McMartin Trial Judge Denies Bias, Rebuts Defense Accusations

In a detailed response to a defense motion to disqualify him from hearing the March 9 retrial of McMartin Pre-School molestation defendant Ray Buckey, the judge who presided at the record-setting first trial defended his actions on the bench and with the media.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William R. Pounders denied any bias and said he made public statements only to explain legal issues and to praise the jurors’ dedication.

In a six-page statement filed last week and made public Thursday, Pounders stated: “I am not prejudiced or biased against or in favor of any party to this proceeding or their counsel” and proceeded, point by point, to respond to defense accusations that he improperly handled the case and inappropriately made public statements after the bulk of the verdicts were released last month.

He had been appointed to hear the controversial case after lawyers rejected three other judges.

Ray Buckey and his mother, Peggy McMartin Buckey, were acquitted on 52 counts of molestation and conspiracy after a trial that lasted nearly three years.

But Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner announced he will retry Ray Buckey on at least five of the undecided counts with two different prosecutors, Deputy Dist. Attys. Joe Martinez and Pamela Ferrero.

Ray Buckey’s attorney, Daniel Davis, immediately filed papers seeking to prevent Pounders from presiding at the retrial.

In a 64-page declaration, Davis claimed that Pounders is “so lacking in appropriate judicial temperament and restraint that he should be removed as trial judge in this case.”

He said Pounders called him “an ass” during a bench conference, failed to compensate him for critical services (including $47,000 for an unauthorized “secret” office in which to store documents), and vowed to conclude the trial “even if it’s over your dead body”--a comment that Davis says he took as a personal threat.

Davis also claimed that Pounders excluded crucial evidence and witnesses, denied appointment of a memory expert and repeatedly referred in open court to “the crime,” the “child victims,” and “further offenses,” phrases that Davis says showed where Pounders stood.

He further criticized Pounders as being “nothing less than a publicity seeker, participating in virtually any and all national and local television and radio broadcasts relating to this case” while charges were still pending.

On one show, Pounders allegedly explained: “The standard is, it is better that 10 people go free than one innocent person is convicted. And if you accept that, you have to understand that guilty people will be found not guilty.”

However, Pounders strongly defended his public appearances after the trial as an effort to answer criticism leveled at the judicial system. He said that he wanted to provide information that was unknown or had been forgotten over the course of the six years the case took and that he felt compelled to support “the outstanding service of a jury under siege.

“Few had seen the suffering of the jurors as I had when a trial forecast at one to two years took two years and nine months. The public had to be reminded of the sacrifices of three special jurors who overcame the death of a spouse, major spinal surgery and the bankruptcy of an employer, to serve this community. Without these unusual heroics, a mistrial would have been declared. . . .”

Pounders said he was so “shocked” by the defense’s first monthly expense claim of $250,000 (expenses that eventually reached nearly $6 million) that he ordered an audit which found that Davis had “grossly exceeded” spending limits set by the supervising judge. He said that salaries paid for security guards provided Ray Buckey after his release on bail amounted to as much as $37,000 a month.

The judge said further that Davis’ claims of being cut off are spurious, because the defense used up 70% of the prosecution’s 14-month presentation with cross-examination of witnesses, and then took twice as long as it had estimated to put on its defense, despite limitations imposed by Pounders “because of the apparent reluctance of counsel to present a reasonable case.”

In an accompanying memorandum filed on Pounders’ behalf, County Counsel DeWitt W. Clinton and Assistant County Counsel Frederick R. Bennett argued that Davis’ statement of disqualification is legally insufficient, untimely, ignores a judge’s duty to take charge and control the pace and cost of lengthy and difficult litigation, and should be denied without a hearing.

“Judge Pounders has served long and well in this difficult case which has subjected all who have been connected with it to considerable controversy. The case has taken considerable courage as well as skill, and has thrust the judge unavoidably into the public eye. . . . He has a duty to complete the task,” Clinton and Bennett wrote.

Quoting from a 1985 appellate decision, they added that “judicial responsibility does not require shirking every time an advocate asserts the objective and fair judge appears to be biased.”

Attorneys for both sides have agreed on Superior Court Judge Michael R. Hoff to hear the disqualification issue. No date for a hearing, if any, has been set.

Hoff, 49, who was appointed to the bench only last July, is a former Los Angeles police captain, civil attorney and Municipal Court judge popular with both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Although the retrial is set to begin next month, it is likely to be delayed by this and other pretrial proceedings, such as an expected change of venue motion.