Santa Ana Judge Rejects Charges Against Court

The presiding judge of Central Municipal Court on Wednesday rejected allegations that his court systematically denied basic constitutional rights to poor defendants and praised the judge who is the target of a formal complaint filed last week with state judicial authorities.

In his first public statements about the controversy surrounding Judge Claude E. Whitney, James M. Brooks said neither Municipal Court nor Whitney had an official policy to exclude defense attorneys from arraignments as the public defender’s office has charged in a complaint sent to the Commission on Judicial Performance. Whitney has declined all comment on the allegations.

Many of the allegations, Brooks said, are the result of his statements being taken out of context or attempts by deputy public defenders to undermine Whitney’s stiff sentencing policies for certain crimes.

“There’s no way they could prove all of those allegations,” Brooks said. “If there are 100 claims, maybe they could prove a few of them. . . . We bend over backward to protect the rights of defendants.”

Last week, the office of the Orange County public defender, which represents those too poor to afford private defense counsel, filed a complaint with the judicial performance commission. It alleged that Whitney, who oversaw one of the county’s busiest arraignment courts, prevented defendants from exercising their right to an attorney and ordered those seeking lawyers to return to jail for a week.

In addition, the 320-page complaint states, among other things, that Whitney illegally denied people the right to bail hearings, did not provide adequate interpreters to Spanish-speaking defendants, handed down the wrong sentences for crimes, and kicked defense attorneys out of his courtroom when they tried to talk to defendants.

The public defender contends that Whitney pursued such policies with the knowledge of Brooks, who was interested in maintaining a high rate of guilty pleas during arraignments of poor people who could not afford bail or private counsel.

The complaint to the judicial performance commission stems from a months-long dispute, which saw the public defenders seek a Superior Court order in November to end what they considered the “blatant and systematic” denial of basic legal rights. A formal 11-point agreement to end the matter was reached in December.

“Hundreds of public defender hours were spent documenting the case of constitutional abuses in Judge Whitney’s courtroom,” said Chief Deputy Public Defender C. Holmes, the second in command of the office. “These cases are documented and founded on firsthand observations by deputy public defenders and private attorneys.”

Holmes declined to comment on specific allegations because the judicial performance commission, a watchdog agency that investigates complaints of misconduct by judges, might be investigating the matter soon.

When the complaint was filed last week, Brooks, who was suffering from pneumonia, said he was too ill to discuss the situation. On Wednesday, he was interviewed by The Times but declined to discuss specific allegations because the matter has been settled with a formal agreement between Central Municipal Court and the public defender.

Brooks said, however, that he was particularly dismayed by the charge that he and Whitney pursued a deliberate policy to exclude deputy public defenders from the arraignments of thousands of poor defendants who could not hire their own attorneys.

The public defender’s office contends that there is evidence of a systematic plan by the court to exclude its lawyers from arraignments, whether or not defendants requested counsel.

According to court documents, Brooks wrote a memorandum on Nov. 24 during a meeting of the Alternatives to Incarceration Task Force, which was discussing the use of videotapes to inform defendants of their constitutional rights.

Brook’s memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, states that the video procedure could cut dispositions during arraignment from about 90% to about 45%.

“The obvious solution to this problem is to exclude the public defender from the process as is currently done for in-custody arraignments in” Central Municipal Court, Brooks wrote.

“You’re taking an abstract opinion in some other issue and transferring it over to another set of circumstances,” Brooks said on Wednesday. “I was voicing my opinion as a judge about videotaped arraignments. The reason it was brought up is because attorneys do slow down the process. I’m not saying that’s good or bad. It’s an observable fact.”

Brooks emphasized that the only defense attorney barred from Whitney’s courtroom was Deputy Public Defender Jeff Lund, who supervises Central Municipal Court operations for his office.

Court documents show that on Nov. 12, Whitney ordered Lund removed from the court after Lund requested that defendants be told that a public defender was present and that they could talk to him.

“There was only . . . that one incident, where the two traded words. We’ve never done that (keep public defenders out of the courtroom),” Brooks said, noting that defendants are properly advised of their rights and that there is a large sign in the arraignment court notifying them of their right to counsel.

But Lund recalled in a sworn statement and under penalty of perjury that excluding the public defender from the arraignment process was “the policy laid down by Judge Brooks” during a conversation he had with him about Whitney.

Holmes also said Brooks has repeatedly told public defenders and other judges that he did not want public defenders present at arraignments because they bog down the process.

“The best statement of Brooks’ intentions is his own handwritten memorandum,” Holmes said.

Defending his colleague against the public defender allegations, Brooks said Whitney has “been a fine judge, and I’m sure he will continue to be a fine judge.”

The presiding judge blamed the controversy on the public defenders’ unhappiness over Whitney’s harsh sentencing offers, especially in domestic violence and spousal abuse cases. “They were all upset and shocked at his high offers in certain areas of crimes. That’s how this whole thing started.”

Although the alleged denial of basic constitutional rights is the uppermost concern, Holmes acknowledged that Whitney’s sentencing practices are an issue. According to court documents and the complaint, Whitney sentenced defendants beyond the legal maximums, gave jail sentences to those legally eligible for diversion programs, and sentenced people for crimes they did not commit.