COUNTYWIDE : D.A. Plays Down Prop. 115 Ruling

Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said the state Supreme Court’s decision this week to void a provision of the California anti-crime initiative does not spoil all the sweeping reforms won last summer and will not change the daily operations of his office.

Although it was widely considered a defeat for state prosecutors, Capizzi said that Monday’s court ruling left intact other elements such as provisions for the broader uses of the grand jury system and for police testimony at preliminary hearings.

“These many reforms permit us to operate more efficiently,” Capizzi said. “I don’t think the ruling has any impact on what’s being done.”

Local opponents of Proposition 115 were pleased with the ruling but were not celebrating the state Supreme Court’s decision to throw out a provision that required state courts to follow more restrictive U.S. Supreme Court rulings in applying a dozen constitutional rights in criminal cases.

“It’s no great shakes for the defense,” Deputy Public Defender Kevin Phillips said, “but we’re happy that a decision went our way.”

The provision that was struck down would have required state courts to strictly follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings in applying the rights of equal protection, due process, protection against unreasonable searches, assistance of counsel, personal presence at trial, speedy trial, the attendance of witnesses, privacy, and protection against self-incrimination and cruel and unusual punishment.

The interpretation of these rights in state courts has often provided Californians with greater protections than under similar provisions in the federal Constitution.

“All the court did (Monday) was say, ‘Listen, you can’t delegate that to the federal system,’ ” Phillips said. “It’s a pretty limited decision.”

Capizzi said that while he would have liked for the provision to remain as a safeguard, the present makeup of the state’s high court makes the ruling more palatable, given the absence of the court’s more liberal leadership under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

“It (the provision) would have prevented the court from taking us off to La-La Land or Bird land,” Capizzi said. “With this court’s philosophy, they are more inclined to correspond with the interpretation set forth by the U.S. Constitution.”

Other elements of the initiative that remained untouched in Monday’s ruling were hailed by Capizzi as important in the day-to-day operations of his office. Most important, he said, were provisions that deny the right to preliminary hearings to defendants indicted by grand juries and the right of police officers to present hearsay testimony in preliminary hearings, saving victims from having to appear in proceedings other than at trial.

He said those elements and the provision that will allow judges to question prospective jurors will speed up the criminal justice system and provide more time for the presentation of evidence.