Seven for Superior Court

Seven Superior Court offices are contested in the June 7 primary. Superior Court judges hear major civil cases and felonies.

The Times reaches its decision on endorsements after interviews with the candidates and inquiries throughout the legal community. We consider the ratings by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Judicial Evaluation Committee, but we do not always agree with them. In general we believe that a sitting judge should continue to serve unless there is persuasive evidence of poor service or injudicious conduct. We do not believe that such evidence exists for the three challenged judges.

For Superior Court we prefer:

Office No. 1.--JEROLD A. KRIEGER. Krieger, a graduate of UCLA Law School, was appointed to the bench in 1983 after service in the state attorney general’s office and private practice. He is the supervising judge for the Encino branch of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and was rated “well qualified” by the Bar association. He is active in community affairs and would be a strong asset on the Superior Court.

Office No. 3. JEWELL (JUDI) JONES. Both candidates for this open seat present strong credentials but also some liabilities. Sherrill D. Luke has had broad experience in government--serving in former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown’s Cabinet, as president of the Los Angeles Planning Commission and as a Municipal Court judge for five years; he is regarded, however, as lazy and unwilling to tackle difficult cases. We prefer Jewell Jones, a Superior Court commissioner, because, by and large, she has performed the duties of a judge for seven years with competence, energy and unquestioned diligence. She is rated “well qualified” by the Bar association; Luke drew a “qualified” rating. Assigned to the Dependency Court, Jones has made the difficult decisions about removing abused and neglected children from their homes. She is regarded by her peers as an expert on such issues. Our reservation about Jones is that she has not proved herself outside this narrow field, though we believe that she has the intelligence and drive to master the other demands of the Superior Court.

Office No. 4--TERRY SMERLING. Appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1982, Smerling had worked for the Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach, the Greater Watts Justice Center and the ACLU Foundation. He is active in bench-related activities to overhaul the bail schedules, improve education of judges and reduce jail overcrowding. Rated “well qualified” by the Bar association, he is a solid, intelligent public servant and should be elected to Superior Court.

Office No. 10--REGINALD A. DUNN. Dunn, chief of the criminal division of the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, would bring to the Superior Court bench a wide range of experience and sound judgment. Dunn now manages the 130 lawyers who prosecute all misdemeanor offenses in the city; in the past he has handled cases ranging from complex criminal matters to toxic-waste abuses. He also played a key role in developing the Weingart project for alcoholics on Skid Row, and has worked as a public defender and as a parole agent. His opponent, Malcolm H. Mackey, has a good record as a Municipal Court judge, but we feel that Dunn, rated “well qualified” by the Bar association, has the intelligence and character to be a stronger Superior Court judge.

Office No. 74. HENRY PATRICK NELSON.In his eight years on the bench, Nelson has become famous both for his extraordinary capacity for work and for his ferocious temper. He puts attorneys through their paces, grants continuances sparingly, interrupts the questioning of witnesses and makes no effort to hide his impatience with pointless testimony. The resulting antagonism of the attorneys who appear before him is reflected in the “not qualified” rating that he received from the Bar association. We wish that appearing in Nelson’s courtroom were not such an ordeal, but we support him because we believe that he is unbiased and has the best interests of the people of Los Angeles County at heart. He disposes of cases at a rapid clip and volunteers for more; if there were more judges like Nelson, the court’s backlog would not be as great. His challenger, criminal defense lawyer Joe Ingber, is admired for his expertise on capital punishment but also suffers from temperament problems and lacks Nelson’s experience.

Office No. 77. BURTON BACH. An intelligent and hard-working judge, Bach, the incumbent, is locked in a highly politicized race with deputy district attorney Lawrence E. Mason. Supported by major law-enforcement groups, Mason has charged that Bach is biased against police officers and prosecutors, though the evidence is scanty. Bach occasionally has gotten himself into trouble with shoot-from-the-hip remarks. But he also has shown his mettle by refusing to set aside a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against a Pomona labor union for violent picketing, despite union efforts to pack his courtroom with protesters. Mason’s legal talents may eventually earn him a judicial appointment from the governor, but we see no reason to unseat Bach.

Office No. 96--ROBERTA RALPH. Ralph, who herself defeated a sitting judge in 1976 to reach the bench, is challenged by attorney Harvey A. Schneider, a former U.S. magistrate from 1976 to 1979. Schneider, who graduated fourth in a class of 120 from USC Law School and is rated “well qualified” by the Bar association, could well make a fine judge. But nothing in Ralph’s record warrants her removal. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of UCLA and later UCLA Law School, Ralph has heard civil, criminal, juvenile and family-law cases. She is rated “qualified” by the Bar association, and worked diligently for women’s rights and civil rights as a lawyer before becoming a judge.