Governor Picks 3 Southland Jurists for Supreme Court

Gov. George Deukmejian nominated three state appellate justices to the California Supreme Court on Wednesday to fill the vacancies created when voters ousted three court members in a bitter election campaign last November.

The nominations, if confirmed, will give Deukmejian’s appointees control of the court and likely will bring about a gradual philosophical shift to the right in a court that has been one of the most liberal in the nation and often surrounded by controversy.

The nominees, all from Southern California, are: Appellate Justices John A. Arguelles, 59, of Irvine, who would be only the second Latino to sit on the high court; David N. Eagleson, 62, of Long Beach, widely known as an expert on court administration and procedures, and Marcus M. Kaufman, 57, of San Bernardino, a respected legal scholar and a conservative who may turn out to be Deukmejian’s most controversial nominee.

Led Opposition to Bird

Confirmation of the nominees would place a total of five Deukmejian nominees on the seven-member court, providing an effective majority of justices known for their moderate to conservative views.

Deukmejian, a frequent critic of the court in the past, led the opposition to the three court members who were rejected by the voters--Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin.

The remaining members of the court include Malcolm M. Lucas, who was elevated by the governor to succeed Bird as chief justice; Justice Stanley Mosk, the court’s senior member and an appointee of Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown; Justice Allen E. Broussard, the second black jurist to serve and a nominee of Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Justice Edward A. Panelli, the other Deukmejian appointee.

The governor announced his selections in a brief statement issued in Sacramento at mid-afternoon. The statement said:

“In making these appointments, I have turned to justices who are known for their integrity, balance, intellectual capability and extensive legal experience.

“They are held in great esteem by not only their colleagues in the legal profession, but by a great cross section of Californians who are familiar with their skills and abilities.”

The governor in late December had compiled a list of six potential nominees to the court for a non-binding confidential review by a special committee of the State Bar. The candidates the governor passed over included Appellate Justices Hollis Best of Fresno and James B. Scott of San Francisco and Superior Court Judge Patricia D. Benke of San Diego.

The nominations of Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman will be reviewed in public hearings March 18 before the state Judicial Appointments Commission. The commission’s members are Chief Justice Lucas, state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Appellate Justice Lester W. Roth of Los Angeles, the senior presiding justice of the Court of Appeal.

If confirmed, as expected, the nominees will be sworn into office and could be expected to begin hearing cases from a heavy court backlog in April.

Among the nominees, Kaufman probably will draw the most fire.

Browne Greene, president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., predicted that “consumer groups and others will oppose (Kaufman’s) appointment. There’s been a lot of controversy and they’ll certainly be taking a long look.”

Kaufman has been criticized by some labor union leaders for a comment he made in 1981 suggesting that the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board at one time had been “in collusion” with the United Farm Workers union.

More recently, a report in the Sacramento Bee raised questions over whether Kaufman may have violated ethical codes by writing letters to state officials in behalf of a physician who had been trained outside the United States. The physician, a family friend, was trying to obtain training as a prerequisite for a license to practice medicine.

Denies Impropriety

Kaufman denied any impropriety and said he had not been acting in an official capacity when he wrote the letters. State officials said they had not been “pressured” by the justice.

Legal experts predicted Wednesday that the new court, while substantially more conservative, would not immediately produce sweeping rulings that would wipe away well-established precedents of the court under Bird. Changes will be more gradual and often moderate in nature, they said.

Nonetheless, there was agreement that the new court will likely limit the rights of criminal defendants and be less sympathetic to plaintiffs in civil cases.

The court, under Bird, issued numerous decisions expanding criminal defense rights and widening the liability of defendants in civil suits.

Other authorities noted Wednesday that the nominations will mean that a majority of the court--Lucas, Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman--will have come from the southern part of the state, perhaps influencing the court’s approach to issues involving the environment, water and land-use planning.

Could Be Significant

“This could have a significant long-term effect,” said Dean Gerald F. Uelman of the University of Santa Clara Law School. “A lot of issues come before the court that involve geographical differences as much as anything else. . . . The justices’ orientation might be as affected by whether they were from the north or the south as much as whether they are liberal or conservative.”

Jon E. Hopkins, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., welcomed the appointments, saying that the new court may tend to issue decisions that are both easier for lawyers and judges to follow and less protective of criminal defendants.

“Prosecutors will have a better idea of what the rules are because we won’t be getting a lot of decisions from way out in left field,” Hopkins said. “But we don’t expect a sudden flurry of sweeping reforms and that wouldn’t be necessary anyway.”

Ellis J. Horvitz of Encino, a prominent lawyer who represents insurance companies and other defendants in civil cases, said the nominations reflect a significant turning point for the court.

‘Pendulum Has Swung’

“Since World War II, this court has been the leader in expanding the concepts of liability and the availability of damages in civil cases,” Horvitz said. “But I think now that the pendulum has swung as far as it is going to go. . . . “

“The court is not going to tear down 40 years of precedent,” he said, “ . . . but I’m telling my insurance company clients that I’m now more bullish on the court.”

The fact that the governor did not name a woman to the court following the departure of Bird, its first female member, was greeted with dismay by Patricia Shiu of San Francisco, president of the California Women Lawyers Assn.

“I can’t say I was surprised but I am very disappointed,” Shiu said. “Pat Benke was a very fine candidate in many respects . . . and there are many, many well-qualified female judges in California, as well as many fine candidates from law schools.”

Shiu added that she was pleased that Arguelles, as a Latino, was named by Deukmejian, but lamented the absence of a black or Asian nominee. “The California Supreme Court should reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of the state,” she said.

There was other criticism of the governor’s nominations. People for the American Way, a liberal group that in the past has opposed some federal judicial nominees of the Reagan Administration, said the governor “mocks the notion of a diverse court with the nomination of three conservative males from the same geographic area.”

Ramona Ripston, western regional director of the organization, said Deukmejian’s action “destroys any perception of a balanced court and indicates a narrow view of justice.”

Nominees’ Statements

In the immediate aftermath of the governor’s announcement, two of the nominees issued brief statements.

An aide to Arguelles quoted the justice as saying he is “honored and proud of the nomination” and that “his priorities are to now complete his present work on the Court of Appeal and to prepare for his confirmation hearing.”

Kaufman, in a statement, said he is “grateful to the governor and his staff for their confidence in me and to my many friends for their support; if confirmed, I will attempt to serve the public to the very best of my ability.”

The post of associate justice of the state Supreme Court pays $99,489 annually.

Profiles of Deukmejian’s court nominees. Page 22.