Judge Facing Inquiry Wins Bid to Close His Hearing

In a victory for Orange County Municipal Judge Calvin P. Schmidt, a Superior Court judge on Thursday declared that the state agency charged with investigating judicial misconduct does not have the power to air its inquiries in public.

Schmidt would have been the first person in California to be the subject of a public hearing by the Commission on Judicial Performance under an initiative passed by voters in November.

That initiative, Proposition 92, intended to open some judicial inquiries to the public. Under its terms, the panel announced plans to hold a public hearing in August into unspecified charges against Schmidt.

Schmidt, 59, a judge in Newport Beach who is the longest-serving member of the county bench, is alleged to have given friends preferential treatment in his court and to have traded leniency in exchange for sexual favors for others.

Fought to Close Hearing

Schmidt fought the move to open the hearing, in part because of what his attorney has described as irresponsible coverage of the inquiry by local media.

In a potentially precedent-setting decision drafted by Superior Court Commissioner Ronald L. Bauer, Acting Orange County Presiding Judge James L. Smith Jr. ruled Thursday that the Commission on Judicial Performance does not have the authority to open its hearings, because a separate state agency--the Judicial Council, which oversees administrative functions in the state courts--has decided that Proposition 92 did not require it to formulate new rules to implement the initiative.

Smith ordered that the Schmidt hearing should remain closed unless or until the Judicial Council adopts such rules.

‘A Victory for Law and Order’

“This is obviously a big win for us,” said Schmidt attorney H. Warren Siegel of Irvine. “But even more, it’s a victory for law and order. What the commission was doing was a violation of the Constitution. In the name of justice, they went out and tried to do whatever they damn well pleased.”

But state officials, calling Thursday’s decision a misreading of the voters’ intent in passing Proposition 92, said they will appeal the ruling in hope of keeping Schmidt’s Aug. 10 hearing open.

But in a surprising move, Schmidt’s lawyer also said that, with the commission now rebuffed in court, Schmidt may consider agreeing on his own to open the hearings--if he can be assured of a fair hearing in the media.

“Ninety percent of the stuff that’s been printed in the newspapers has been pure garbage,” Siegel said.

“We will take a look at that matter and see if we want to change our minds,” the attorney said.

Schmidt did not return several phone calls and Thursday was referring all questions on the ruling to his attorneys.

Told of Siegel’s speculation that Schmidt might agree to an open hearing, Deputy Atty. Gen. Louis Hanoian laughed and said: “It strikes me as humorous. It seems odd to me that they’d spend all this time and money to keep (the hearing) closed and then give it all up. . . . I think it’s just a line.”

Hanoian, who helped represent the state in the fight to keep the hearing open, said of Thursday’s ruling: “We think it’s wrong. That’s our position.

“Proposition 92 showed a clear feeling among the voters that these hearings should be made public, and it’s our belief that the initiative was self-executing. It’s specific enough to allow the commission to decide when to open these hearings, and there was no need for the (Judicial Council) to formulate rules.”

‘Not the Final Word’

Hanoian added, “This casts some doubt on whether or not we’re going to have public hearings, but in our view it’s certainly not the final word on the subject.”

Jack Frankel, director of the Commission on Judicial Performance, said that the Superior Court decision threatens to affect future hearings and that the commission plans to appeal.

Open or closed, the Aug. 10 hearing into allegations against Schmidt should go on as scheduled, Frankel said.

In keeping with a quarter-century of intense secrecy in its operations, the Commission on Judicial Performance has refused to discuss publicly the allegations against Schmidt.

But sources have told The Times that the allegations center on sex-for-favors deals involving both Schmidt and former Municipal Judge Brian R. Carter, 63, who also served in Newport Beach.

The panel’s inquiries into Carter’s conduct were cut short in February when he quit the bench.