ballot, Reynoso and Bird voted together about 81% of the time in 277 cases decided in 1984 and 1985. The same data shows, however, that Reynoso agreed more often with Justices Grodin and Allen E. Broussard and Otto M. Kaus, three other generally liberal members of the court.

Reynoso agreed least often with conservative court members, joining former Justice Frank K. Richardson on votes 48% of the time in 1984 and agreeing with Justice Malcolm M. Lucas 59% of the time in 1985.

In a variety of cases, Reynoso has demonstrated special concern for protecting individuals facing court tests against governmental authority. For example, he wrote court opinions for the following:

- When the justices, ruling in a case involving the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, held last year that as a “continuing nuisance” airports could be sued for jet noise successively by the same plaintiffs until the problem subsides. The decision cleared the way for hundreds of plaintiffs to press similar claims against airports throughout California.

- When the court in 1984 upheld the claim to unemployment benefits by an unmarried woman who quit her job as a waitress to accompany the father of her child to another state. The woman moved to “preserve the family unit,” which was good cause for quitting the job, Reynoso said.

- When the justices in 1985 concluded that school authorities need “reasonable suspicion” before they can search students for evidence of a crime or rule violation. The court invalidated a search an assistant principal made of a calculator case a 16-year-old had suddenly hidden from view. The search revealed marijuana, cigarette papers and a scale. Authorities had no prior information about the youth’s involvement with drugs and the court said that his furtive attempt to hide the calculator case did not provide sufficient cause to search.

- When the court held in 1984 that defendants could be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime only if they shared the criminal intent of the actual perpetrators. Mere “knowledge” of the perpetrators’ purpose was not sufficient, the justices said.

It is Reynoso’s record on criminal cases that has drawn the most fire from critics.

Prosecutors’ Data

The Prosecutors Working Group, a coalition of state and local prosecutors opposing Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, says that its data shows that Reynoso sides with criminal defendants in court decisions more than any other justice except Bird.

The organization also criticizes Reynoso for his votes on Proposition 8, the “victims bill of rights” initiative passed in 1982 aimed at expanding the permissible use of evidence obtained against criminal defendants.

While voting with the majority to uphold the measure’s overall constitutionality, Reynoso dissented in subsequent cases when the court said the initiative allowed wider use of prior convictions to impeach the testimony of a defendant and expanded the admissibility of evidence obtained in searches.

On the question of capital punishment, the prosecutors pointed out that the one instance in 45 cases in which Reynoso voted to affirm the death penalty came in a case where the majority agreed to reverse the penalty--and hence represented only a meaningless “token” vote.

Question of Law

“The question is not whether a justice personally opposes the death penalty or not--but whether he is prepared to follow the law,” said Kathryn Canlis, chief deputy district attorney of Sacramento County. “Some of Justice Reynoso’s decisions seem to be twisted in logic and language in a way to get the result he wants.”

Some criticism has focused on the quality of Reynoso’s court opinions--their reasoning and clarity in explaining the legal point he seeks to make. He is seen by some as failing to establish the kind of independent voice that has marked other court members.

“His opinions often read like an institutional product--indicating heavy involvement by his staff of clerks,” says UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, a frequent critic of the court. “They don’t show the individuality of a Bird or a (Justice Stanley) Mosk.”

His supporters respond to such criticism by pointing to what they see as Reynoso’s integrity, sensitivity and sense of fairness--qualities they believe far outdistance any perceived weaknesses in legal scholarship.

‘In Box With Bird’

“I believe that after the election has come and gone, the public will begin to better appreciate Cruz Reynoso,” attorney Gnaizda said. “He’s been put in a box with Rose Bird, but he has to be judged alone.

“He does make an effort not to be pretentious in the opinions he writes. Pretentiousness and length are often a disguise for lack of insight. Reynoso doesn’t attempt to disguise what he’s doing . . . and we all should be indebted to a justice like that.”

For his part, Reynoso sees the bulk of the criticism as reflecting little more than campaign rhetoric--but feels he must respond nonetheless. In a recent interview, he discussed these and other subjects:

Death Penalty--There is “no question,” he said, that the justices will affirm more death sentences in the future as trial judges begin to implement court rulings on the 1978 ballot measure--known as the Briggs Initiative--that broadened the scope of the state’s capital punishment law.

“That law was so poorly written that we have been in the process of clarifying its ambiguities one by one as they come before us,” he said. “Regrettably, that has taken several years.

“If I were morally opposed to the death penalty, then I could not in good conscience have accepted this position on the court. I knew I’d be dealing with this issue and would be called upon to affirm a death sentence when properly rendered.”.

Campaign Labels--”I find the terms liberal, moderate or conservative unhelpful . . . as they apply to judges,” he said. “They have been taken from the political arena, where they were used as short terms for legislators who establish policy. We are judges who are here to apply the law.

“These terms . . . have been misapplied to the justices--and I try to reject those kind of labels.”

Bird--He says he “absolutely disagrees” with suggestions that the chief justice should have resigned to reduce the likelihood that other justices would be rejected by the voters.

“She’s been an honorable, hard-working chief justice,” he said. “I agree with her in some cases and disagree in others, but that’s part of the tradition of the court. . . . That she should resign because she has been the object of contrived attacks would have been a great tragedy and would have rewarded those who have distorted her record.”

Legal Ability--”You get used to hearing yourself described as a great, scholarly person,” he said, recalling his youth, college record, honorary degrees and tenure as a law professor. “And then this comes up . . . so I can’t help but say it must be the political season.

“If I took too long with some cases, it’s understandable. . . . I take each case very seriously and my responsibilities very seriously.”

Reynoso’s Mexican heritage has won him wide support among Latinos, but his campaign strategists remain concerned that it also may hurt on Election Day. When the justice won confirmation in 1982, his margin of approval--53%--was the smallest of any of the four justices on the ballot.

Not Just a Name

To counteract the possibility that his name may damage him at the polls, Reynoso’s organization has purposely featured the justice’s picture in campaign advertising as a means of presenting him as a person, not just a name.

“If we present him to the public, that issue (of ethnicity) will go away, we believe,” said campaign manager Neil B. Rincover. “The fact is there is prejudice out there and it will probably cost him some votes. But we don’t think it will be enough votes to cost the election.”

Through it all, Reynoso has not forgotten his early life of working in the fields. He still finds that he benefits from setting aside the complexities of the court for hard physical labor on the 30-acre farm that he, his wife, Jeannene, and their children maintain in Sacramento County.

Even after arising three or four days a week just after 4 a.m. to commute to the court in San Francisco, Reynoso still tries to find time to pitch in with the farm work on weekends.

“There’s a lot of value in what I call ‘settling down’ time,” he said. “In the back of your mind you can still think about things while doing physical labor.”

CRUZ REYNOSO, 55

Associate Justice California Supreme Court

Appointed: Dec. 23, 1981

Named by: Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Background: Professor of Law, University of New Mexico; Director, Calif. Rural Legal Assistance; Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunities Comm.; private law practice; Asst. Chief, Fair Employment Practices Comm.; legislative assistant, Calif. Senate.

Organizations: Migrant Legal Action; Huelga Committee; Chamber of Commerce, El Centro; Lions International; Governor’s Task Force on Civil Rights; State Commission for Government Reform; Calif. Judges Assn.; Council on Individual Rights and Responsibilities; PTA.

Personal: Enjoys art and farming.