Bottom Line: Judge Didn’t Condemn Hand-Burning

A courtroom can be a complicated place, full of nuances, hidden meanings and hard-to-read signals.

Ethnic relations in a place like Orange County can also be complicated, offering no shortage of nuance and the need to read between the lines.

When a case with ethnic overtones makes news, the furor can be intense. It requires everyone to take special care.

That’s where we find ourselves, I think, in the ongoing debate over Judge James Perez’s recent sentencing of the father who burned his 5-year-old son’s fingers over an open flame as punishment for stealing a pack of gum.

I wrote on the subject before going on vacation in late April. I returned last week to a firestorm of protest from the judge’s relatives and other supporters, accusing me of misrepresenting what he’d done. In the meantime, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George has asked the county’s presiding judge to prepare a report about Perez--a 76-year-old retired jurist who handles occasional cases--to determine if he should continue his part-time duty.

Although the case shouldn’t inherently have been a culture clash, Perez introduced that issue from the bench. And while to some the only concern was how Perez was portrayed in the media, others who complained about my column fear the resulting controversy might unfairly taint public perceptions of Latino judges in general.

I owe readers a couple of clarifications.

My original column criticized the judge for reducing the case, against the prosecutor’s wishes, from a felony to a misdemeanor. I also reported the judge fined the father, Guatemalan immigrant Wellington Soto, a mere $100.

What I didn’t report--because I didn’t know at the time--was that he also got four years’ probation and the family would be supervised by county social workers. In addition, Soto would continue taking parenting classes.

I also didn’t report--because I didn’t know--that the final sentence had been agreed to by the prosecutor who--along with the defense attorney--presented it to Perez as a plea bargain they’d reached.

In short, I left the erroneous impression that Perez, on his own, reduced the episode to a $100 fine.

It was a mistake I correct now.

However, the judge’s supporters insist those facts absolve him from criticism.

They chastised me, properly, for not having read the transcript of the court proceeding and challenged me to do so.

Now I have. It definitely is relevant that the sentence was more than a small fine, and that the deputy district attorney agreed to the plea bargain, however unhappy she was that the judge reduced the case to a misdemeanor. But I still question his handling of the case.

Perez did knock it down from a felony. The record shows the father’s action caused three fingers of the boy’s hands to be burned badly enough to blister and require bandaging for several days.

Acknowledging the injury, he said: “I can’t argue with you that this [Soto’s action] is not probably what should have been done, but we find ourselves in the cross-current of customs and habits. I dare say that what Mr. Soto was doing was of a corrective nature, even though I think if he sat back and thought about what he did he might have taken a different approach....”

The judge added: “I can’t conceive of this being anything heavier than a misdemeanor-type sentence, if there is one.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Karen Schatzle argued on at least four occasions during the hearing that the case should be treated as a felony. “Clearly, it’s within the court’s discretion [to reduce the case to a misdemeanor],” she said at one point. “I am just in complete disagreement with the rationale that is being imposed.”

Later, toward the end of the proceedings, she asks, “At what point does the burning of a child’s hand become a felony?”

Perez replies: “If we had prior indications of abuse of the child, maybe it would weigh heavy in the court’s mind. It seems like sort of an isolated incident, with a purpose, in a sense that maybe it will keep Junior from being one of our customers downstream. And I think that’s where the defendant was coming from, trying to correct a problem that might become serious at a later time.”

Do you hear any condemnation in those words of a father holding a child’s hand over a flame? I don’t, and that’s where my continuing gripe with the judge’s decision rests. In fact, he elaborates on his thinking by saying, “I dare say we’ve done two things [today]. Hopefully, the child has learned a lesson, and hopefully Senior has learned a lesson.”

Far from expressing outrage, the judge is saying perhaps the hand-burning will turn out for the best.

His supporters argue that probation and Social Service intervention are significant punishments.

Among the judge’s defenders is longtime attorney Alfredo Amezcua. “I’m just concerned about someone who has had an illustrious career and been an exemplary judge in Orange County, from the Latino community, who is being judged by the press without knowing all the facts,” Amezcua says.

Such critiques of Latinos run the risk “of bringing out the redneck people who say, ‘Those Mexicans shouldn’t be here,’” he said. “It just adds to the craziness of our community.”

Amezcua asks why Perez was singled out. I reminded him I’ve criticized various judges over the years, of all ethnic stripes.

I should have been more thorough in my original column.

That doesn’t change Perez’s words in court that day.

When his supporters acknowledge that the judge’s own words and decisions defined this case, then we’ll have edged closer to an honest debate over what happened to Mr. Soto.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.