Justice Baxter Digs In but Critics Still Harbor Doubts : Judiciary: Since joining the Supreme Court, he has written important decisions that won praise from some legal scholars. Others say he has merely fallen in step with the conservative majority.

When Justice Marvin R. Baxter joined the state Supreme Court in January, 1991, there was little public criticism but considerable private concern over his relative lack of judicial experience.

Baxter had served only two years as an appellate justice, and his nomination by Gov. George Deukmejian was seen in some quarters as a political reward for his previous service as the governor’s appointments secretary.

But since joining the court, the quiet-spoken, reflective Baxter has quickly assumed his share of the load, writing several of the court’s most important decisions and winning praise from some legal scholars for the quality of his opinions.

Among others, Baxter has written majority opinions strengthening students’ rights to an equal education, expanding the parental rights of unwed fathers, widening anti-bias protections for employees of small firms and giving courts new authority to facilitate settlements between opposing parties.

“Frequently, it takes those without extensive judicial experience a while to get up to speed, but he’s hit the ground running,” said Santa Clara University law dean Gerald F. Uelmen. “He puts together tightly reasoned opinions. I don’t always find myself in agreement with the bottom line, but I really think he’s an intellectual force to be reckoned with.”

Bernard E. Witkin, a legal author and longtime authority on the court, also gives Baxter high marks. “He does a fine, craftsman-like job and writes clear opinions,” said Witkin. “He is the true example of a moderate, in that he doesn’t write intemperate opinions to try to please those who would apply a sociological litmus test to the court.”

Some critics are not so enthusiastic, saying instead that Baxter has merely fallen in lock-step with the court’s conservative majority under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas.

“Like the rest of the majority, he shows little independence,” said Prof. Stephen R. Barnett of the Boalt Hall law school at UC Berkeley. “He’s not notably better or worse than the others . . . none of whom stands out as a writer or judicial craftsman.”

For his part, Baxter is content to allow court observers to draw their own conclusions about his work. At 53, he said he intends to remain on the court until age 70 or as long as his health permits.

“When you leave a political position (appointments secretary) you wonder whether the transition to a judicial position is going to be fulfilling, because the nature of the work is so much more solitary,” Baxter said in an interview last week. “But I couldn’t be more pleased. I prefer this life to any other.”

Since joining the seven-member court, Baxter has voted regularly with Lucas and the other three conservatives who form the court’s dominant bloc. During 1992, for example, Baxter stayed firmly with the majority in affirming 33 death sentences and reversing only two.

On some issues, court observers see him as among the most conservative of that majority. In 1991, dissenting along with Justice Edward A. Panelli, he contended that public school graduation prayers were constitutionally permissible (the U.S. Supreme Court later held they were unconstitutional).

Baxter’s opinions have reflected the generally cautious and pragmatic approach of the majority and its consistent reluctance to expand judicial authority or open the way for more litigation in an already burdened court system.

Last August, Baxter wrote the court’s majority opinion ordering that a libel verdict against the University of California be set aside so that the cattle rancher who brought the suit and the university could settle the case without years of court appeals.

Baxter rejected contentions that the move would undermine the judicial process, saying it was better to grant the joint request of the opposing parties and avoid further litigation.

“The parties have pummeled each other long enough and have staggered to their respective corners,” he wrote. “We choose to give them help, not the prospect of further battering.”

On Dec. 31, he issued the majority ruling upholding the state’s duty to take control of the near-bankrupt Richmond school district to prevent it from shutting its doors to more than 30,000 students six weeks before the end of the term.

But at the same time, Baxter and the court refused to give judges power to order the state to spend money not already appropriated for school bailouts. Doing so, he said, “would elevate the judiciary above (the Legislature and the governor) and upset the delicate system of checks and balances.”

In other cases, Baxter wrote the majority opinion when the court:

* Held that an unwed father, like the mother, can withhold consent for the adoption of his newborn by another couple.

* Ruled that state fair employment laws protect employees of dentists and other small employers with as few as five workers on the payroll, even if those employees do not work every day.

* Upheld the power of local governments to impose taxes on residents for the upkeep of parks. Governments are free to make “benefits assessments” for such purposes without acquiring two-thirds local vote approval under Proposition 13, the court said.

* Refused to permit relatives and friends of 16,000 dead people to sue over the mistreatment of corpses by some Los Angeles mortuaries. More than 100,000 people were in line to claim damages under an appellate court ruling, but the high court said only close family members could bring such suits.

* Overturned a state appellate court ruling that could have forced the state to provide $400 million to the counties for health care for those with low incomes.

Baxter was born in the farming community of Fowler, near Fresno, and graduated from Fresno State University, where he majored in economics and was student body president. After graduating from UC’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, he served as a Fresno County deputy district attorney and then joined a private law firm, later becoming a partner and specialist in family law.

As a law student, he read with interest about the election to the state Assembly of a young politician named George Deukmejian, a fellow Armenian. “This was like a dream,” recalled Baxter. Previous generations of Armenian immigrants had found the doors open to business and farming, but not public office, he observed.

Later, after meeting Deukmejian, Baxter led the local campaigns when Deukmejian ran successfully for attorney general in 1978 and governor in 1982.

A year later, Baxter became the governor’s appointments secretary, a job in which he sought candidates and screened more than 600 appointees to the state judiciary.

In late 1988, the governor named Baxter to the state Court of Appeal in Fresno, and two years later selected him to succeed Justice David N. Eagleson, who retired from the state high court in January, 1991.

Today, Baxter, an early riser, is frequently in his office at 7 a.m. At the Court of Appeal, he was first in and made the coffee; in his new office, an automatic coffee maker begins perking at 7. He works until 6 p.m. or so, then takes home a full briefcase.

On weekends, he usually returns to his residence in Fresno, where his wife, Jane, teaches in grade school. The couple’s daughter, Laura, a Stanford University graduate, recently became an attorney and their son, Brent, a graduate of UC Berkeley, is studying to become an accountant.

Baxter, along with his brother, helps look after the 160-acre family farm where his mother still lives. For relaxation and conditioning, he jogs intermittently. And he and his brother are planning to begin restoration work on a 1920 Chevrolet touring sedan and a 1958 Corvette. When he speaks before legal groups, Baxter, a student of judicial history, likes to recount tales of the only other state Supreme Court justice to come from the San Joaquin Valley, the colorful David Terry of Stockton, who served from 1855 to 1859.

Terry shot and killed U.S. Sen. David C. Broderick in a duel but, after resigning from the court, was acquitted. In 1889, Terry pulled a knife on Justice Stephen Field, who had succeeded him as chief justice before joining the U.S. Supreme Court, and was shot to death by Field’s bodyguard.

The justice hesitates to describe his judicial philosophy or comment on his emerging reputation among court observers as cautious, conservative and competent. An accurate assessment of a judge’s philosophy can only be determined over a variety of cases over a long period of time, Baxter said, adding: “Maybe that means I’m cautious.”