For the Poor, a Separate Sort of Justice : Steps must be taken to fully remedy a Santa Ana court’s alleged denial of right to a lawyer

Something clearly went wrong in the Santa Ana Municipal Court last year, when thousands of suspects allegedly were deprived of their constitutional right to a defense attorney. Less obvious is how far the criminal justice system must go to remedy the damage that may have been done. The case is instructive in how courts in Southern California handle many poor defendants.

A recent agreement between the court and the public defender’s office to allow the defendants involved to withdraw their guilty pleas was a step in the right direction. But the agreement did not require that the defendants be notified. The American Civil Liberties Union has suggested that the district attorney’s office expunge the record of any convictions obtained from defendants who were denied a defense attorney when they appeared before Judge Claude E. Whitney during a six-month period ending in December.

Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi has “flatly rejected” such a proposal. He argued, in a stinging response to the ACLU, that it “would be a hardship for many who would very likely prefer not to undergo additional inconvenience . . . to review what they felt was a fair resolution of their case.” That’s quite a leap in logic. It’s unimaginable that some defendants, given a chance, wouldn’t want to have their records cleared.

The district attorney has outlined what he said were several practical problems involved in notifying defendants individually. Still, in view of the number whose cases were mishandled, it is not right to suggest, as Capizzi did, that the agreement between the court and the public defender’s office closes the matter. Further effort is warranted.

The ACLU proposal to expunge convictions may seem to some to go too far. Certainly the district attorney feels that way. But the denial of a right to counsel is a serious constitutional matter. That being the case, it’s up to Capizzi to help devise a plan to notify defendants that they may refile pleas--and that this time they have the right to be represented by an attorney. In the absence of such an effort, the D.A. must realize that the ACLU has the only true plan for redress on the table.

An added, if obvious, point is that all defendants, no matter how poor, must be granted their right to counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court made that clear years ago, and the only reason this Orange County brouhaha came to pass is because one judge allegedly abused that right. Now the district attorney has an obligation to help set matters right.