District Attorney Fails to Make a Case for ‘Public’ Conferences

In his commentary (“Disposition Hearing Is the Public’s Business,” Jan. 28), the Orange County district attorney tried to make a case for “public” disposition conferences in criminal cases.

The article is misleading, and the logic seriously flawed. First of all, what he describes as “hearings” are not hearings at all. There are no hearings taking place in the judge’s chambers in the Criminal Department. What the law does require is that whenever a plea is entered, or a sentencing occurs, this must be done in public, in open court, on the record. These are always done in open court, on the record, in Orange County courts.

The law requires that for crimes where there is a “victim,” that victim must have an opportunity to address the court before the case is finalized, whether settled by way of a guilty plea or not. In Orange County courts, no plea is ever taken or sentence imposed unless the victim has first been afforded the opportunity to be fully heard. Some victims avail themselves of the opportunity, and some do not.

The district attorney’s article fails to acknowledge that the presiding judge in the Criminal Department, and all Orange County judges, fully comply with the law when cases are resolved without trial. The press and public have full access to plea hearings, they have full access to sentencing hearings and they have full access to court records that reflect any written plea agreements. Any hint that something sinister might be occurring in conferences in a judge’s chambers is totally unwarranted.

When the district attorney wants a search warrant, he seeks it in private in the judge’s chambers. When the district attorney seeks an indictment of a person, he presents evidence before the grand jury in private. In deciding whether to file charges against a person suspected of a crime and what those charges should be, the district attorney confers with his staff and reaches the decision in private. The “public’s business” is being done in private all the time, and there is nothing to suggest that the public is not being well served.

The district attorney’s article also fails to acknowledge that the “public” case settlement discussions he seeks do not occur in any other court, anywhere, just as no other district attorney seeks warrants in public, seeks indictments in public or makes charging decisions in public. There is no more reason to force these conferences into public than to force the district attorney to perform his other duties in a public forum.

The district attorney fails to acknowledge that the presiding judge in Department 5 does not engage in “plea bargaining.” Plea bargaining does occur, but it is between defense counsel and deputy district attorneys, and it is legal and a legitimate, cost-effective way to see justice done.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, well known for being tough on crime, has said: “The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called ‘plea bargaining,’ is an essential component of the administration of justice, (and) it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to full-scale trial, the states . . . would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities.”

The taxpayers of this county should not be forced to pay millions of additional dollars for lengthy trials in cases where both sides can agree upon a just disposition of the case, and the judge is willing to accept the result. Sometimes the judge is not willing, and that is a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

I often disagree with decisions of judges in this county, but to suggest that any judge stands for something other than a free and open society, as the district attorney has, is shameful demagoguery.

RONALD Y. BUTLER, Orange County public defender