Crisis in Criminal Caseload Forces Ban on Civil Trials

Faced with the possible dismissal of criminal cases because of a shortage of judges to try them, Presiding Superior Court Judge Michael Greer on Friday indefinitely postponed new civil trials and ordered most of his fellow judges to try only criminal cases.

Although temporary logjams of criminal cases have occasionally imposed brief delays on San Diego civil trials in the past, before Friday there had never been a court-wide halt on new civil proceedings, court officials said. If the backlog worsens, Greer warned Friday, family court, law and motion chambers also might be turned into criminal courtrooms.

The criminal case backlog in the 53-judge Superior Court has been building gradually since last fall, exacerbated by vacancies left by the recent retirements of five judges. In addition, 13 other new Superior Court judgeships approved by the state remain vacant pending appointments by Gov. George Deukmejian.

“I’ve been working on this problem since last October, and we’ve been holding it together,” Greer said. “But today, it fell apart.”

Civil trials that are under way in several courtrooms will be completed as soon as possible, Greer explained, and those courtrooms will then be shifted to criminal cases. Until the criminal caseload is reduced to a manageable size--and Greer said he does not know when that will be--no new civil cases will begin. In the meantime, Greer also has begun contacting recently retired judges to ask them to volunteer their services to help relieve the caseload backup.

“In a very short period of time there will be no civil trials in this courthouse,” Greer said. “We are not going to be trying any further civil cases until the criminal caseload is reduced or we receive additional judicial appointments.”

The ban on civil trials stems from the growing number of criminal cases that face certain dismissal unless the trials begin immediately. Under law, criminal cases must be in court within 60 days, unless the defendant waives that right.

As cases approach that deadline, court officials and prosecutors carefully monitor them on a so-called “zero date” list that indicates the final day by which the cases must be either tried or dismissed.

On Friday, the caseload crunch forced Greer to turn five “zero date” criminal cases over to judges who usually handle civil cases. Monday is a court holiday, but when the courthouse reopens Tuesday, Greer must find judges to try at least 17 “zero date” cases that involve murder, spousal rape, child molestation and assault on a police officer. Another six “zero date” cases must start their trials by Wednesday, Greer added.

Although prosecutors can refile charges in some of the cases facing dismissal, Greer vowed to do “anything possible to avoid dismissal of any criminal case. . . . It’s too important to the community. . . . I’m going to stop everything, and we’re going to try these cases. Period.”

Although aware that the criminal-case backlog had been increasing in recent months, most lawyers nevertheless were surprised by Greer’s ban on new civil trials.

“I’ve never seen this before,” said Paul Engstrand, who has practiced law in San Diego since 1948. Engstrand was in Greer’s courtroom Friday to represent the San Diego County Water Authority in a lawsuit that San Diego Gas & Electric was attempting to initiate to block the water agency’s planned feasibility study of a public takeover of SDG&E.;

But Greer interrupted SDG&E;’s attorneys during their opening arguments to advise both sides that he did not have a judge “available for this civil matter or any other civil matter.”

Other civil lawyers sympathized with Greer’s position, but expressed concern that, if the ban is a lengthy one, the county’s civil justice system also may reach the breaking point.

“The inability to get in the courtroom door tears at the very fabric, the credibility of the system,” civil lawyer Michael Orfield said. “At the same time we’re trying to speed things up, this says, ‘Whoa! Stop!’ ”

Under the 1986 Trial Court Delay Reduction Act, San Diego was one of nine California counties selected for a “fast-track” pilot program aimed at expediting civil cases, which, by law, must reach court within five years. The targets established by the 1986 measure specify that 90% of civil cases should be resolved within one year of when they are filed, with the rest being settled within two years.

“The whole system is predicated on the certainty of a trial date,” said Marilyn Huff, a local lawyer who serves on a judicial panel that oversees the fast-track program. “When, because of a situation like we’re in now, that certainty is removed, there’s a lot of confusion and uncertainty and frustration.”

Legislation authorizing funding for 13 of the 18 vacant San Diego judgeships was approved last year and took effect Jan. 1. Last month county officials agreed to participate in the program.

Although the governor has not yet filled any of those slots, Deukmejian spokesman Tom Beermann said Friday that the governor’s office is “aware of the situation” in San Diego County and is “working to fill those vacancies as quickly as possible.” Even if all of the vacancies were filled immediately, Greer said Friday, it would take him one month “to get things back in line.”

Several San Diego lawyers said there were “courthouse rumors” Friday that five Municipal Court judges may be elevated to the Superior Court within days to alleviate that bench’s manpower shortage. Beermann, however, said he “could not confirm” those reports.

Although the courtroom crisis that led to Friday’s dramatic developments is the most pressing concern facing local officials, several officeholders glumly noted that they also confront a potentially worse long-range dilemma--stemming, ironically enough, from a civil case.

In a case now pending in Riverside Superior Court, opponents of a half-cent sales tax for new jails and courtrooms that San Diego voters narrowly approved last spring are attempting to invalidate that election. The measure, projected to generate $1.6 billion over its 10-year life, violates Proposition 13 and other laws requiring a two-thirds vote for approval, the opponents charge.

Although professing confidence that they will prevail in court, county officials grimly acknowledge that, should they lose in court what they won at the polls, Friday’s courthouse disruptions will seem minor by comparison to the problems that would then arise.

“If you want to talk about trouble, that would be it,” Supervisor Susan Golding said. “If we can’t spend that money, we’ve just had it. I don’t know what we’d do then. At that point, I guess it would be time to declare a state of emergency, go to Sacramento and tie ourselves to the Legislature.”

Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub in Sacramento contributed to this report.