Experts Doubt D.A. Can Keep Judge Off Cases : Law: Attorneys and judges say attempts to ‘blanket’ jurists seldom work. They also denounce Reiner’s action against Karlin as an unfair attempt to influence decisions.

Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner’s vow to block a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge from hearing criminal cases is being received with skepticism by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges statewide, most of whom say the tactic is seldom successful in driving a jurist from the bench.

The legal experts were nearly unanimous in denouncing Reiner’s plan as an unfair attempt to influence decisions from the bench. Experience shows, they said, that such efforts play as political statements, but in the end generally are abandoned as unworkable.

“I have never heard of a case that lasted into perpetuity when a D.A. says, ‘I’ll never take another case before that judge,’ ” said Michael Sweet, a former deputy district attorney who now serves as executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn.

Reiner’s pledge was aimed at Superior Court Judge Joyce A. Karlin, who earlier this month placed a Korean-born grocer on five years probation for the shooting death of a black teen-ager after a struggle over a small container of orange juice. The grocer was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and could have been sentenced to up to 16 years in prison.

Reiner called the sentence a “stunning miscarriage of justice” and said he would order his deputies to exercise an option allowed by state law to automatically remove Karlin whenever she is assigned to a criminal case.

The presiding judge of the Superior Court vowed to thwart Reiner’s plan. But if the district attorney succeeds, it could effectively end Karlin’s career on the criminal bench after only four months as a Superior Court judge. Although there are no statewide statistics, those interviewed said the legal tactic, officially known as “blanketing” or “papering” a judge, is rarely used against a judge except in individual cases.

Sweet said that in every case he is familiar with, the parties involved eventually managed to work out a truce and the judge resumed his or her normal duties.

In other instances, said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David A. Workman, the “blanketing” simply stops without any formal attempt to compromise.

Workman, a former deputy city attorney, speaks from personal experience. He was “blanketed” in 1985 after a series of disputes.

The rancor came to a head, said Workman, when a deputy district attorney assigned to his courtroom pointedly informed him that he was risking being targeted if he did not toughen the sentences he was handing out.

“I told her to go to hell and threw her out of my chambers,” the jurist said, adding that the threat was carried out.

The action, Workman said, resulted in his transfer to another division for a time. After a few months, he said, the boycott inexplicably ended. He has since returned to the downtown Criminal Courts Building and is once again hearing criminal cases.

“I have tried many many criminal cases since 1985,” he said. “I suspect that is what will happen in the Karlin case.”

Michael G. Land, a former prosecutor now working as a defense lawyer in Modesto, said the same scenario played out in Stanislaus County a few years ago after the district attorney there “blanketed” a judge.

“It did not last,” he said. “I think that there was a kind of understanding when the D.A. realized after a few months that this is pretty stupid. These things are usually knee-jerk and done in anger. In our court, if you paper a judge, you’ve limited a court’s ability to hear cases.”

Land said 90% of the Municipal Court cases are criminal matters, so removing even a single judge “creates a terrible backlog.”

Gene McDonald, a former presiding judge of San Mateo County Superior Court, agreed. “When it happens, there is a period of discomfort,” he said. “It’s been my experience that there is a meeting and peace is made.”

In Los Angeles County, that has not always been the case.

Reiner’s office has “papered” at least four judges in the last seven years. In at least one instance, the policy permanently altered a jurist’s career.

Superior Court Judge G. William Dunn, an experienced judge now working in the Long Beach court, was targeted 18 months ago because, he said, prosecutors were angry that he dismissed charges against two men who had been accused of attempted murder.

“After the evidence was presented, I told them I thought the charge was excessive,” Dunn said. “I told them to file a proper felony charge, but they would not do that.

“They have the power to amend the charge, not the judge, but they absolutely defied the court,” he said. “I dismissed the case and I didn’t want to do that.”

After the action against him was announced, Dunn said, he was assigned only probate cases, motions and matters involving disclosure of evidence. As it turned out, he said, he likes the work. He emphasized, however, that he opposes the policy.

District attorneys, he said, “should do their jobs without interference and they should let others do theirs jobs without interference.”