Criminal Cases and Courts

Criminal defense attorney Paul Wallin complains of my policy requiring that discussions of criminal cases be in open court, not in chambers. At the heart of the matter is that criminal cases are the public’s business and that the public has a right to know the manner in which they are being handled. The public often lacks confidence in the criminal justice system, and a participant reason for that is the back-room atmosphere created by discussion in chambers. Many conscientious judges have long preferred to conduct the public’s business in open court.

Wallin suggests that, without discussion in chambers, an enormous backlog of cases will develop. He fails to explain why. Cases should be handled the same way--in chambers or in open court. If they are handled the same there is no reason why proceeding in open court should create a backlog. On the other hand, if something is being said or done in chambers that shouldn’t be said or done at all, then it is essential that the case be discussed in open court.

Wallin paints a worst-case scenario involving the prosecution of informants. I am sure my office, together with responsible judges and defense attorneys, can work our way through this minuscule percentage of cases. The only impediment to satisfactorily resolving cases of this type would be a judge or defense attorney who conducts himself out of sheer perversity.

Let’s quit crying wolf and get down to business. After all, if Wallin really thought the cases against his clients were going to be dismissed, he would be eager to enforce my policy--not oppose it.

CECIL HICKS

Orange County district attorney