Prop. 115 to Make Its Courtroom Presence Felt : Justice: Judges and attorneys disagree on whether the reform act will speed up the system or result in more cases going to trial.

Judges and attorneys predict the newly passed Proposition 115 will bring dramatic changes to the Ventura County Courthouse, but they disagree on how those changes will shape criminal justice.

Proposition 115 is designed to streamline criminal trials. Supporters welcome the attempt to untangle the state’s complex procedures; however, critics say Proposition 115 may create more trials and cost taxpayers more money in the long run.

Among other things, the new law would:

* Allow grand juries to indict a broader range of criminal defendants. Ventura County’s grand jury now indicts only fraud and corruption cases, but its powers may be expanded to include murder, major drug offenses and crimes against women and children, said Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury. Preliminary hearings for such cases would be eliminated.

* Allow hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings. Police officers now may testify about what witnesses told them. Before, witnesses were required to testify in person.

* Give judges the duty of questioning potential jurors, which used to be done by attorneys.

* Require attorneys to guarantee that they will be ready to go to trial at the time and day scheduled.

Bradbury, a staunch supporter of the proposition, said he is eager to have the county’s grand jury indict a broader range of criminal suspects, thus eliminating what he considers time-consuming preliminary hearings.

But Superior Court Judge Lawrence Storch said replacing preliminary hearings with indictments could force more cases to go to trial.

Ventura County Public Defender Kenneth Clayman agrees. Preliminary hearings offer previews of the evidence to defendants, who then sometimes plead guilty when they realize their cases are too weak, he said.

Replacing the firsthand testimony of witnesses with the hearsay testimony of police officers may also persuade defendants to ask for trials, he said. Hearsay evidence, no matter how persuasive in a pretrial hearing, cannot be used against someone in a trial.

Storch said Thursday, “It’s really too early to assess the impact” of the law. But he predicted that if more defendants choose trials over guilty pleas, the already crowded courthouse will be hard-pressed to handle the extra caseload.

“If that takes place, it will slow us down,” said Storch, the chief judge for criminal trials. “We’re running on all cylinders now.”

Taking jury selection away from attorneys could cut trial time by 30%--just enough to make up for a possible 30% increase in court time caused by extra trials, Storch said.

Bradbury said, “There is absolutely no evidence” that indictments will force more cases to trial, but there may be a temporary increase. “You know, there’s always a shakedown period when you have a major piece of legislation.”

Bradbury said allowing judges to question jurors will save time and money. But he predicts much resistance to the idea from defense attorneys and prosecutors who are accustomed to shaping juries to their own needs.

“As a trial lawyer, I’ve always wanted to pick my own juries. I don’t want someone in a black muumuu that has been practicing half as long as I have picking juries,” Bradbury said. “But as an administrator I realize it can keep us from going bankrupt.”

Bradbury said his and Clayman’s staffs will draft a questionnaire to help them identify unwanted jurors that they still are allowed to dismiss without reason. Bradbury said he also is considering offering lists of suggested questions for judges to ask of jurors.

But Presiding Superior Court Judge Edwin M. Osborne said he will consider such questions on a case-by-case basis. “The judges I’ve talked to are looking forward to shortening the jury-selection process, which we’ve long viewed as taking too long,” he said.

Storch is among them. “In my court the lawyers will not participate because it’s an absolute waste of time and the process has been used historically to let lawyers pre-sell their cases to juries,” Storch said.

Clayman said the new rules requiring lawyers to stick to court dates may force the court to hire more court-appointed attorneys. Defense attorneys sometimes schedule several cases at one time, then ask the judge to reschedule cases that aren’t ready.

Clayman said public defenders in other counties, including San Diego County, have doubled their budget requests for new felony lawyers to handle this caseload, and to avoid the contempt-of-court orders they could face for failing to meet deadlines.

Earlier this year, Clayman said he put in a tentative request to the Board of Supervisors for an additional $700,000 to $800,000 a year for felony lawyers, but later withdrew it to wait and see what happens.

Some critics say Proposition 115 will give defense attorneys new grounds to challenge verdicts based on changes in criminal procedures. The challenges will take up more of the courts’ time and money, they contend.

“When you have poorly drafted laws, you have to get the appellate courts involved to determine what the electorate wanted,” Storch said.

Defense attorney Mark S. Borrell, president of the county Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Assn., said: “Pandora’s box is open now and what will come out of Pandora’s box is anyone’s guess. . . . Some of these provisions are not going to pass constitutional muster.”

But veteran prosecutor Peter D. Kossoris said once the constitutional challenges subside, the law will streamline the trial process, saving time and money.

“The resources of the criminal justice system are finite,” Kossoris said. “It’s a matter of using these resources as best you can to speed things up.”