Third Judge Is Accused of Bias for Election Ad

For the third time this week, public defenders have challenged the impartiality of a Ventura County judge for publicly endorsing a chief prosecutor running for a judicial seat.

During a court hearing Thursday, Deputy Public Defenders Susan Olson and Michael Schwartz asked Judge Donald Coleman to disqualify himself from a criminal case because he signed a letter of support for prosecutor Kevin McGee.

They argued that Coleman, along with 13 other judges, may have violated ethical standards by endorsing McGee in his race for judge. McGee faces public defender Gary Windom in a November run-off election for the seat vacated by suspended jurist Robert Bradley.

In addition, Olson said a recent radio advertisement featuring Presiding Judge Charles Campbell states that voters should “join him and 14 other judges” in voting for the prosecutor.

The letter and the radio endorsement lend an appearance of impropriety and bias toward the prosecution, Olson said.

But Coleman, while stating that he was unaware of Campbell’s decision to participate in a radio ad, told the public defenders that his support of McGee in no way compromises his ability to fairly preside over the case.

“I endorse him as an individual and not as a member of a particular office,” Coleman said of McGee. “So I don’t think that expression of my right to endorse an individual whom I have known for 15 years reflects on my ability to be a fair, impartial jurist.”

*

Coleman, a former prosecutor endorsed by several members of the county bench during his own 1996 campaign, is the third judge in the last week to be targeted by the public defender’s office for endorsing McGee.

Affidavits of prejudice were filed Monday and Tuesday against Campbell and Judge Barry Klopfer, who both signed the letter of support for McGee.

Public Defender Kenneth Clayman has said his office is not pursuing a blanket protest of the 14 judges who signed the letter, which was sent to two newspapers prior to the June 2 election.

By filing affidavits, public defenders are simply safeguarding their client’s fair trial rights, Clayman said this week, adding that they are not trying to disrupt the judicial system.

But court officials said the court process could be slowed if more affidavits are filed.

A judge challenged in an affidavit of prejudice has 10 days to respond in writing. If no response is made, the judge is disqualified from the case and a new jurist is assigned.

If the judge files a response, a second jurist--possibly from another county--must determine whether grounds exist for disqualification.

In Coleman’s case, he denied the public defender’s request to step down from the case. A hearing is set for June 26.

In the meantime, questions remain about how the endorsement controversy may reflect on the judiciary and how it might impact the upcoming judicial race.

The endorsements for McGeehave whipped up a tempest of ill-feelings. They prompted the Ventura County chapter of the Mexican-American Bar Assn. recently to write a letter of protest to Campbell.

“Judges must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” president Daniel Gonzalez wrote.

Campbell sent a letter in response, stating: “One of our country’s most cherished values is the right to publicly express our opinions. During judicial elections, judges share the same [1st Amendment rights] as any other citizen.”

*

Endorsements by judges are not unusual in Ventura County judicial races. They are permitted, the judicial canon of ethics state, “because judicial officers have a special obligation to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and are in a unique position to know the qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer.”

But the guidelines are murky. Public defenders point out that the same canon states that judges should “avoid political activity that may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety.”

For his part, Windom says he has not been privy to any of his office’s decisions to file affidavits.

“The office has intentionally kept me out of the loop on this,” he said. “This is a public defender matter and not a political matter. This is not an office policy and each attorney has to make a decision for his or her case.”

Windom said he is uncertain how the actions of the other public defenders may affect his campaign.

“You always think about that, and I don’t know,” he said. “They did this without my knowledge. They have taken a position in the best interests of their clients.”