fresno elections 2008

Our Superior Court juries do not currently represent the diverse make up of our community. In our Superior Courts, potential jurors are notified of service by random drawing from our Department of Motor Vehicles list. This represents a broader cross section of our community than did the voter registration list previously used. When the Federal Court recently switched over to the DMV list in order to increase minority representation on our Federal jury panels, ironically they found that minority, and particularly African American representation decreased.

While this finding is not yet fully understood, I believe that it points to growing apathy and disaffection from our legal system. Understanding the reasons for this alienation and reversing the trend is the key to improving the efficacy of our jury system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the DMV list. It includes a very representative pool (although it points to a troubling issue, fewer of voting age are registered to vote than are registered to drive). However, individuals are choosing to avoid service and the realities of a mobile society make notification more difficult. While we may seek to add incentives for jury service through better fees or tax deductions to avoid the great cost to individuals, fundamentally individuals are not seeing the benefit of service or the harm in their failure to participate.

We must engage these individuals and build awareness that the judicial system is ours, collectively. That it serves no one group or insular interest. To increase participation, we must teach adults and youth of the security that comes from this service. We often overlook that jury service is one of the “checks” that we have created in our “checks and balances” system to ensure good and accountable government. Understanding should help create an affirmative desire to serve.

Of course, the means to build this awareness lies in our Judges and educational institutions. Outreach and education by our Judges must be part of the job. When individual members of our community are reminded that our safety and our freedoms depend more on a well functioning legal system than on any other single institution, perhaps then we will see the faces of jurors reflect the make up of our broader community.

My role is to follow the law. Experience, expansive knowledge and a thirst to learn more will help me in that endeavor. However, judicial demeanor and temperament are a state of being rather than a set of characteristics that are adorned and shed as we go to work and return home. I am mindful that a judge is a judge on and off the bench. For that reason, as now, I would conduct myself with dignity and show respect for others. In addition, I am mindful that the justice system is entirely about human beings and human behaviors that do not always rise to the level of our aspirations.

For those who come to my courtroom, I will be making the process clear and understandable; remaining a compassionate human being while I do the work of resolving differences and dispensing justice. This means listening well, determining the truth, evaluating harm and making rulings that are based on the facts before me. It means hearing from victims, families and loved ones and balancing punishment with the prospect of rehabilitation. Knowing the difference between serious and violent crimes that call for prison and crimes that might be addressed through treatment, in addition to recognizing everything in between, is what I will bring to the bench. As a prosecutor I have advocated for life sentences for some and I have requested probation for others. I have made the tough calls of evaluating cases and determining when there was insufficient evidence and I have dismissed cases that could not be proven. I have been making these difficult judgments my entire career. As a result, the exercise of judicial discretion will be familiar, drawn from experience and based in the law.

Finally, maintaining an open and fair courtroom by ensuring proper application of the law, respectfully listening to the litigants, preserving the rights of parties and the dignity of witnesses and victims requires candor, patience and direction. I will encourage a community presence in my courtroom and all who share a willingness to respect each other will be welcome and heard. Of course breaches of civility will not be tolerated. However, I find that making expectations known at the outset, and explaining the process greatly reduces outbursts and indiscretions. Knowing the time and procedure to provide input, engages the parties and the public while informing and contributing to confidence in the outcome. It is trust and confidence through open and respectful procedures that I am seeking to reinforce.

Court congestion and jail overcrowding will not be significantly eased by any act of a single Judge. These are systemic problems that arise from limited and uneven staffing, failure to recognize the interplay between different departments and the reality of limited funding and resources. I am pleased that in recent years there has been more recognition of this system wide and integrated approach. But there is still little planning and dialogue between the departments as each acts and reacts to the proposed solutions of the other. And, we remain unable to plan into the future as budgets are set on an annual basis rather than longer term.

That said, one Judge can affect the efficiency in a courtroom. Keeping the hours needed to get the job done and accommodate the needs of attorneys racing to hearings in many courts is a necessary step. Being willing to discuss cases prior to the date of the hearing will also be helpful, in spite of placing an additional burden on Judges to keep notes and memorialize discussions and negotiations. Flexibility of this sort, however, will drive home the expectation that the Judge is willing to put in the effort necessary and the attorneys are expected to do the same. Fewer continuances will be needed to consider offers or issues if they have been discussed prior to the court date.

But the greatest progress toward efficiency will be made through dialogue with the other involved departments on a regular basis. The needs and expectations of the various departments can be heard and progress can be designed, as perceived impediments are eliminated or accommodated, for a more efficient systemic approach. This could include meeting with State leaders and advocating for long term budgets and planning in our essential services branches, including the judiciary and public safety. This type of planning is needed at every level of government but would be particularly helpful where essential services are concerned. Better planning will lead to greater stability and better use of resources.

What we do in the court process and the court’s available services should be made clearer and more familiar to our public. In many ways our courts will better serve our community when our community is more familiar with the role of the courts. This is not necessarily because greater numbers will have reason to appear in a courtroom, but because that knowledge will help individuals understand the reported workings of the court and the reasons for various actions. That understanding will build trust in the institution. That understanding will also assist anyone seeking documents or services from the court.

Even with a better understanding of the courts, the community would be best served by fuller access to court records and documents. Of course, many of the impediments to full access are rooted in privacy considerations. Juvenile records, probation reports and mental health related evaluations are generally foreclosed to public access in the absence of a showing of need. These are policy decisions that arise out of our collective desire to see people rehabilitate and reenter society without stigma. Of course, this privacy has been balanced against the anonymity that it helps a would-be threat to our community to maintain. As a result, this balance changes over time as greater information is deemed necessary to protect the community.

What ever information is permitted, it should be easily obtained. Changing information technology and storage systems will help in this effort. More information will become available online and the cost of storage and retrieval will be greatly reduced. Electronic storage rather than tangible archival storage will greatly boost availability of information and records. The limitations will be the time and cost of conversion to such a system and the policy and procedure decisions for permitting or baring access.

However, as this wealth of stored information becomes more quickly and readily available, so too will be the expectation that cases can be just as quickly brought to a close. Our legal system is predicated upon due process rights. Because due process is dependent upon knowing and informed exercise of rights and options, attorneys and judges are obligated to inform the parties at each stage of the proceedings. As a result, there is no foreseeable substitute for man hours and diligent effort to prepare cases for disposition or trial. This does not mean that cases should not move forward quickly and efficiently, but civil and criminal cases do take time. Unnecessary and frivolous delays should be eliminated. But, the record of each action must be made so that later review can determine that rights were observed and informed decisions were made. That is the cornerstone of our system of justice.

The courts are intended as open institutions with the public looking on to ensure that the process is fair. I favor the greatest public access that can be permitted without prejudicing or endangering individuals. However, judges are precluded from discussing a case while it is pending. The parties, while generally well served by doing the same, often seek to disseminate information that aids their side rather than providing neutral information. And, we are wary of the media presenting excerpts from a case because jurors might gain access to information or opinions that will improperly affect their perception of the case.

We have settled upon a case by case judicial analysis of the extent to which media coverage is permitted. For safety and privacy reasons, jurors are generally not named or pictured. After all, the case is not about the jury but the litigants and issues. Unless there are legal concerns, this may not be the case for defendants, litigants, victims or witnesses. But security is always a consideration. I have handled many cases in which threats were made toward me or witnesses. In such cases the media’s interest will be subordinated to safety considerations. The degree to which media coverage will be constrained will depend upon the nature of the concern. Gag orders, limitations on images and, in rare instances, closed hearings are all tools that help a judge balance the interest in the media to cover proceedings and the need for those proceedings to be conducted without harm or prejudice to the participants.

Of course, the media is driven by immediate interest in present cases. This is a response to the public’s desire for the “scoop” on what is occurring and insight into the likely outcome. While it is not as glamorous, I would rather see ongoing coverage that discusses the courts in an effort to inform the public. The second guessing of decisions made by our courts would be less common if those decisions were understood and the context better explained. I have great regard for our system of justice and I am aware of the immense contributions it has made to our civil society. Similarly, I hold the media in high regard and I wish to see it report the tremendous role the courts play in balancing and protecting interests or at least report day to day coverage in the context of judicial and legal concepts that protect rights and foster justice. Ideally, I would like to see coverage of all aspects of our proceedings. However, the editing and selectivity of coverage necessitated by the duration of proceedings will, of necessity, alter the perception of the case. It may be better to limit coverage than to foster misperception of the proceedings. Unless one has seen and heard the same information as the finder of facts, one can not be in a position to second guess the findings.