Candidate for
Superior Court Judge; County of San Diego; Office 24

Philosophy: As a criminal defense lawyer, I understand that the general public questions our reputation and wonders how we can represent such people. Recently, in San Diego, a famous murder case was tried to a television audience. Information made available to the same audience about the facts known to the lawyers was later made public. The public was outraged when it learned that the lawyers may have known their client was guilty but argued to the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The outrage at the lawyers showed that there is a general lack of understanding by non-lawyer public regarding the role of the defense lawyer in criminal cases.

Because the role of criminal defense lawyers is to defend and protect the client's constitutional rights, the lawyer does not necessarily consider the guilt or innocence of his client. He only looks to the evidence to be presented in the case. If the evidence is strong and will probably end up in a conviction he may seek to settle the case by plea bargain. But, when given no choice but to take the matter to trial, he builds his defense around what the prosecution can prove. He leaves the decision of guilt or innocence up to the jury. His role of advocacy does not permit him to consider the ultimate result. In other words, the criminal defense lawyer is defending the constitution and making sure that his client gets a fair trial under the laws of the United States and California. Imagine what would happen if all lawyers were prosecutors. There could be no convictions. Every criminal arrested would have to be released after 72 hours. Only a strong advocate system will work under our system of justice. If the criminal lawyer fails in his job as an advocate, the case will be reversed by an appellate court and returned for further proceedings. I doubt that prosecutors would like to have all of their cases reversed and returned for another trial. In essence, a legal system requiring the fair administration of justice requires both sides to do their best in presenting their cases.

So, in our example above, the lawyers who defended their client to the best of their ability and work within the system of laws got the result that was just. It is unlikely that a reviewing court will find sufficient reason to reverse the conviction. The system will only work if all the participants are competent and do the best possible job.

Civil Courts: In my opinion the civil courts have fallen out of the reach of most litigants because of the costs of bringing a case to trial. The reasons of the increase in civil litigation are numerous and complex. The solutions are even more complex. However, it is possible for the courts to keep the costs of litigation down. Most of the costs related to bringing a case to trial are in the cost of preparing the case for litigation. Preparation costs are greatest for cases which are complex and require the testimony of experts. Expert witnesses charge enormous sums for their testimony despite limitations which have been placed upon what they can charge by law. In order for this limitation to be imposed, the lawyer seeking the limitation must bring it to the attention of the judge by motion. Mostly the law is ignored and the experts get paid handsomely often charging a minimum ½ day rate for only a couple of hours of their testimony.

As a judge, I would require that all lawyers trying cases in my department comply with the law as it relates to the testimony of expert witnesses. I would not require a written motion to seek the enforcement of the limitation and I would impose sanctions such as keeping the expert's testimony from being presented to the jury in the event the limitation was not complied with. Furthermore, I would require any expert who testifies only to charge for the time he actually spends testifying in deposition or court. Any request to have an expert be paid a fee greater than permitted under the law would require a motion by the proponent. Further, if a deviation from the policy was granted the moving party would have to pay the difference between what the experts charged and the amount paid under the code.

Other limitations on length of trial, number of witnesses, kinds and types of evidence to be presented at trial can and would be reduced by stipulation (or agreement between the parties) so that the jury only heard the evidence of the actual controversy.

Family Courts: Most people only have contact with courts because of minor traffic violations or family law matters. While much has been accomplished recently to make the Family Courts friendlier, more can be done. Family law matters are extremely stressful for the litigants. They are worried about finances, protective orders, and fair distribution of property, family support and custody of the children. But, the law of divorce has some fundamental precepts that, if understood by the litigants, would make the divorce process easier and less anxiety provoking.

One of the things that I suggest could be done would be to institute is a seminar for potential divorcing couples. At the seminar, which could be done in a couple of hours, family law forms, the law, the procedure and the expectations of the parties could be discussed. At the conclusion of the seminar, non-lawyer court employees could assist the litigants in processing their forms. A court appointed family lawyer could assist in answering simple questions the couples may have. Just knowing what will happen in court will reduce the level of anxiety to a point where the couples can concentrate on getting on with their lives.

Equal Access to the Courts: Most of my discussion above has been about making the courts available to all of the litigants. I would like to de-mystify the courts for the general public. Lowering the costs of litigation, streamlining family courts, raising the jurisdictional level of small claims courts, allowing lawyers to use the internet to file pleadings or exchange information, making court rulings and schedules available for the public and lawyers on line are only a few of the things that can be used to make the process easier.

Our long history of making courts available to the ordinary guy is beginning to be lost. Our founding fathers dreamed of a democracy that provides all its citizens equal protection and due process. Too soon it seems likely that only the rich will have their day in court. It is time to make sure the playing field is level for all litigants.