O.C. Municipal Judge Facing State Charges

State judicial authorities on Tuesday filed misconduct charges against Orange County Municipal Judge Claude E. Whitney, who has been accused of denying hundreds of poor defendants their constitutional rights, including access to defense attorneys.

After almost 1 1/2 years of investigation, the Commission on Judicial Performance initiated formal disciplinary proceedings to determine whether Whitney violated the Judicial Code of Conduct while serving in one of the county’s busiest arraignment courts during 1992.

The commission, which operates largely in secret, declined to release specifics about the case. But Whitney’s lawyer, Ronald G. Brower, said the judge is facing three charges alleging improper sentencing, mistreatment of defense counsel, and failures to advise defendants of their constitutional rights.

“My client welcomes the hearing,” Brower said. “It is our position that he did nothing wrong. It’s interesting to note that, by and large, the complaints have come from people who represent those sentenced by him, and he is known as one of the most severe sentencers in the courthouse.”

The judge has been under investigation since January, 1993, when the Orange County public defenders office lodged a 325-page complaint against him, the first such complaint the office has filed against a judge in almost 30 years.

Whitney, 63, who was appointed to the Municipal Court in Santa Ana in 1989 by then-Gov. George Deukmejian, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. He has maintained that he conducted court properly and with the sound advice of his colleagues.

The commission’s decision to proceed with disciplinary hearings is expected to complicate Whitney’s current effort for reelection in the June 7 primary. In an earlier interview with The Times, he conceded that the investigation makes him politically vulnerable, though he is viewed as a conservative in a conservative county and has been endorsed by some police groups.

His opponent is Anaheim defense attorney Dennis P. O’Connell, 44, who has the support of the Orange County District Attorneys Assn. He has hammered hard on the commission’s inquiry as a sign that Whitney is incompetent and lacks integrity.

“I think this further supports my position,” O’Connell said Tuesday. “The issue is not whether he is a tough sentencer, but whether judges should follow the law. He has failed to respond to that issue.”

Victoria B. Henley, the commission’s director, said the decision to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings is uncommon--happening less than 10 times a year--and is reserved for cases that could result in public censure or removal from the bench--the most serious types of punishment faced by judges for misconduct.

During the proceedings, both sides will get to present evidence and question witnesses before a panel of judges appointed by the state Supreme Court. When the hearings are finished, a report of the panel’s findings will be sent to the commission, which then must decide whether discipline is justified.

The commission, which monitors the state judiciary and investigates allegations of wrongdoing, is made up of five judges, two lawyers and two citizens.

The agency’s annual report indicates that, of the more than 900 complaints it receives annually, no more than 10 cases a year are ever taken to the stage of formal proceedings. No date has been set for Whitney’s hearings.

In a prepared statement issued Tuesday, the presiding judge of the Municipal Court in Santa Ana said the court welcomed “the opportunity for Judge Whitney to finally and fully present his evidence in response to allegations in a fair and impartial forum overseen by special masters appointed by the California Supreme Court.”

Public Defender Ronald Y. Butler, whose office prompted the investigation, declined to discuss the filing of charges, saying it would not be appropriate given the confidential nature of the commission’s cases.

Butler’s deputies first accused Whitney of misconduct in late 1992 and obtained a formal agreement from the Municipal Court to ensure that the law would be followed during arraignments. Despite the agreement, and Whitney’s reassignment to other duties, Butler thought his abuses were so egregious that he took the unprecedented step of forwarding his allegations to the judicial performance commission.

The voluminous complaint alleges that Whitney sought to maintain a high rate of convictions by routinely denying constitutional rights to misdemeanor defendants who were too poor to make bail or afford private attorneys.

Whitney, the complaint stated, effectively punished those who asked for an attorney by sending them back to jail for seven to 10 days, saying it would take that long to find lawyers to represent them.

Furthermore, Whitney was accused of kicking defense lawyers out of his courtroom when they asked if they could talk to defendants, handing down illegal sentences, denying defendants bail hearings and failing to provide adequate foreign language interpreters for the accused who could not speak English.

After the complaint was filed, the Orange County Bar Assn., which has 5,000 members, reviewed the allegations and issued an unprecedented resolution saying that “there was systematic denial of due process” for many defendants appearing before Whitney. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is also looking into the judge’s conduct.

Attacking the main allegations against his client, Brower said the way Whitney advised defendants of their constitutional rights was legal, according to appeals court rulings. The deputy public defenders Whitney expelled from his courtroom were disrupting the proceedings, he contended, and were violating posted rules designed to maintain order.

“The thrust of the charges are being made by defense attorneys,” Brower said. “They complain about the man being a severe sentencer and an efficient judge. That combination will breed discontent and complaints.”

Butler’s office maintains that Whitney’s sentences were sometimes the wrong ones under the law, and that the judge repeatedly refused to put defendants into various diversion programs for which they were eligible, instead sentencing them to jail.

Brower said that since the investigation began, some lawyers who have appeared before Whitney have sent letters to the judicial performance commission to challenge the allegations made by the public defenders office.