Closed-Door Talks Resume in Superior Court

Over strenuous objections from county prosecutors, Superior Court Judge Myron S. Brown on Thursday ordered both prosecutors and defense attorneys into his chambers for private but on-the-record discussions of some pending felony cases.

It was the first time in 2 years that prosecutors have participated in such closed-door negotiations on guilty pleas in criminal cases.

“We don’t like it, but we don’t have any intention of violating a court order by not participating,” Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said.

However, Capizzi said that his office plans “with due speed” to challenge Brown’s orders in appellate court and, if necessary, to take the matter to the state Supreme Court.

Two years ago, Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks announced that he would no longer allow his attorneys to talk about plea negotiations in judges’ chambers in off-the-record discussions. Because such talks cannot take place without prosecutors present, there were no more closed-door sessions, which angered defense attorneys.

Defense lawyers contended that they could not discuss their clients’ cases candidly in open court because everyone, including other jail inmates, would be able to hear them.

Appeal Ruling

The 4th District Court of Appeal last week ruled that the district attorney had no right to coerce Judge Brown into going along with its policy of open courtroom hearings. The appellate court ordered that the judge come up with his own plan, free of pressure from either the prosecutors or defense attorneys. Because he is the calendar judge for Superior Court, Brown’s courtroom is where most cases are resolved before going to trial.

Since Monday morning, when he received the appellate court order, Brown has met with other judges, prosecutors, and members of the public defender’s office in attempt to formulate a plan that will be satisfactory to all sides.

Thursday morning, after further meetings with the district attorney and public defender’s office, he put a plan into effect.

Based on Brown’s rulings Thursday, here are what appear to be some of its basics:

- The more serious felony cases--called Proposition 8 cases because plea bargains in these were restricted when voters passed the state’s crime initiative--will continue to be discussed in open court. Proposition 8 cases include murders, rapes, the more serious robberies, and drug conspiracies.

‘Sweater Conferences’

These open-court sessions have become known as “sweater conferences” because as they begin, Brown will throw off his judicial robes and talk about the cases with the lawyers in the well in front of the judge’s bench. The discussions are on the record, and news reporters and members of the public may sit in if they so request. This arrangement was Brown’s compromise when Hicks announced two years ago that he would no longer allow his lawyers to discuss cases behind closed doors.

- In all other cases, Brown ordered the lawyers into his chambers. But these new in-chambers sessions were not like the old closed-door meetings. In those sessions, there was no courtroom reporter present to take down what was said for the trial record and the public was not allowed to participate.

On Thursday, Brown ordered everything discussed in chambers on the record--with a court reporter present. He also permitted the public to sit in on the sessions. No one requested to, however, except for two newspaper reporters.

“It’s obvious that he is trying to satisfy the wishes of both sides, and we see this as a big step in the right direction,” Deputy Public Defender Thomas Havlena said.

Havlena said defense lawyers still oppose the “sweater conferences” and prefer closed-door sessions “off the record.” But generally, he said, his office is pleased with what Brown did Thursday.

Change Disliked

“This is just the first day; we’ll have to see how it goes,” Havlena said.

Capizzi, however, was upset with the changes.

“Why should the public have to go through hoops like this to hear the public’s business?” Capizzi asked. “I am baffled by Judge Brown’s decision.”

It was a long day in Brown’s courtroom. It began an hour before most judge’s days, and he was still meeting with lawyers in chambers as late as 6:30 p.m.

Brown was too busy with cases to discuss his new policy with news reporters, but said he would elaborate on the policy today.

Writ Filed

It was the public defenders who challenged Hicks’ policy of open courtroom discussions by filing a writ with the appellate court. In a letter to the appellate justices, Brown said he had created the “sweater conferences” because he did not believe he could negotiate cases in chambers without the participation of the district attorney’s office, and Hicks and Capizzi would not let their people do it.

Brown added in his letter to the justices that he would prefer that the courts create their own policy.

Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr., who wrote the appellate court opinion, agreed that the courts should set the policy. Crosby also agreed with defense attorneys that it is sometimes necessary to meet in chambers.

“The district attorney bases his policy on a slogan: ‘The public’s business must be conducted in public.’ This notion, while attractive, is obvious hokum . . . in the context of the criminal justice system, where secrecy is often the rule and glasnost the exception,” Crosby wrote in his ruling.