Eagleson Vigorously Denies Death Cases Are Overwhelming Court

In a rare public defense of the state Supreme Court, Justice David N. Eagleson has vigorously denied that the court is overwhelmed with death-penalty cases and is being forced to neglect important civil law issues.

Eagleson cited statistics showing a reduction in the court’s backlog and offered a detailed response to widespread assertions by commentators that the justices appeared preoccupied with capital cases and may be suffering from professional “burnout.”

“I respectfully submit that the only experts concerning the processes of the Supreme Court are the seven justices . . . ,” he said. “The backlog trend line is clearly down by any objective standard, a fact which should arouse approbation and applause, not doom and gloom.”

Eagleson’s remarks were made in a speech last week before members of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., the text of which was made available here Friday.

Says Justices Are Well

The justice noted that a “hale and hardy” Justice Stanley Mosk, 77, and Justice Allen E. Broussard, 60, are remaining on the bench despite being eligible for retirement. Justice John A. Arguelles, who retired in March at 61 after 25 years as a judge, did so for personal reasons, not burnout, Eagleson said. And as for himself, Eagleson said, he is working hard “but not any harder than I did as a private practitioner.”

“I discern no factual (basis) for any commentator to opine that the heavy caseload, particularly (capital) appeals, is causing judicial burnout,” he said. “To the contrary, commentators should concentrate on the industry and work ethic of this court in resolving the load that was inherited.”

In recent months, the justices have taken several steps to reduce the court backlog, dismissing dozens of cases they earlier had agreed to hear and adopting a wide range of internal rules to speed decisions.

According to court officials, there now are 328 cases pending before the justices, compared to 382 in February, 1987, when Malcolm M. Lucas was sworn in as chief justice to succeed Rose Elizabeth Bird, who with two other court members was defeated in the 1986 fall election.

Record for Death Rulings

With Lucas at the helm, the court has issued a record 77 capital rulings, upholding 53 death sentences and overturning 24. In Bird’s nine-year tenure, the court upheld four death verdicts and reversed 64.

In his speech, Eagleson noted that in September, 1987, shortly after the newly aligned court under Lucas began issuing capital rulings, there were 195 pending death cases, 70 of which were fully prepared by attorneys and thus ready for argument before the justices. Now, Eagleson pointed out, there are 171 pending capital cases, with 47 of them ready for argument.

Asked for comment, Santa Clara University law dean Gerald F. Uelmen said Friday that the justice’s remarks appeared “a little Polyannish.” Uelmen noted that despite fluctuations, the number of capital cases before the court is substantially the same as in early 1987.

Uelmen also said that there probably will be a sharp growth of habeas corpus appeals from defendants whose death sentences have been upheld by the court. “When you combine those appeals with new death cases coming in, I think the court is right back where it started,” he said.

The professor said he believes the only long-range solution would be the temporary expansion of the high court to 12 members, with five justices serving as a special panel to decide capital cases. He conceded that such a change, requiring a constitutional amendment, “realistically is not likely to happen.”

In his speech, Eagleson acknowledged that “some problem areas remain” in deciding capital cases: lawyers have not been appointed to represent defendants in 27 cases; it still takes an “inordinate” amount of time for lengthy trial records and transcripts to be reviewed, corrected and filed with the high court, and there is a “not unanticipated explosion” of time-consuming habeas corpus appeals being filed by defendants whose sentences have been upheld on direct appeal.

The justice took direct issue with one of his colleagues, Mosk, who said last fall that unless there was “drastic” action, the court’s heavy load of capital cases would force it to leave important civil issues unresolved for years.

“I believe a strong majority of the court disagrees with this single justice,” Eagleson said, not mentioning Mosk by name. “So far as the majority of the justices is concerned, there is no conscious effort to restrict the number of grants of review in non-death penalty matters in order to concentrate on death penalty cases.”

Eagleson reported that currently there are 28 non-capital criminal cases and 132 civil cases that have been granted review by the court. Sixty of those cases are so-called “grant and hold” cases, whose resolution will be determined by the court’s ruling in a related case.

Suggests Special Panel

The justice acknowledged that the high court sometimes leaves unresolved conflicts that arise among the state’s appeal courts. He suggested creation of a special panel of seven Court of Appeal justices, who would hear such disputes and issue decisions. Either side could appeal to the high court, but if the justices denied review, the special panel’s ruling would become binding throughout the state.

Eagleson observed that implementing such a process would require a change in the law, and perhaps a constitutional amendment, but said it would provide an “inexpensive and efficient” means of dealing with appellate court conflicts.