Police-Jurists Feud Called Key to Inquiry : Bad Feelings Fueled Probe, Sources Say

It was the biggest drug bust in the history of Newport Beach.

On Jan. 21, 1985, police spotted the Sea Dolphin, a 45-foot sailboat, docked in violation of a 20-minute mooring limit at the city’s M Street dock. They went aboard to issue a citation, and crew members could not produce registration papers.

When the police thought they smelled marijuana, the boat was searched and nearly 6 tons of the stuff were confiscated.

Six months later, Harbor Municipal Judge Russell A. Bostrom threw the case out of court, saying the officers had searched the boat illegally.

The mooring sign was so weather-beaten, he said, that it was almost impossible to read and that the operators of the boat therefore could not have been guilty of violating the posted restriction. That, Bostrom said, meant police could not have legally boarded the boat in the first place.

Bostrom’s ruling in the Sea Dolphin case--which has been upheld by a state appellate court-- was only one of several incidents that have contributed over the years to strained relations between the Newport Beach Police Department and some of the judges at Harbor Court. But it may have been a watershed of sorts in the midst of a long history of antagonism.

This week, in the midst of an investigation by the state Commission on Judicial Performance, Harbor Municipal Judge Brian R. Carter announced that he will resign from the bench, effective next month. Carter was only one of at least five Harbor Court judges who have been under investigation by the commission, and many observers say the nature and course of that inquiry cannot be fully understood without taking into account relations between the police and the judges.

Among the allegations against Harbor Court judges, the most serious being investigated by the commission were those against Carter, 63, and Calvin P. Schmidt, 59. The commission has refused to publicly disclose those allegations, but sources say the two men were accused of giving preferential treatment to friends and courtroom favors to prostitutes in exchange for sex.

Sources say the commission’s investigation of Bostrom and Judge Selim S. Franklin focuses on allegations that they tried to pressure Newport Beach city officials into ending a police inquiry into Carter and Schmidt. And the commission reportedly is looking into allegations that Judge Susanne S. Shaw conducted herself on the bench in a manner unbecoming a judge.

It is a tortuous and complicated set of circumstances, with all the conflicts and subplots of a television soap opera.

But underlying it all, according to judges, lawyers and some law enforcement officials interviewed by The Times, is the long-simmering feud between Harbor Court judges and Newport Beach police. It is a feud, they say, that fueled an extended investigation of Harbor Court judges by police and the district attorney’s office that otherwise might have been short-lived.

“There was a lot of talk how policemen throughout the county felt about the judges in Harbor,” said one law enforcement source. “I hate to use the phrase, but there was bad blood between the police, especially Newport Beach, and the judges--especially Bostrom. For a while, I think both sides thought they were in a fight to the death.”

Harbor Court serves Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa. It was first created as a Justice Court in 1949, when the post-war population boom in south Orange County was just beginning. Because of the affluent area over which it has jurisdiction, it came to be known among some lawyers as the Country Club Court.

Schmidt, the county’s longest-sitting judge, was appointed to the Harbor Court bench in 1966 by then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Sr. It was the same year that Brown was defeated for a third term by a political newcomer, actor Ronald Reagan.

Those in the law enforcement community interviewed by The Times said they would talk about the hostility underlying the investigation of Harbor Court judges only on the condition that they not be identified. They said they had been warned by superiors not to talk to reporters because the judicial commission’s investigation of Harbor Court judges was still active.

But criminal defense lawyer William Dougherty was willing to speak on the record. He summed up the relationship between certain Harbor Court judges and the Newport Beach police this way: “It’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I’m not sure who’s the bull or who’s waving the flag, but there have been a series of events that have left some hard feelings.”

Said former Newport Beach Police Chief Charles R. Gross: “We had a continuing, ongoing exchange of information between the department and Harbor Court--until Bostrom arrived. Bostrom took several actions against the department with an enthusiasm.”

One of the earlier incidents that resulted in hard feelings between Harbor Court judges and Newport Beach police--along with other law-enforcement agencies--occurred in 1984.

In October of that year, Bostrom--who was appointed to the bench in 1983 by Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.--accused both the Newport Beach police and the district attorney’s office of covering up a 1977 drunk-driving case against an Orange County sheriff’s deputy. He made the allegations in a deposition taken in an unrelated civil rights lawsuit against Sheriff Brad Gates.

Bostrom said that Newport Beach police found an off-duty deputy intoxicated at the scene of an accident but refused to arrest him after learning that he worked for the sheriff. High-level sheriff’s officials then arranged to have the deputy spirited away, Bostrom charged, and the district attorney’s office refused to prosecute.

Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have denied any cover-up. They claim that there was insufficient evidence at the time to charge the driver.

Only a few months before Bostrom’s deposition--in April, 1984--Fullerton police had arrested a woman named Della Christine Johnson on prostitution charges, and in her eagerness to avoid going to jail she told them a startling story involving two Harbor Court judges.

Schmidt, she said, had helped her get her driver’s license reinstated after a friend who was not a lawyer had interceded with Schmidt on her behalf. In return, Johnson said, she had promised to have sex with Schmidt.

But, she went on to explain, Judge Carter had collected the debt for Schmidt--and had paid her for sex on several other occasions, including a weekend boat trip to Catalina Island.

Johnson agreed to call Carter to discuss an upcoming rendezvous and to allow Fullerton police to tape the call. A transcript of that phone conversation was later used by police to get a warrant to search Johnson’s apartment; the transcript then was sealed in court records until last fall.

A copy of that transcript eventually became a part of the judicial commission’s investigative files, according to sources.

The day after her conversation with Carter was recorded, Johnson stopped cooperating with the Fullerton police, but they eventually decided not to pursue the case against her anyway. At that point, a file of information was passed on to Newport Beach police.

That file was the genesis of a criminal investigation of Carter and Schmidt that the Newport Beach police began in early 1985.

On Aug. 14, 1986, partly as a way to gather information for that investigation, a phony bachelor party was held at the Irvine Marriott Hotel, and Pamela G. Weston, known in X-rated movies as Cara Lott, was arrested on suspicion of prostitution.

Weston, 27, of Huntington Beach had been hired to dance at the party, which was attended by police officers posing as friends of a bridegroom. She was charged with performing an oral sex act with one of the officers.

Law-enforcement sources now say that Newport Beach police wanted to arrest Weston in order to pressure her into telling them what she knew about Harbor Court and its judges, especially Schmidt. Police had learned that Schmidt had reduced a prostitution sentence against Weston to save her from doing jail time.

When Weston was in custody after her arrest at the Marriott, Newport Beach police asked for her cooperation in an investigation of Harbor Court judges, according to Greg Jones, Weston’s attorney. Weston would not comment on this matter.

“I think they set her up as a means to get (her) to turn on the judges,” Jones said.

But Weston refused to cooperate, Jones said. Instead, she fought the prostitution charge and was convicted Oct. 2, 1987. North Orange County Municipal Judge Margaret E. Anderson was brought to Harbor Court to handle the case after the district attorney’s office objected to any Harbor Court judge taking it.

Weston was sentenced to serve 45 days in Orange County Jail, but the sentence was stayed pending an appeal and was reinstated Jan. 6 after her appeals ran out. Weston is to begin serving the 45 days Jan. 31 at the Orange County Jail.

By 1987, although nothing had yet appeared in the news media, Harbor Court had become so caught up in the criminal investigation being conducted by Newport Beach police and the district attorney’s office that two unusual meetings were called. It was those meetings, between judges and Newport Beach police and city officials, that were to draw Judge Bostrom into the heart of the controversy surrounding Carter and Schmidt, sources say.

Also involved in the meetings were Judges Franklin and Christopher W. Strople--both of whom have said they believe that there was nothing illegal or ethically wrong with discussing the situation with police and city officials.

But the meetings angered police because they felt that they were being pressured by the judges to end their investigation, a source said.

“What the police in Newport Beach resented was the fact that you had a judge interfering with the day-to-day operations of the Police Department,” one law enforcement official said.

The first of the two meetings occurred in May, 1987, when Bostrom organized a session with Police Chief Arb Campbell. Campbell, who had been chief only about a year, was called to Harbor Court to meet with the judges and discuss the investigation of Carter and Schmidt, a source said.

“Campbell got mad because he felt they were trying to intimidate him,” the source said. “I think they thought because he was new in the job, he would go along with what they said. He could not bring himself to accept that these judges wanted to run the Police Department. Worse, he thought they were in fact trying to stop a criminal investigation.”

A Police Department spokesman said that Campbell would have no comment about anything related to the investigation of the judges.

When the judges failed to persuade Campbell to call off his department’s inquiry, Bostrom reportedly arranged meetings between judges and Newport Beach Mayor John C. Cox Jr., City Manager Robert L. Wynn and City Councilwoman Evelyn R. Hart.

Sources told The Times that Cox, Wynn and Hart have been interviewed about that meeting by commission investigators. Wynn, however, said he had not been contacted by the commission. Cox did not return telephone calls. Hart said she was interviewed by someone investigating the case, but she added that she does not remember what agency that person was with.

At the time of the meeting, the judges were critical of Newport Beach Police Sgt. Richard Long, who was heading the police investigation of Carter. According to sources, they said they thought that Long was trying to “set up” Carter through taped telephone conversations after the arrest of Jeffrey John Harbison, 36, a former client and friend of Carter, on drug charges. Harbison called Carter at home from the Newport Beach city jail in an attempt to get the judge to free him, and the call was taped.

Bostrom was upset that “the police were using Harbison to get to a judge,” one judicial source said.

Long refused to discuss the matter with The Times.

Bostrom, in an interview, declined any comment on this or any other aspect of his relationship with the Newport Beach police.

Courthouse sources say the animosity between Carter and Newport Beach police has at times taken some strange forms.

In fact, they say, it sometimes appears to have spilled over into the courtroom, where Carter frequently has taken officers to task when he believes that they have not done their job. And, sources familiar with Harbor Court say, Carter has been known to listen from another room or the back of the courtroom when certain police officers testify in another judge’s court.

An allegation that Carter fixed traffic tickets in 1985 for the girlfriend of a friend and former client of his is said to have especially upset some Newport Beach police officers. That allegation led to a shouting match between Judges Shaw and Carter, sources said, after Shaw discovered that Carter had sent his bailiff over to retrieve three traffic tickets from her courtroom and bring them to his courtroom.

Court records show that Carter dismissed all but one of the nine counts alleged on those three tickets and fined the woman $35 on one citation of driving at an unsafe speed. Shaw complained to Newport Beach police and the district attorney’s office.

“Police kept hearing about the court dumping traffic tickets,” one source said. “That’s all right if it is judicial discretion--policemen will keep doing their job. But they become upset if they hear that one of their tickets was dumped because of impropriety. Then they begin to question all the court’s decisions.”

Carter’s relations with police also may have affected the early investigation of him.

“The cops didn’t like Carter, so they tried to uncover anything they could,” one law enforcement source said.

Since her meeting with investigators, Shaw, a former deputy district attorney, has been ostracized by other Harbor Court judges, court sources say. Shaw refused to comment recently on the commission’s investigations or her status at Harbor Court.

Despite the long on-again, off-again criminal investigation that began in 1985, no charges resulted.

Eventually, sources say, a representative of the judicial commission--having heard about the allegations against Carter and Schmidt--called the district attorney’s office and asked if prosecutors were investigating them. The district attorney’s office confirmed that an investigation was in progress, but at that point it was not clear what the upshot might be.

Once prosecutors decided that they did not have a case strong enough to win a criminal conviction, sources said, they agreed to turn their files over to the judicial commission.

A spokesman announced Tuesday that commission proceedings against Carter will be dropped as soon as he actually leaves the bench, on the condition that he not seek judicial office again or accept any judicial appointment or assignment.

The commission, made up of five judges, two lawyers and two public members, has not set a date for the hearing on allegations against Schmidt. Nor has it announced whether the proceeding will be open or closed to the public.

The hearing is held before three judges appointed as special masters by the Supreme Court, according to a written statement by the commission. Afterward, the commission has the authority to recommend that a judge be censured or removed by the high court, or it may impose private discipline or dismiss the charges.

Amid all the turmoil, Harbor Municipal Court continues to operate on the surface as though nothing had happened. None of the eight Municipal judges there has any unusual pattern of absences, and few people in the two-story courthouse talk about the controversy, except in quiet tones among themselves.

Traffic citations and misdemeanor cases are being processed as they always have been at Harbor Court, where about 125,000 such cases are handled every year.

“You walk into the court this morning and you walk in a year ago, and it’s the same,” said Laguna Hills attorney Lew Geiser.

Yet beneath the surface, the monthslong inquiry by the judicial commission has taken its toll.

Court clerks say they are having to spend more time searching out records and pulling files for teams of investigators and news reporters. Some judges say they are increasingly distracted. And throughout the courthouse, judges and court administrators complain bitterly about being tried in the press.

At least one judge predicts privately that the court could suffer long-term damage from all the negative attention.

“One of the casualties could be public confidence, and that would be a shame,” said the judge, who did not want to be identified by name.

Another casualty could be the political career of Schmidt. A deputy public defender, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said controversy certainly will leave Schmidt vulnerable to political challenges should he seek reelection in 1990.

Schmidt has not indicated whether he will seek another 6-year term.

“I suspect that there are attorneys out there who want to be a judge and who may run against (him),” the lawyer said. “No one’s going to back (Schmidt), unless of course (he is) exonerated. But even then, just the innuendoes are damaging.”

Schmidt said recently, referring to news accounts of the investigation against him: “I have seen inaccuracies. I have seen innuendoes. . . . Let’s get it out in the open. Let’s lay it to rest. Let’s get it over with.”

On Tuesday, Schmidt declined any comment.

The commission inquiry also has tainted other members of the court, some judges say, because the commission’s secretive proceedings have to some extent cast a wide shadow of suspicion and doubt over the entire court.

“There’s been so much misinformation (published) that we can’t believe it,” Franklin said. “People try to make all kinds of insidious insinuations.”

Strople said that he, for one, was erroneously linked to the investigation in a recent newspaper story after he reportedly was questioned by commission investigators. Strople said he has not been questioned and has not been informed that the inquiry has anything to do with him.

Despite all the controversy in Harbor Court, Strople said, he conducts his courtroom in the same way that he has since being appointed to the bench 6 years ago.

“With my own situation, I have not made any changes,” Strople said, adding that he is not worried about outside reviews of the court. “There are always people looking over your shoulder,” he added.

Carter, asked in an interview before announcing his retirement, how he and other judges were holding up under the strain of scrutiny, replied: “There has been some distraction, of course. But every judge here continues to do his job. We continue to be a good, effective court. A judge’s job is tough to start with. (But) the worst thing is seeing your name in the newspapers everyday.”

State judicial officials say they will drop the Carter hearing if he leaves the bench for good. Part I, Page 1.