Heavy Is the Gavel for Judge Who Decides This Boy’s Fate

I tell my younger brother he’d make a good judge. As a lawyer, he’s tried cases in both the district attorney’s and state attorney general’s offices, in addition to stints in private firms large and small. I think he’d be a crackerjack juvenile court judge because he’s had lots of cases as prosecutor and court-appointed attorney. He’s a conservative guy who could run as being tough on youth crime, but he also volunteers time teaching “street kids” in an alternative school in Denver. In short, he’s a law-and-order guy but also understands about young people in trouble.

That’s the kind of person I want sitting on the bench.

Just when I have his future all mapped out, the case of 14-year-old Daniel Connolly comes around. He has confessed to fatally shooting his mother four months ago at their home and is now the subject of a “fitness hearing” to determine if he should be tried as an adult or juvenile.

This is a case that must make judges wish they’d never gone to law school. Who would relish deciding whether a 14-year-old with no previous record should be tried as an adult, subjecting him to a possible life sentence in state prison? On the flip side, the charge isn’t joy riding. It’s premeditated murder, and a sentence at the California Youth Authority would mean the boy would be released no later than age 25. Is that enough protection from someone who has killed?

Maybe judges have a leg up on the rest of us when it comes to figuring out stuff like this, but I wonder. Unless there’s a page in a book that tells you exactly what to do, where do you learn how to make a decision like that and be sure you’re right?

The truth is, you don’t.

“It’s almost a classic dilemma, because there’s no good, logical way to approach the problem,” said veteran Superior Court Judge James L. Smith, whose opinion I solicited. Smith is not involved in the Connolly case, and I asked him to talk generally on the vexing subject of juvenile punishment. “On the one hand, you have a juvenile of tender years. On the other hand, you’re talking about a crime that if it were committed by an adult, it would be viewed by most of the community as one of the most heinous types of things you could think of. The two don’t fit. It’s a square peg in a round hole. It’s a classic dilemma.”

I asked Smith, who has nearly 25 years and a wide range of assignments on the Orange County bench, how judges decide cases like this.

“There is guidance in the law, there always is,” Smith said, “but the difficult part and what we get paid the big money for--and I’m saying ‘big money’ in quotes--is to make that transition from the theoretical to the practical. It’s very difficult. I can tell you that being a juvenile judge is both not only the most challenging but one of the most rewarding opportunities you have.”

That’s because judges seldom think they can affect the behavior of adult criminals, but they often can with youngsters. In a large percentage of cases, Smith said, judges think they can make a difference in a youthful offender’s life if they mete out the proper ruling.

When the charge is, for example, shoplifting or burglary, I see the judge’s point. But isn’t everything skewed when the first venture into crime is a murder charge?

I asked Smith if any generalities could be made as to how judges decide fitness hearings. “I think they bring more of their life experiences into play than perhaps any other decision we have to make in court,” he said.

By definition, that means the decisions involve subjectivity. “If there was a formula you could apply and run it through a computer, you wouldn’t need a judge,” Smith said. “There’s always going to be subjective evaluations.”

Smith confirmed one of my suspicions: that decisions like the one involving young Connolly are among the most gut-wrenching of chores for judges. “A number of things would have to be at the top of the list,” Smith said. “Another is domestic relations cases involving child custody. Almost on a daily basis, judges are making decisions that impact the life’s development and direction of juveniles. These are very, very difficult cases, and another one is this type, the fitness hearing.”

A final thought, Smith said. His experience has taught him that once he’s weighed all the arguments and reached a decision, “you have to be able to walk away and go on to the next decision. You have to accept that you’re going to be wrong once in a while, but if you start carrying that baggage around with you, you’re a dead man.”

Judge Frank F. Fasel is expected to decide sometime this week whether Connolly will be tried as a juvenile or adult. It isn’t a decision I’d wish on anyone.

Especially, come to think of it, my own brother.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.