State Targets O.C. Judge in Misconduct Investigation

State judicial authorities are investigating a complaint that Central Orange County Municipal Judge Claude E. Whitney systematically deprived poor people of their constitutional rights, including access to an attorney, when they were in court on minor charges.

In a terse, three-paragraph statement released Monday, the Commission on Judicial Performance, a watchdog agency that looks into charges of misconduct involving state judges, disclosed that it was conducting an inquiry, which was prompted by a formal complaint two weeks ago by the Orange County public defender’s office.

The public defender alleges, in a complaint including more than 320 pages of documentation, that Whitney pursued a policy aimed at maintaining a high rate of guilty pleas from indigent defendants who, contrary to state law and six decades of U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, were routinely denied prompt access to defense counsel.

Commission Director Victoria B. Henley declined to comment about the specifics of the investigation because of confidentiality restrictions imposed by state law. But Henley said her office has the option to publicly confirm that it is dealing with matters that have attracted widespread public interest.

Whitney, 61, of Newport Beach, a former divorce lawyer who was appointed to a judgeship four years ago by then-Gov. George Deukmejian, has declined to talk about the controversy and could not be reached for comment Monday.

Deputy Chief Public Defender Carl C. Holmes, who is second in command of the office and often serves as the agency’s spokesman, also declined to discuss the commission’s inquiry.

If violations of state judicial canons are found, the judicial performance commission has a variety of disciplinary powers, from simple reprimand letters to removing an offending judge from the bench.

Concerns about Whitney’s behavior arose in October after the public defender’s office received information that defendants going before him were being deprived of their basic rights under state and federal law.

The agency, which represents those too poor to afford private defense counsel, then monitored Whitney’s court and quietly sought a Superior Court order in December to end what it considered to be the blatant denial of rights to hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals charged with misdemeanors.

Even after wresting a written agreement from Municipal Court that state and federal law would be followed, the public defender believed that the abuses were so serious that it lodged a formal complaint with the judicial performance commission on Jan. 13. It was the first such action taken against a judge by the public defender in almost 30 years.

The voluminous complaint alleges that Whitney, who oversaw one of the county’s busiest arraignment courts, prevented defendants from exercising their right to an attorney and ordered those asking for one to return to jail for a week until a lawyer could be found.

In addition, the complaint states 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 discouraged or, in some instances, forbade defense attorneys in his courtroom from talking to defendants seeking counsel.

It is further alleged that Whitney pursued such policies with the knowledge of Presiding Judge James M. Brooks, who apparently was interested in maintaining a high rate of guilty pleas from poor people who could not afford bail or private counsel.

The public defender’s office contends that there is ample evidence of a systematic plan by Central Municipal Court to exclude defense lawyers from the arraignment of thousands of defendants, whether or not the accused 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 from about 90% to 45% the percentage of cases that were resolved through guilty pleas during the arraignment process, where the accused are formally advised for the first time of charges against them and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

“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.

“That is their battle. I don’t think I should comment,” Brooks said on Monday. “It is between them (the judicial performance commission) and Judge Whitney. I’m sure he will come out fine.”

In earlier statements to The Times, Brooks defended his embattled colleague as a good judge and rejected allegations that there was an official court policy to exclude public defenders from arraignments in Whitney’s courtroom.

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

Robert B. Kuhel, the administrative officer for Central Municipal Court, also said some innocent bookkeeping errors by Whitney’s clerk might have contributed to the perception that Whitney was not handling cases properly.

But according to the public defender’s office, a review of court documents by Kuhel’s office has only turned up one incident where there might be a disagreement with what has been charged in the complaint.