State Chief Justice Says He Backs O.C. Judges : Unusual Statement of Confidence Follows Report That Lucas Had Complained of Drug Leniency

The chief justice of the state Supreme Court, in the middle of a tug of war between local prosecutors and judges over the severity of drug sentences, said Tuesday that he has “the greatest confidence in the entire Orange County Superior Court” and does not want to meddle “in the trenches.”

The unusual statement from Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas came a day after he was quoted in a published report as complaining--in apparent reference to county judges--that “some trial judges may be exercising too much leniency” in sentencing drug offenders.

Report Sparked Concern

The report, in the Orange County Register, sparked rumors and concern in the County Courthouse in Santa Ana, as court administrators, judges and other personnel scrambled to learn the circumstances and source of the reported criticism by the state’s highest judicial officer.

But a spokeswoman for Lucas said Tuesday that the chief justice, after reading the story, “knew it wasn’t an accurate representation of what he had said.”

In fact, the full remark by Lucas, as written in a letter to a county prosecutor--and quoted only in part by the Register--was: “I sympathize with your concern that some judges may be exercising too much leniency in imposing sentencing in drug sale cases.”

Additionally, the Lucas letter, obtained by The Times, contained no specific references to Orange County courts, speaking instead of the difficulties statewide of handling drug cases in the courts.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that, despite the impression left by the Register’s article, the chief justice’s remarks should not have been construed as a commentary on the performance of local judges.

Register assistant managing editor John Hollon said: “In retrospect, we would like to have made part of (the reference to the Lucas letter) a little clearer . . . but we stand by the quote and the story.”

Lucas’ letter to Deputy Dist. Atty. Carl W. Armbrust, who heads the county’s drug enforcement unit, was in response to Armbrust’s correspondence in May to state Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego). Stirling heads a committee looking at toughening sentences for drug offenders.

Local prosecutors have long maintained that, despite a public battle against drugs, local judges have consistently used loopholes in the sentencing laws to reduce sentences for drug offenders in exchange for guilty pleas.

But judges respond that, like their counterparts elsewhere around the state, they evaluate each case on its merits in levying penalties. They also say a tremendous logjam would result if cases now resolved through pleas went to trial.

Armbrust complained in his letter to Stirling about an “abuse of discretion” by local jurists. He pointed to 29 of 30 major Orange County drug arrests, in which he said the convicted offenders received less than the minimum penalty required by the Legislature.

Stirling said he forwarded Armbrust’s concerns to Lucas “as a matter of courtesy” and asked the chief justice to respond directly to the Orange County prosecutor.

After the controversy arose this week over Lucas’ reported comments, Armbrust initially denied to a reporter any knowledge of the Lucas response. But he later acknowledged his role in the incident, saying he had been shocked that Stirling forwarded his complaints to Lucas.

“I was just trying to do my job, and that’s what got me into trouble,” Armbrust said.

Predicting increased tensions between county prosecutors and judges over the incident, he said: “We’re going to have a war going on here, and that’s what I didn’t want to start. I just wanted to fight the drug war.”

Meanwhile, a statement by Lucas issued by his office said that, while he sympathizes with the “legitimate prosecutorial aims” of those seeking stiffer drug sentences, he cannot appropriately judge the work of those “ ‘in the trenches’ of the drug war.”

He added: “I have the greatest confidence in the entire Orange County Superior Court and in the exercise of the individual judge’s discretion.”