In defense of Juvenile Court lawyers

I retired recently as a Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner after 26 years on the bench, and I take issue with The Times’ June 14 article, “Juvenile justice diverges in court.”

I was a criminal defense lawyer before becoming a commissioner, and a great part of my practice was representing juveniles in the Juvenile Court. (Many of the county’s judges had similar experiences before being elevated to the bench.) As commissioner, I heard thousands of juvenile cases over the years involving countless different offenses, including murder, rape and robbery. I’ve also served as president of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Courts Bar Assn. In short, I have extensive experience in juvenile justice, and what I’ve seen over the years conflicts with what The Times reported.

The Times’ article paints a picture of incompetency by private “panel lawyers” and insinuates that the public defender can do a far more competent job of representing these children. Yet the author points to only two instances where she feels the lawyer could have done a far more expert job of representation.

I have known many lawyers on the juvenile panel since 1972. These are, for the most part, conscientious advocates for their clients, not only in juvenile cases but in Superior Court felonies and federal court as well.

The article also stated that the lawyers on the juvenile panel had to “petition the court” for professional help, such as psychiatric and medical experts. I cannot remember a single time when such a request was denied by the court, especially in Sylmar Juvenile Court and Eastlake Court where I presided over the years.

Unfortunately, none of the academics cited in the article has the experience that the panel lawyers have in pursuing the “right” cases, for just the issues the article focuses on. Cyn Yamashiro of Loyola Law School reports that the school’s Center for Juvenile Law and Policy is “examining” 3,500 cases that have been randomly selected, but he fails to point out that the panel doing the research includes several retired public defenders. On the other hand, I know of no entity ever contacting judges and commissioners for input either into the expertise of the panel or the competency of the Probation Department.

Judges have seen all types of kids who have committed many different crimes. I have seen almost every situation and every type of child, and so have most of the other judges. Who would be better to ask than us? The fact is that the Loyola research panel and similar groups assembled by other colleges really shouldn’t have access to confidential juvenile files.

Additionally, many judges and bench officers suspect that the public defender’s office treats Juvenile Court as a “dumping ground” for the less skilled lawyers other divisions do not want. There are very competent lawyers in the public defender’s office who come into Juvenile Court, but too soon we have seen them transferred out to other plum assignments.

Public safety is a real concern for our society. Most of these cases are known as “dead bang cases” — there’s no question about the defendant’s guilt — and it has always been the province of the Probation Department to work with these kids. Now we are hearing that the public defenders are far more equipped to handle them than private lawyers and the Probation Department?

Some public defenders seem to believe that every child needs a psychiatric exam, thereby costing the county millions of dollars. Meanwhile, no notice seems to be taken that they are gangbangers, their parents no longer can control them, and so forth.

The article accuses panel lawyers of mass incompetence, yet I have personally seen these attorneys fight tooth and nail for many of these kids regardless of the amount they were earning per case. In truth to the taxpaying citizen, most of these cases do not call for a psychiatric report or require extensive examinations of the kids, many of whom have violent crimes on their rap sheets and are dangerous to the public.

Juvenile lawyers must pick and choose the cases they are going to defend. Remember, there must first be a defense to go after. Unfortunately, the main case The Times used as an example of the failure of panel lawyers didn’t make clear to the reader that this juvenile had a lengthy record and had been examined in the past by other psychiatrists and psychologists. Perhaps the victim and her baby whom the defendant allegedly splashed with bleach might wish to be heard to complete the article.

Jack J. Gold is a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner.