2 Judges Formally Deny Bias Against Public Defender’s Office

In their formal responses to charges of bias, two Ventura County judges say they knew nothing about a radio ad in which the court’s presiding judge declared a majority of the bench supported a top prosecutor in a contested judicial race.

Several public defenders have filed complaints against four of 14 Ventura County judges who publicly endorsed a chief prosecutor running for the judicial post. Each of the public defenders seeks to disqualify the judge from hearing their cases.

The complaints--known as affidavits of prejudice--contend the judges may have violated ethical standards by endorsing top prosecutor Kevin McGee, who faces Public Defender Gary Windom in a November runoff election for the seat vacated by suspended jurist Robert Bradley.

The 14 judges signed a letter of support for McGee that ran in newspapers before the June 2 election.

Also, a campaign radio endorsement featured Presiding Judge Charles Campbell saying voters should “join him and 14 other judges” in voting for McGee. That ad ran more than 40 times on a local radio station.

In their formal responses to those charges, Superior Court Judges Barry Klopfer and Donald Coleman denied any bias against the public defender’s office.

Campbell, responding to a disqualification bid by Deputy Public Defender Stephanie Benincasa, admitted making the radio ad, but contended it did not compromise his impartiality.

“I am not biased toward any lawyer in this proceeding or any member of the Public Defender’s Office,” Campbell wrote.

The other judges offered similar claims, and added that they knew nothing of the radio ad.

“I was never aware that any ad was being contemplated by the presiding judge nor was I consulted in its content,” wrote Coleman, who filed his formal response with the court Tuesday.

Klopfer also wrote he had no knowledge or responsibility for Campbell’s actions.

Although the judges’ decision to endorse a political candidate is not illegal, it has angered public defenders in a courthouse where the bench is dominated by former prosecutors.

The most recent papers were filed Monday by Deputy Public Defender Todd Howeth against Judge Vincent O’Neill.

According to the California code of civil procedure, a judge challenged in an affidavit of prejudice has 10 days to respond in writing. If the judge files a response, a second jurist must determine whether grounds exist for disqualification.

Sheila Gonzalez, the court’s top administrator, said if the parties cannot agree on a judge, the state Judicial Council in San Francisco will assign one to rule on the matter.

Campbell said in court Wednesday he did not believe it would be appropriate for a judge in the Ventura County Courthouse to review the affidavits.

Ventura County Public Defender Kenneth Clayman said he expects the four cases to be consolidated and sent to one judge.

Deputy Public Defender Michael Schwartz, who filed the papers against Coleman, characterized the endorsements as the old boys’ network pulling their weight in favor of a friend and colleague from the district attorney’s office.

“I think the problem these guys are having is they want to have their cake and eat it too,” he said after filing his affidavit. “Ideally you’re not political. You’re above the fray. You don’t throw your hat into any arena. I don’t think judges should be in the business of doing that.”