Placing Legal Rights Ahead of Efficiency : A Review of Judge Whitney’s Actions Is Appropriate

Orange County Central Municipal Judge Claude E. Whitney has been transferred to other duties. And an 11-point agreement has been worked out between Presiding Judge James M. Brooks and the public defender’s office that, among other things, requires defendants in Division 203 of the Municipal Court in Santa Ana to be fully informed of their constitutional rights and have access to a deputy public defender.

But many questions remain about how things got so off track in Whitney’s courtroom. A complaint that has been filed by the public defender’s office with the Commission on Judicial Performance ought to provide answers.

The more than 300-page complaint--the first filed in 30 years by the Orange County public defender’s office--asks the watchdog commission to determine whether any judicial canons have been violated. The commission can reprimand or even remove a judge from the bench if it determines that circumstances warrant such action. But it is a shame that things got to this point.

The public defender’s office claims that Whitney carried out a policy, espoused by Brooks, that excluded public defenders from arraignments for jailed defendants, who often are too poor to hire their own attorneys. At one point, when a deputy public defender asked Whitney to inform a number of defendants that he was available to counsel them, the lawyer was angrily thrown out of Whitney’s courtroom.

Whitney was quoted in several deputy public defenders’ affidavits as telling defendants that their cases would be postponed and that they would be returned to jail for seven days if they asked for an attorney.

Many defendants reported later that they were confused by the court procedures and feared they would be kept in jail unless they pleaded guilty. They said they misunderstood that, by pleading guilty, they were agreeing to serve jail terms.

Under state and federal law, defendants must be told they have a right to an attorney before they are arraigned. If they want one, and are too poor to afford one, they must be provided with counsel. Usually counsel is provided by the public defender’s office.

The right to counsel is also assured by the Sixth Amendment and has been repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whitney also has been accused in the complaint filed with the Judicial Performance Commission of failing to ensure that non-English speakers knew what their rights were. Some deputy public defenders also accused him of refusing to review bail requests for incarcerated defendants, a possible violation of the Penal Code. These are serious accusations. It could take a lot to undo some of the damage public defenders say has been done.

While Whitney no longer is handling jailed defendants’ arraignments, it is proper that the Judicial Performance Commission make a thorough review of what actually happened. The commission also must determine what role Presiding Judge Brooks had in setting the policies carried out in Whitney’s courtroom. According to court documents reviewed by The Times, he initially resisted attempts to address the complaints about Whitney. Brooks last week denied that the court systematically denied basic rights to poor defendants.

It is, of course, hard to argue with complaints that the judicial system is cumbersome, costly and grossly overburdened. And it must be tempting to a judge who witnesses this agonizing process every day to try to streamline the system.

But efficiency must never come at the price of denying basic rights.