High Court Rejects Suit on Trial Delays

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an unusual lawsuit brought against more than 100 Los Angeles Superior Court judges charging them with improperly granting too many delays in criminal cases.

The suit, brought by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, contended that the delays violated state law and contributed substantially to overcrowding in the county’s 10 jails, where as many as one-third of the inmates may be awaiting trial at any time.

In a brief order signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, the court declined to hear an appeal from the ACLU of a state appellate court ruling last August refusing to order the judges to change their policy on granting continuances.

John Hagar, an attorney for the ACLU, said “serious consideration” will be given to raising the group’s claims again in federal court. He noted that the suit had drawn support not only from defense lawyers but from several law enforcement officials as well.

“We still believe that better control of continuances would be a major factor in reducing court congestion and would benefit inmates, witnesses and victims,” Hagar said. “The wide support of law enforcement confirms that belief.”

The case arose amid widespread concern over jail overcrowding throughout the state, particularly in large urban counties. Los Angeles, like some other counties, is under a court order limiting to 22,000 the number of inmates it can incarcerate at one time. Since May, 1988, more than 140,000 inmates have been released early to meet the population limits.

The ACLU, representing jailed inmates, first brought suit in federal District Court last November, naming as defendants 101 judges who handle criminal cases in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The suit charged that the judges were not following a 1985 state law that the ACLU said required judges to hold formal hearings on requests for continuances and, before approving such a delay, issue a formal finding that it is warranted by “good cause” and stating reasons for the action.

In April, U.S. District Judge William P. Gray refused the case, saying the issue should be taken first to the state courts. “The state has got to have an opportunity to solve its own problems,” he said.

The ACLU then went to a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, but the three-judge appellate panel declined to intervene in the trial court procedures, saying there was an “absence of facts” to support the ACLU’s contentions.

In their subsequent petition for review to the state high court, the ACLU attorneys argued that repeated and routine continuances needlessly extended the length of pretrial confinement, adding congestion in the court system and overcrowding in the jails.

The ACLU drew support not only from the California Public Defenders Assn. but also several county officials, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, who contended that repeated continuances granted by the judges had rendered the 1985 state law “legally meaningless.” Such delays, Block said, placed added strain not only on the jails but also on the county’s prisoner transportation system, by which 2,000 inmates must be taken to court daily.

Lawyers for the judges assailed the suit as “an ACLU-orchestrated political maneuver” and said the courts were being unfairly blamed for the failure of the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors to solve the problem of jail overcrowding.

The 1985 law leaves it up to the judges to decide whether to hold formal proceedings for continuances, but any attempt to force them to do so would improperly interfere with the judges’ inherent power to control their own calendars, attorneys for the judges said.