Reiner Is Out of Bounds : His attempt to blackball Judge Karlin from criminal cases can only be seen as an attempt to control the judiciary.

The community is understandably outraged at Judge Joyce A. Karlin’s fundamentally wrong sentence of Korean-born grocer Soon Ja Du. Anyone who voluntarily kills another human being under circumstances such as those that led to the death of 15-year-old Latasha Harlins should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, however, has crossed the line of proper criticism by threatening to prevent Karlin from ever hearing another criminal trial.

Reiner’s desire to blackball a novice jurist is outrageous and deserves the condemnation of all, regardless of whether one supports or opposes Du’s sentence. Indeed, from a long-term perspective, Reiner’s politically opportune proposal poses a far greater threat to our system of justice and to the integrity of our judiciary than does a single controversial decision in a high-profile case.

In California, we have an affidavit process by which either side in a case may file a document asking that the case be heard by a judge other than the one assigned. The purpose of this rule, which can be used only once in a case, is to ensure that parties will not be forced to try their case before a biased judge. The federal courts have rejected this rule because, even when properly used, it limits the independence of the judiciary.

Reiner abuses the affidavit process when he targets a judge who has no history of abusing the public trust. Does Reiner really believe that Karlin’s four-month tenure on the bench demonstrates an inability to be fair and impartial to the prosecution in every criminal case that may come before her? Given Karlin’s background as a tough career prosecutor, one would think Reiner would celebrate her appointment to criminal cases. At minimum, Reiner would be hard-pressed to show that Karlin would always be biased in favor of the defendants in any criminal case. There is only one reason for Reiner’s blanket threat: to intimidate and control the judiciary.

Ironically, perhaps, this threat is understood best by the African-American community. At a press conference held Tuesday by black civil-rights activists, Joe Duff, president of the Los Angeles branch of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, criticized Reiner’s threat, saying it could lead to the affidaviting of any judge who in Reiner’s opinion is not giving harsh enough sentences. Affidaviting can also be used to punish actual or potential political opponents and to drive off the bench those whose views of defendants’ constitutional rights do not meet Reiner’s or any future district attorney’s litmus test for political correctness.

In the case of Judge Karlin, Reiner is using the affidavit process for at least two improper purposes--to pander blatantly to this county’s voters for his own ends and to place a stranglehold on its judges.

One need not look far to see how Reiner’s threat to use disqualifying affidavits could intimidate a criminal bench already under pressure by the political process. It seems more than a mere coincidence that this highly volatile case landed with a first-time judge for trial. The county’s experienced criminal judges were less than enthusiastic about taking a case that had the strong potential for protest, and therefore job repercussions, if the prosecution was unsuccessful. Why?

I suggest the answer lies in the fear of the affidavit process and, in particular, Ira Reiner’s political use of it. A district attorney has the power to make or break judicial careers by threatening the use of blanket affidavits against a judge. A judge without cases is a judge without a job. Preservation instincts are strong, and judges hold them as much as anyone else.

The question comes down to how much independence we want our judges to exercise in their position as decision-makers. Particularly in California, where all judges must ultimately stand for election or confirmation, it is plainly wrong for any district attorney to act not only as the prosecuting authority but also as the ultimate controller of judicial authority through the affidavit process.

It is now time to depoliticize the affidavit process by limiting it to those instances where judges demonstrate a consistent pattern of disrespect for our laws or constitutional rights.