Lucas Sworn In as California Chief Justice

Malcolm M. Lucas was confirmed Thursday as the chief justice of California, succeeding Rose Elizabeth Bird and beginning a new era for a state Supreme Court that is expected to become much more conservative under his leadership.

Lucas sounded a conciliatory note, saying that he intended to focus his attention on the future of the court and leave behind the bitter political conflict that resulted in the unprecedented defeat of Bird and two other liberal justices in the November election.

“The election was a difficult time for the court, no question about it,” he told reporters after taking the oath of office. “What this court needs is a quiet time to heal itself and reconstitute itself, free from political turmoil.”

Lucas was sworn into office by Gov. George Deukmejian, his longtime friend, former law partner and the man who first appointed him as an associate justice of the court in 1984 and then elevated him to the top post after Bird’s loss at the polls.

The oath was administered shortly after Lucas’ nomination was approved unanimously by the three-member state Judicial Appointments Commission made up of Justice Allen E. Broussard, who has served as acting chief justice since Bird left office last month; state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, and Appellate Justice Lester W. Roth of Los Angeles, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal.

During testimony before the commission, the 59-year old Lucas vigorously denied charges that he was a “right-wing radical” and part of a plan by Deukmejian to pack the judiciary with appointees who share his pro-death penalty views.

“I am not a politician and I have no agenda, political or otherwise, right wing or left wing,” Lucas said. “Neither the governor nor any of his associates have asked my opinion on the death penalty or any other issue before the court.”

Lucas also rejected the contention that he had been unresponsive to the rights of racial minorities and, answering another question, said he did not belong to any club or organization that barred people because of race, religion or sex.

Main Opposition

The main opposition to Lucas’ nomination, as expected, came from Nathaniel S. Colley Sr., counsel to the western regional branch of the NAACP.

Colley expressed concern that Lucas was “not sensitive to the hopes, needs and aspirations of our people” and said that he regarded Lucas’ record as one of a “right-wing radical.”

Colley cited several opinions written by Lucas but focused most of his attention on what he called the nominee’s “flip-flop” on the death penalty, which he charged was politically motivated.

At first, Lucas followed a controversial 1983 court precedent requiring juries to find that defendants intended to kill their victims. Later, citing concerns that the precedent would force countless retrials, Lucas issued dissents urging the court to reconsider the ruling.

In his testimony, Lucas said he had always believed that the precedent was wrong and that he finally came to the conclusion that he should urge the court to reverse itself. He noted that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court also suggested the issue ought to be reconsidered.

Prospective Jurors

Colley attacked a dissent Lucas wrote objecting to a 1978 court ruling barring prosecutors from removing prospective jurors solely because they were the same race as the defendant.

The witness charged that a dissent to the ruling implied a belief that black jurors would automatically be biased in favor of black defendants, while white jurors would be fair to all.

Lucas noted in reply that he had dissented over concerns about limitations on the use of peremptory challenges to dismiss jurors. Both sides are entitled to employ such challenges, for which no reason need be stated ordinarily. Lucas pointed out further that he later had voted to uphold the 1978 decision after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a substantially similar ruling.

Lucas received support at the hearing from several witnesses who repeatedly emphasized their belief in Lucas’ fairness and objectivity.

Justice Stanley Mosk, the senior member of the state Supreme Court, described Lucas as “a person entirely without bigotry or prejudice in any form.”

U.S. District Judge David W. Williams of Los Angeles, a longtime colleague of Lucas when he served on the federal bench, told the commission: “I know Justice Lucas better than any other black man in this state . . . professionally and socially, and I can assure you that he does not have a racist bone in his body.”

Another colleague, state Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Panelli, cited Lucas’ ability to get along well with other justices and other court staff and said Lucas would be the “conciliator” the court needs as a leader.

Lucas takes over as leader of a court that had been one of the most liberal in the nation but has been shaken by the voter rejection of three of its seven members: Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin.

Lucas has been regarded as the most conservative member of the court and has been its most frequent dissenter. For example, he objected when the court upheld the right of public employees to strike, barred authorities from aerial searches for marijuana in backyards and approved strict rent-control laws imposed by the City of Berkeley.

While his vote will count for no more than other court members, the chief justice can serve as the philosophical leader of the court and can exert some influence on other justices.

Three Successors

Under Lucas, the court is expected to shift to a course of moderation and conservatism, but the extent of the change will depend largely on who the governor selects to succeed the three departing justices. Deukmejian is expected to name the three successors within a month, and they could take office by April.

The remaining members of the court include Broussard and Mosk, generally regarded as liberals, and Panelli, a Deukmejian-appointee viewed as a moderate conservative.

One of the first and most difficult tasks facing Lucas will be to lead the court through an ever-increasing backlog of undecided cases.

Nearly 400 cases await a decision--including 171 capital cases that under law must be reviewed by the state’s highest court.

Some of these undecided cases have been argued before the old court and still could be decided by the four remaining justices if they can vote unanimously and thus provide the required majority.

Those that cannot be decided unanimously--and that is likely to include most of such cases--will have to be re-argued before the new court, along with scores of others that have not been heard before.