13 for Municipal Court

Thirteen Municipal Court judgeships in Los Angeles County are contested in the June 7 primary. Municipal Court judges conduct felony preliminary hearings and hear traffic cases, misdemeanors and civil cases involving less than $25,000.

Two Municipal Court races are in legal limbo. Because the retirement of the two judges who held these seats was announced after the filing deadline, the elections for Los Angeles Offices 4 and 6 may have to be repeated in November. Although the issue is before the Court of Appeal, we offer our endorsements in those races in case the court decides that next Tuesday’s results should be counted.

As a matter of principle, we believe that sitting judges should be retained in office unless there is grave cause to reject them. For the Municipal Courts, we prefer:

Beverly Hills Office No. 1--JUDITH O. STEIN. Appointed in 1986 by Gov. George Deukmejian, Stein serves now as presiding judge in Beverly Hills. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of USC, she earned her law degree there, served as a deputy Los Angeles city attorney and worked for five years as an arbitrator for Los Angeles Superior Court. Her challenger, attorney Brian Braff, was rated “well qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Judicial Evaluation Committee; Stein got a “qualified.” Braff may someday make a fine judge, but Stein should be retained because of her bench experience.

Catalina Justice Court--JEFFREY LAKE. Sixteen candidates filed for this one-day-a-week judgeship. We think that the people of Catalina would be best served by the only island resident among the candidates, attorney Jeffrey Lake, a UCLA Law School graduate who was a part-time municipal judge in Oregon where he practiced law for 16 years before taking over his father’s golf course on Catalina. Should voters prefer a judge from “overtown,” they would be in good hands with Peter Mirich Jr., a highly capable attorney from San Pedro who serves now as a Superior Court referee.

Culver Municipal Office No. 1--BERT GLENNON Jr. An outstanding judge rated “well qualified” by the Bar association, Glennon has worked hard to rehabilitate drunk drivers who appear before him and to computerize court records to speed up proceedings. The challenge to him is groundless.

Glendale Office No. 1--BARBARA LEE BURKE. A deputy public defender before she took the bench, Burke is praised by her colleagues on the bench and many Glendale attorneys for her legal expertise, her diligence and her fairness. She has spent 10 years on the Glendale bench, first as a commissioner and since 1981 as a judge, and deserves to be retained.

Los Angeles Office No. 4--JUELANN CATHEY. A Municipal Court commissioner for three years, Cathey has handled many of the kinds of cases that she would face as a judge. Rated “well qualified” by the Bar, she would bring to the bench valuable experience as a former public defender and a member of California’s Youthful Offenders Parole Board. This is one of the races that may be postponed until November.

Office No. 6--JOHN GUNN. This election, the other that may not count, offers a choice between two people rated “well qualified” by the Bar association. We prefer John Gunn, a Municipal Court commissioner for 20 years, who handles a high-volume courtroom with intelligence and deserves to be a judge in name as well as duties.

Office No. 8--MARION J. JOHNSON. Three of the four candidates for this open seat are excellent. Johnson, a 20-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department who has served as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, is the strongest. Stephen A. Leventhal, a Municipal Court commissioner for 11 years, has presided over high-volume courts with distinction and thoughtfulness, though his devotion to his duties has lagged lately. Andrew W. Diamond, a deputy district attorney, is widely admired for his courtroom skills, but he is not quite as seasoned as his rivals.

Office No. 22--BARBARA A. MEIERS. Meiers came to the Municipal Court bench in 1981 after prosecuting major felony cases involving narcotics, counterfeiting and white-collar crime as an assistant U.S. attorney. Although criticized for being overly deliberate and sometimes trying attorneys’ cases for them, Meiers appears to have found a niche since moving to the downtown courts from West Los Angeles. She has a reputation as a hard worker who is fair but firm; she deserves retention.

Office No. 28--MICHAEL NASH. The Los Angeles County Bar’s Judicial Evaluation Committee found Nash “not qualified” to continue on the bench because of his temperament; we disagree. Since his appointment three years ago, Nash has run a no-nonsense courtroom and imposed tough sentences. We might find fault with his tendency to jail people for minor offenses and to arrest defendants arriving even five minutes late for court, but he has helped reduce prostitution and other street crimes that once blighted Hollywood. Public defenders angry about the strict rules of the courtroom have accused Nash, a former deputy attorney general who prosecuted the Hillside Strangler case, of bias toward women, non-whites and homosexuals. Their charges have not been substantiated.

Malibu--LARRY MIRA. In a year on the bench, Mira has ruffled some feathers by reorganizing the court’s work, which is split between courthouses in Malibu and Calabasas, and dismissing a popular commissioner. Attorneys complain, with some justification, that it takes too long to try even simple cases because the Calabasas courtroom is underutilized. We believe that the reorganization ought to be reconsidered but that Mira, rated “well qualified” by the Bar, has shown the intelligence and temperament to continue on the bench.

Santa Anita--S. CLARK MOORE. Although unfamiliar with this judicial district when he was appointed to the bench in late 1984, Moore has established roots in the community and developed a reputation for running an efficient court. He dealt quickly but fairly with a court administrator who was discovered fixing traffic tickets; the official resigned. Moore worked for 27 years in the California attorney general’s office, supervised the criminal division and represented the state before the U.S. Supreme Court. He should be retained.

Southeast Office No. 2--CARLOS DE LA FUENTE. De la Fuente, a former Whittier Municipal Court commissioner, is challenging Judge Russell Schooling, who has been rated “not qualified” by the Bar association for reasons of bias and lack of judicial temperament. It was Schooling’s court that ordered all its clerks to speak only English while at work--a decision overturned with a stinging rebuke from a federal judge. In contrast, De la Fuente was rated “well qualified” by the Bar association and has demonstrated far better judicial temperament.

Whittier Office No. 2--LARRY KNUPP. The Whittier court, which consists of four judges and two commissioners, rotates its assignments so that each bench officer handles a variety of cases. Knupp, a graduate of Boalt Law School at UC Berkeley, has been a commissioner in Whittier since 1975 and is held in high regard there. He does the work of a judge now and deserves election.