Claim D.A. Biased Against Accused Judge : Davis Lawyers Granted Review of Other Cases

The San Diego city attorney’s office was ordered Monday to turn over records of all domestic violence cases it handled last year to attorneys for Municipal Judge Joseph Davis, who is accused of beating his pregnant girlfriend during an argument.

Defense attorneys contend that Davis has been singled out for prosecution because of his judicial philosophy and past conflicts with the city attorney’s office. They believe a review of the other cases may show that Davis is being subjected to a different standard of treatment than other defendants.

On Monday, Municipal Judge James Edmunds granted defense attorneys Patrick Q. Hall and Jan Ronis access to the city attorney’s records for 1986. The defense team had requested files dating to 1984, but Edmunds ruled that collecting three years’ worth of data would be an onerous task.

In addition, the judge denied the defense attorneys’ request for the names and addresses of victims in the cases, agreeing with Deputy City Atty. Casey Gwinn that such information should--at least initially--be kept confidential.

Davis, appointed to the bench in 1980 by Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., is accused of beating his live-in girlfriend, Anna Monica Garcia, during a quarrel Nov. 23. Initially, Garcia made a citizen’s arrest of Davis and obtained a court order barring him from visiting their home.

Defense attorneys now say that Garcia, 24, has retracted allegations that the judge punched her in the abdomen and shoved her, and has resumed an amicable relationship with Davis, 41. Prosecutors, however, say that they have no reason to believe that Garcia no longer wishes to press charges.

“The victim has never indicated to us that she is not interested in moving forward with this case,” Gwinn said after Monday’s hearing. Gwinn, who handles all domestic violence cases for the office, said he last spoke with Garcia on Dec. 7, when she “confirmed details of the beating.”

Since then, prosecutors have been unable to locate Garcia, Gwinn said. But he noted that Garcia’s willingness to press charges should not be an issue in this or any other domestic violence case.

“In more than 50% of the assault and battery cases we handle, we have the victim saying nothing happened, even if she’s bruised to the point where it’s obvious something did occur,” Gwinn said. “That’s part of the cycle of violence that characterizes domestic abuse. But we go forward nonetheless in the vast majority of cases--in about 75% of them.”

Davis’ defense team maintains that the judge is being unfairly singled out for prosecution by vindictive city attorneys who harbor a deep “personal animosity” toward him. They have asked the court to dismiss the misdemeanor battery charge against Davis or, in the alternative, bar the city attorney’s office from acting as prosecutor in the case.

On Monday, the defense team presented 24 domestic violence cases--uncovered during a random perusal of files--that were dismissed by the city attorney’s office, for one reason or another. Hall and Ronis said a more thorough examination of the city attorney’s files was necessary to determine whether a pattern of dismissal existed and whether Davis is being treated differently than other defendants.

Also Monday, Hall attempted to prove that “personal animosity” toward the judge exists by noting that Gwinn, who signed the complaint against Davis, had a series of heated courtroom exchanges with the judge during a trial in a traffic case. At one point, Hall said, Davis criticized Gwinn’s demeanor and told him he “had a lot to learn about being an attorney.”

Hall and Ronis also allege that “numerous” deputies in the city attorney’s office “have become emotionally upset and angry” with Davis’ rulings.

“The city attorney’s office clearly was dissatisfied with the rulings they were receiving in his courtroom,” Hall said in court Monday. “At one point (Chief Deputy City Atty. Stuart) Swett said they were unable to believe Judge Davis understood the phrase ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ that he had a different interpretation of that statement than other judges on the bench.”

Hall charged that the city attorney’s office, believing that Davis is an “anti-prosecution judge,” has adopted a policy of filing challenges aimed at preventing Davis from presiding in cases of resisting arrest or police brutality, and has repeatedly sought to remove him from other cases.

In all, this “showing of personal animosity and dissatisfaction” with the judge indicates that a potential for bias by the city attorney is present in the case, Hall argued.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, insist that Davis is being treated no differently than other defendants.

“There is no evidence that the office of the city attorney, or Gwinn in particular, ‘went after’ the defendant to ‘get him’ for some offense,” Deputy City Atty. Loraine Etherington said in a written brief filed last month.

On Monday, Etherington reiterated that statement and said that “more controversy would have been generated had we not pressed charges against the judge, because then we would have been accused of showing favoritism to a public official.

“This is a case of domestic abuse, and it’s being handled according to standard procedures,” Etherington said.

Davis’ trial is scheduled to begin Wednesday before Edmunds, a South Bay Municipal judge selected to conduct the proceeding because San Diego judges are reluctant to hear a case involving one of their colleagues.

Postponement of the trial is likely, however, as it will take the city attorney’s office a minimum of two weeks to gather records on previous domestic violence cases.