Judge Rescinds Contempt Citation

A San Diego Superior Court judge who last week accused a defense lawyer of replacing his white legal assistant with a black one to gain sympathy from five black jurors withdrew her contempt citation Monday, but continued to question the lawyer’s credibility.

At a standing-room-only hearing packed with defense lawyers, Judge Melinda J. Lasater told attorney Mark A. Wolf that she could not say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had intentionally lied to her about why his white law clerk was absent, necessitating that his black paralegal fill in.

“On the other hand, to be very honest, I can’t say you were telling the truth,” Lasater said. “I think that you were manipulating, and I think that your tendency to put facts and information in a light that is best for your situation has gotten away from you.”

Last week, Lasater had accused Wolf of lying in order to obtain a “tactical advantage” during a recent child molestation trial by switching to a black assistant.

In a hearing Friday, Lasater noted for the record that the prosecutor in the case, Deputy Dist. Atty. Sharon Majors, and five of the jurors were black. Lasater accused Wolf of “outrageous misconduct” in using what she claimed were racial tactics. He denied the accusation.

But, on Monday, several defense lawyers who turned out to hear Lasater’s ruling said it was the judge, not the lawyer, who had acted inappropriately.

“It is unconscionable to imply that African-American jurors have the inability to decide the case based upon the facts, and that was precisely what she was saying,” said Daniel Weber, the former president of the California Assn. of Black Lawyers and of the Earl B. Gilliam Bar Assn., a local black lawyers’ group. “I view that statement as a statement by a person who has racist tendencies.”

Christopher Plourd, a lawyer who represented Wolf in the contempt hearing, agreed.

“It was an insult to the black jurors,” he said, noting that Lasater never allowed the black paralegal to accompany Wolf at the defense table. “I don’t know whether it’s an intentional bias or an unconscious one, but it’s there.”

During Monday’s hearing, Lasater, who three days earlier had made repeated references to Wolf’s alleged use of racial tactics, restricted testimony to the issue of whether Wolf lied.

When Plourd attempted to ask Wolf’s white law clerk whether her absence was related to the race of her black replacement, Lasater interrupted, disallowing the question, which she called “absurd.”

When Plourd retorted that Lasater herself had accused Wolf of lying in order to use race to gain favor with the black jurors, Lasater challenged him to find a reference to race in the transcript of the child-molestation trial.

“Find something that had any indication that it had to do with race,” she said sharply, pointing her finger at Plourd. “Read a line! Read a line! You cannot find a line, is that what you’re trying to tell me?”

Plourd and Wolf said they plan to report the judge’s comments to the California Judicial Council.

Majors, who prosecuted the molestation case against Wolf’s client, said she believes the judge’s doubts about Wolf’s credibility came after “a series of exaggerations beyond the point of exaggeration” that he put forth during the trial.

When Wolf told the judge that his law clerk was called away by a family emergency, contradicting an agreed-upon schedule that listed her as being on vacation during the same time, Majors said she understood why the judge thought Wolf was lying.

“I think he lied. He does that all the time--he twists things,” she said. “As to whether it’s tactics or not, I can’t read his mind. I’ll say this: All defense attorneys and attorneys do some things for tactics. I don’t necessarily take offense at that.”

Majors lost the case when Wolf’s client, a native of Guam, was acquitted.

Wolf said Monday that he believes Lasater, a former prosecutor, was attempting to aid the prosecution with her allegations of contempt.