Court Denied Rights of Poor, O.C. Bar Says : Justice: Defendants were denied lawyers so that high rate of guilty pleas could be maintained, inquiry finds.

SANTA ANA —  So that a high rate of guilty pleas could be maintained, poor defendants in one of the county’s busiest municipal courts were frequently denied their constitutional rights, including access to defense counsel, an Orange County Bar Assn. investigation has concluded.

Based on the findings of a 2 1/2-month inquiry, the local bar passed an unprecedented resolution late Wednesday night stating that it found “convincing evidence” of widespread legal abuses in Santa Ana’s Central Municipal Court and recommended several corrective measures.

The two-page resolution, made public Thursday, says the bar determined that “there was systematic denial of due process to many criminal defendants representing themselves at arraignment before Judge Claude Whitney.”

It is the first time in decades, if not its history, that the 90-year-old organization has issued such a strong statement against a judge or court.

“I think it’s unusual,” said Michelle A. Reinglass, the county bar president. “Wherever possible, we like to support the judiciary. Unfortunately, because of the denial of constitutional rights, we were very concerned and wanted to make sure we took a firm stand in the hope that what happened won’t be repeated in the future.”

Whitney, who is now under investigation by the state Commission on Judicial Performance, could not be reached for comment Thursday. James M. Brooks, the presiding judge of Central Municipal Court, declined to comment on the resolution, saying he had not read it.

The county bar formed a “due process” task force in February in response to articles in The Times and charges by the Orange County public defender’s office that Whitney and Brooks repeatedly denied basic legal rights to indigent defendants in an effort to maintain a high rate of guilty pleas.

After a lengthy and sometimes emotional debate, the bar’s 30-member board of directors unanimously accepted the task force’s conclusions and recommendations at its regular meeting Wednesday night. The board represents at least 5,400 bar members.

Reinglass described the resolution as a symbolic gesture and a sign that the local bar will work to protect the constitutional rights of the accused in local courts. The action, she said, should not be construed as a disciplinary measure, which is the responsibility of the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Despite the problems of the past, Reinglass said, the bar “applauds Central Municipal Court and the public defender’s office for resolving the issues and bringing them to an end.”

Whitney is no longer handling arraignments in Central Municipal Court, and a written agreement signed by Brooks and Public Defender Ron Butler has been filed in Orange County Superior Court to make sure proper legal procedures are followed.

Butler said that since Whitney was reassigned, his office has had no problems with his replacement, Judge Donna Crandall, who was elected to the bench last year.

“Certainly I agree with the findings of the Orange County Bar Assn.,” Butler said. “My major concern is that this be resolved and the business of justice go on as usual. From what I understand, Crandall is doing an excellent job. . . .”

The current controversy began in November when Butler’s office quietly sought a court order to halt what the agency thought was the blatant denial of constitutional rights for hundreds, if not thousands, of people accused of misdemeanors.

Even after wresting the written agreement from Brooks, the public defender thought the abuses so serious in Whitney’s courtroom that the office took its allegations to the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The voluminous complaint includes more than 300 pages of documentation to make the point that Central Municipal Court was more concerned about clearing crowded court dockets than protecting the fundamental legal rights of the accused.

It alleges that Whitney, who oversaw one of the busiest arraignment courts, prevented defendants from exercising their right to an attorney and ordered those asking for one to return to jail for a week until a lawyer could be found.

In addition, the complaint charges that Whitney illegally denied people the right to bail hearings, did not provide adequate interpreters to non-English-speaking defendants, handed down the wrong sentences for crimes, and discouraged or, in some instances, forbade defense attorneys in his courtroom from talking to defendants seeking counsel.

The public defender contends that Whitney pursued such policies with the knowledge of Brooks, who apparently was interested in maintaining a high rate of guilty pleas from poor people who could not afford bail or private counsel.

Whitney has declined to comment about the investigation by the Commission of Judicial Performance. Brooks has defended the court, saying that the perceived problems are the result of record-keeping errors, simple misunderstandings and “personality clashes” between deputy public defenders and Whitney.

But according to an internal report of the county bar investigation obtained by The Times, the task force found problems similar to those alleged by the public defender.

Among other things, defendants were not adequately advised of their rights under the U.S. Constitution, and many people were denied access to court-appointed counsel at their first court appearance, which is a “critical stage” of the proceedings.

The bar further concluded that defendants often did not understand the court proceedings, due either to language problems or inadequate explanation by the court.

“The task force has determined that the causes of this denial of due process included a desire to move criminal cases through the system in an expeditious manner,” the internal report states. “From an administrative viewpoint, this is a desirable goal. However, task force members found that basic constitutional rights were ignored in favor of a quick resolution of cases.”

Based on those findings, the county bar proposed several steps that should be taken to ensure that all defendants in Central Municipal Court are properly advised of their constitutional rights.

The resolution states that indigent defendants who want an attorney should have access to appointed counsel on the day of arraignment.

Just as important, bar officials say, defendants who, without benefit of an attorney, entered pleas of guilty or no contest before Whitney should be permitted to withdraw their pleas.

In conjunction with the Hispanic Bar Assn. and the public defender’s office, the Orange County Bar Assn. has assembled a group of lawyers who will provide free legal services to assist anyone who thinks their rights were denied during appearances in Whitney’s court.

Reinglass said the bar’s conclusions and recommendations were based on an independent and thorough investigation that included reviewing court records as well as interviews with lawyers and Municipal Court judges.

A tough stance needed to be taken, she said, because similar situations have occurred off and on in Central Municipal Court for almost 20 years.

In 1976, the public defender’s office became concerned about the possible denial of constitutional rights during arraignments in Central Municipal Court of those too poor to afford bail or private counsel.

Using college students to monitor arraignments for several months, deputy public defenders documented hundreds of cases in which defendants were not advised of their constitutional rights or were jailed when they asked for attorneys.

“There were glaring problems in Central Municipal Court,” said Johanna Ramsay, a private investigator and former UC Irvine student who participated in the investigation. “Lots of things were just not right. What I read in the papers today is so much a repeat of what was happening back then. I thought things would have improved by now.”

The problems documented in 1976 were corrected with an informal agreement, but in the mid-1980s difficulties were encountered again by then-Deputy Public Defender Paul Stark, who supervised Municipal Court operations.

Stark said the policy for some judges in Central Municipal Court was to bar everyone from the courtroom during arraignments, including the public, prosecutors and defense attorneys.

In addition, Stark said, jail sentences were often handed down without adequate explanation, and defendants were frequently sent back to jail for two weeks before pretrial hearings could be held, putting pressure on them to plead guilty.

Stark said he eventually obtained an informal agreement to end the practices.

“We have learned that situations like this have occurred in the past,” Reinglass said. “Without a strong position, we feared that when the furor died down, it might happen again. We want to make sure this does not reoccur.”

O.C. Bar Recommendations

The board of directors of the Orange County Bar Assn. adopted the following recommendations in response to findings that many defendants were denied their constitutional rights in Santa Ana’s Central Municipal Court. * Defendants’ rights: Every possible step should be taken to ensure that defendants in criminal cases be fully advised of their constitutional rights and understand all aspects of the proceedings and available options before being asked to enter a plea. * Indigent defendants: Those who want an attorney should have access to appointed counsel on the day of arraignment. * Withdrawal of pleas: Defendants without attorneys who pleaded guilty or no contest before Judge Claude Whitney between July 1 and Dec. 14, 1992, should be permitted to withdraw their pleas. * Free legal assistance: The Orange County Bar Assn., with the Hispanic Bar Assn. and the county public defender’s office, should assemble a group to provide free legal services for anyone allegedly denied rights by Judge Whitney. For assistance, call (714) 541-7660. Source: Orange County Bar Assn. Los Angeles Times