home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399
/
9300.zip
/
AOLDLs
/
Legal Documents
/
Simpson Prosecutors Blasted
/
rein.txt
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
2014-12-11
|
26KB
|
586 lines
<html><head><title>CourtTV Law
Library</title></head>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000"
LINK="#0000FF"
VLINK="#FF0005"><P
ALIGN=CENTER><IMG
SRC="/graphics/ctv/hotdocs.gif"
BORDER=0></A></P> [EDITOR'S NOTE: U.S. Appeals
Judge Stephen Reinhardt decries "the serious erosion
in the way America views two of its most respected
and essential institutions -- the bench and the bar."
He cites the political pressure placed on Judge Baer
to reverse his ruling in a search and seizure drug
case as an example of the "inexcusable attacks on
the independence of the judiciary by our political
leaders."
Judge Reinhardt also blasts Marcia Clark and
Christopher Darden for trying to profit from the O.J.
Simpson trial after botching the case with "some of
the most bizarre trial tactics employed in the history
of American jurisprudence." Here is the June 4,
1996, speech that he delivered before the Beverly
Hills Bar Association.] <PRE>
I am pleased and honored to have the opportunity
to speak to the Beverly Hills Bar Association, and
especially at its luncheon honoring the California
Supreme Court. I still remember the fear and
trepidation I felt when, at the age of 40, I appeared
before that august body, even though I had argued a
case before the United States Supreme Court ten
years earlier. My argument before the California
Supreme Court was one of those exciting and
memorable experiences most lawyers merely dream
of. And imagine how thrilled I was when after the
proceedings were over I received a letter from a
Justice. I opened the envelope eagerly. Enclosed was
a note telling me that I was one of the few lawyers
who had ever appeared before the Court who knew
the difference between criterion and criteria. Thank
you once again for your vote of confidence in me,
Justice Mosk.
How often speakers tell their audiences that this is a
critical time. Sometimes, it actually is. Occasionally,
the issue is sharp and clear, and the stakes are high.
For example, few would doubt that last week's
Israeli election met that standard. But most
important changes in a democratic society take place
in a less dramatic manner the gradual erosion of
individual rights, and particularly the Fourth
Amendment, that has come about as a result of our
fear of crime, the increasingly adverse impact of
money and the media on the American electoral
process, the growing divisions between various
racial and ethnic groups, fed by the callous and
selfish actions of some of our most respected
political leaders, and last but not least the ominous
rise of religious fundamentalism at home and
throughout the world. These were or are all gradual
developments and it is often difficult to know just
how or when to try to deal with them. By the time
we realize the need to act the changes are often
firmly entrenched, or even worse, intractable. In
short most changes seem to overtake us before we
are fully aware of the strength of the force behind
them. It is sometimes difficult to see the starting
point, let alone know how to bring an end to a
rapidly escalating but totally debilitating decline.
Today, there is a serious erosion in the way
American views two of its most respected and
essential institutions -- the bench and the bar. It is
these two institutions that differentiate our country
from all others. Together, they enforce a Constitution
that provides freedom, liberty, and equality for all,
that protects democracy as we know it and ensures
that we as a nation will grow in dignity and fairness
at the same time we grow in population and
complexity. Without lawyers dedicated to promoting
our emerging liberties, without lawyers willing to
fight for the rights of the poor and the
disadvantaged, without judges with courage, wisdom
and compassion, we would be locked into a rigid and
inflexible mode of legal analysis. Our constitutional
development would be stifled by a myopic view of
the law, a view that disregards the foresight and
imagination of our Founding Fathers, for in our
Constitution those wise men established a set of
broad general principles that incorporates their
vision of the American spirit and that, with the
addition of a few amendments, like the Fourteenth,
has served as well for numerous generations.
But whatever one's view of constitutional
interpretation, of individual rights, of human
dignity, of the proper role of the judiciary, we must
all recognize that for a variety of reasons the courts
and the legal profession are now at a low point in
public esteem. Perhaps the good news is so is every
other institution - the Presidency, the Congress, the
media, the entertainment industry, even
professional athletics. But, in the long run, that is
little consolation. This nation will not survive as we
know it without a strong and independent judiciary,
without a dedicated and public spirited bar.
First let's look at some of the causes of our fall from
grace and then let me suggest a few modest if
potentially unpopular steps we might take to
improve our current condition.
The causes are not discussed in any particular order
of importance and they certainly do not comprise an
exhaustive list.
First, there are the intemperate and inexcusable
attacks on the independence of the judiciary by our
political leaders. Here, the blame must be shared by
both political parties, although not necessarily to
equal degrees. The Judge Baer episode is only the
most dramatic of these incidents. Judge Baer, the
former Chief Deputy Prosecutor in the United States
Attorney's office in the Southern District of New
York, made a fairly routine ruling in a search and
seizure case. These are sometimes hard calls.
Without reviewing the record, none of us is in a
position to know whether Judge Baer was right
when he initially decided to exclude the evidence
that was seized. Similarly, without reviewing the
record of the second hearing, none of us is in a
position to know whether he was right the second
time, when he reached a different result on a
different record. What we do know, however, is that
the public believes, almost unanimously, that Judge
Baer ordered a second hearing and changed his
mind as a result of political pressure. Not only did
the newspapers announce that "fact," but Senator
Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of
the United States Senate, proudly proclaimed that
Judge Baer reversed his ruling as the direct result of
the actions taken by "the Republican leaders of the
House and Senate." This, after the Republican
candidate for President called for Judge Baer's
impeachment and our Democratic President, a
graduate (along with his wife) of Yale Law School,
publicly hinted that he would ask for the judge's
resignation if he didn't change his ruling. Not one
political figure spoke out for the independence of
the judiciary or even appeared to give serious
thought to whether the ruling might be correct. Even
Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who
was responsible for Judge Baer's appointment,
publicly abandoned his protΘgΘ. And now, we're
off to the races. One Presidential candidate makes
speeches identifying a number of "liberal" judges
who made decisions he calls pro-criminal and the
other replies, "Nah-Nah-" I can name judges
appointed by President Reagan and Bush who made
decisions that are just as pro-criminal - the latter
from a President who doesn't have the courage to
nominate anyone, no matter how qualified, if
someone might even <i>think</i> him to be liberal. In
any event, we can now look forward to a
Presidential campaign that will denigrate the
judiciary further and weaken both its public
standing and its reputation. Out of decency, I won't
even mention the Ninth Circuit's current ugly
experience with high-stakes senatorial manipulation
of the confirmation process in order to affect the
future conduct of a sitting judge, nor the highly
politicized campaign to split the circuit primarily in
hopes of establishing a gerrymandered court that
will free certain industries of their obligation to
comply with environmental laws.
Second, we ourselves seem to value our role less. I
hope that the present justices, most of whom I have
not been privileged to meet before, will have long
and distinguished careers on the California Supreme
Court. I am certain that they believe, and rightly so,
that they have reached the pinnacle of their
profession. I believe that they hold an office that is
one of the most important in our nation -- judicial or
otherwise. The entire country used to take its lead
from the California Supreme Court. But in recent
years we have seen Supreme Court justices who
seem to be barely passing through the system on
their way to better paying jobs, either with private
law firms or as rent a judges or arbitrators. It used
to be that high paid lawyers or successful
arbitrators would give their eye teeth to be
Supreme Court justices, not vice-versa. We must
make it that way once again -- and I suspect that
the special guests you honor here today will do just
that.
Third, we are setting up a private system of justice
for the wealthy and for corporate interests. Never
before in this country have we had two judicial
systems - one free, one for pay. Yet, I read the <i>Los
Angeles Daily Journal</i> regularly and see news
stories, announcements and jazzy full-age
advertisements telling lawyers that they can hire
the famous or esteemed Judge or Justice X or Y to
decide their case if they're just willing to pay the
price. When some of the companies tout the
extensive list of former judges they have under
contract, it almost reminds one of the rivalry
between Alka-Seltzer and PeptoBismol but with the
addition of glamorous poster boys. I doubt that this
is a healthy system or that it engenders respect for
the public courts whose facilities most Californians
are required to use.
Fourth, the cost of running for judicial office is out of
control. That it should cost a judge nearly $50,000
simply to have his biography enclosed with the
ballot pamphlet is a disgrace. That judges must raise
huge amounts of money if challenged, or that
lawyers seeking to run for an open judicial post
must spend in excess of $120,000 in order to run is
outrageous. And who is interested in contributing to
judicial elections, anyway - you guessed it, lawyers.
Fifth, speaking of lawyers, they are suffering
problems of their own, some of which are similar to
ours and some of which are different. The American
Bar Association, a venerable institution composed
largely of establishment lawyers has become the
target of the same politicians who have been
attacking the judiciary, except that this time the
President isn't involved. Thus far, at least, he doesn't
seem to see any political advantage to joining the
attack. Little could anyone have imagined only a few
years ago that the conservative old-line ABA would
become a whipping boy for the right. And the
California Bar, from what I read, is having its own
troubles - this time from within as well as without.
When trouble starts, it indeed seems to come from
all directions.
Next there are the vitriolic attacks on trial lawyers.
These attacks emanate from corporate interests,
public relations groups, and politicians who don't
dare to go after their real targets - the people who
are the victims of willful or negligent conduct, fraud,
or worse - the people who suffer crippling injuries
or even death. In order to try to limit the victims'
recoveries, the potential defendants go after their
lawyers, defame them, complain about attorneys'
fees and try to make it as unprofitable as possible to
represent people who can't afford to pay huge
retainers. Let me say that the trial lawyers are quite
capable of taking care of themselves - of fighting
back - and they do, with a vengeance - but it is the
bar as a whole that is diminished in the public eye;
it is the entire profession that receives the notoriety
and becomes the object of public humiliation and
contempt.
And how could anyone talk about the loss of respect
for the justice system and for lawyers without
mentioning the trial of the century. I don't want to
discuss here the way the trial was conducted by the
trial judge. Nor do I wish to discuss the jury's
performance, or its astonishing verdict. Rather, I
want to note that the trial has had a profound and
most unfortunate effect on American society in so
many ways - from the deep racial divisiveness that
it exposed and perpetuated, and that remains the
trial's most visible heritage, to the unfortunate
effort to try to change the rules of the justice system
so as to limit the rights of criminal defendants, to
campaign to ban televised trials and thus deprive
the American public of essential information
regarding what transpires in our courts. Fortunately,
the latter effort appears not to be as successful as
once seemed likely, although I must admit that the
state courts are far more enlightened than the
federal courts in this area, as in a fair number of
others.
There is, however, one aspect of the lawyers'
performance in the trial on which I will comment
briefly. The rush to sell books and movie scripts,
even prior to the end of the trial, was a most
unseemly occurrence. Perhaps the most mind-
boggling aspect, however, was how two of the
lawyers who lost a case that most people had
thought could not possibly be lost, and who did so
through the use of some of the most bizarre trial
tactics employed in the history of American
jurisprudence, not only obtained book and motion
picture deals that will bring them more money than
most lawyers make over their entire careers, but
that they now also command huge fees as lecturers.
That, on the basis of this trial, they are held out as
expert practitioners, role models, and examples of
dedicated public servants simply defies the
imagination. Once again, of course, the scorn that so
many Americans feel for some of the lawyers
involved - and I hasten to add that in some respects
that scorn is totally undeserved - is not only
directed at the particular lawyers but at the entire
legal profession.
Before offering a few thoughts on what we can do I
must mention two other very significant recent
developments.
First is the defunding of legal services and capital
appellate projects, as well as the effort to limit both
the amounts paid to lawyers willing to undertake
death penalty work, and the amounts available for
investigative services. The assault with which I am
most familiar and, to which I refer today, comes
from the federal side, although I am aware that
there are states that pay trial lawyers in capital
cases an amount that would hardly be sufficient to
compensate them for the cost of defending a
speeding ticket. In this new era, the poor, and in
many instances the middle class, will receive far less
adequate legal services than they have enjoyed in
the past, and there will be numerous instances in
which their efforts to remedy serious injustices or
enjoin arbitrary and unlawful governmental actions
will fail for want of available legal services. A sad
retreat for American justice.
Second, the changes in habeas corpus law which
were a key part of President Clinton's Anti-terrorist
Law, though wholly unrelated to that statute's
professed purpose, are both sweeping and
revolutionary. The principal objective of the drafters
of the habeas sections was to prevent federal courts
from overturning unconstitutional state convictions,
and to a surprising extent, they may have been
successful. However, this is not the place or time to
discuss the specifics of the new anti-habeas
provisions that President Clinton has given us or
their effect on our historic concept of due process of
law, anymore than this is the place to discuss the
draconian asylum and deportation provisions that
were contained in that same so-called anti-terrorist
bill after being enacted with almost no public
awareness or discussion. In fact the asylum
provisions were so bad that when informed of their
content Senator Hatch immediately introduced
partially corrective legislation that then passed the
Senate by an <i>overwhelming</i> vote of 51 to 49.
The fate of those comparatively innocuous
ameliorative amendments in the House is uncertain
at best.
So where does all this leave us?
First, state courts will no longer have the same
degree of comfort in knowing that federal courts are
there to save them when they fail to protect the
constitutional rights of unpopular criminal
defendants. I say this without any irony. I have
spoken with judges who must stand for election and
have heard them say that they cannot afford to
reverse capital convictions in cases that engender
heated community passions. I hasten to add that I
am not referring to California judges, though I do
recall both Justice Kaus and Justice Grodin speaking
publicly of how difficult it is for judges to separate a
concern over reelection from one's view of a
controversial, complex and highly inflammatory
legal issue. We have all heard tales of the gallant
and courageous Southern Circuit Court judges
appointed by President Eisenhower in the 1950's.
Those judges, including J. Skelly Wright, John Minor
Wisdom, and Elbert Tuttle among others fought a
lonely and often dangerous struggle against racial
segregation, but they could not have done so
without the security of life tenure. Their jobs would
not have lasted one minute had they had to stand
for re-election or been subject to recall. In fact, we
in Los Angeles lost two wonderful state court judges,
Alfred Gittelson and Paul Egly, because they tried to
apply the law fairly and equally in a school
desegregation case. And only recently slates were
formed to try to ensure that only judges who scored
high enough on a litmus law and order test would be
returned to office. While that effort failed, history
tells us that it could be repeated and perhaps with
greater success.
One of the principal purposes of the Bill of Rights is
to protect unpopular minorities against the will of
emotion-driven majorities. Another is to ensure that
criminal defendants, even those accused of the most
heinous crimes, enjoy the full rights to which all
persons brought before the bar of justice are
entitled. It is the fate of judges who enforce the
Federal Constitution to take positions that may be
extremely unpopular with the electorate. That is the
reason federal judges are afforded life tenure.
If federal courts are now to be deprived of the
opportunity to make a full and independent review
in order to determine whether the states have
afforded their citizens the protections guaranteed by
the United States Constitution, then the time may
well have come to extend the protection of life
tenure to state court judges. Obviously any such
change would take some time because it is a matter
for each state to decide for itself and, would, in most
cases require amending the state Constitution.
Numerous issues would need to be resolved,
including adopting a fair and effective confirmation
process, and in California, at least, that would mean
developing different processes for different levels of
the judiciary. I would hope that California would
lead the way by giving serious consideration to life
tenure at the earliest possible time. Surely, one side
benefit that would inure to everyoneÆs advantage is
that judges would no longer have to solicit campaign
contributions from attorneys or their law firms.
I would also hope that California would reconsider
its system of economic inducements that encourages
judges to retire at the peak of their working life,
take their pensions, and start a second career in
private judging or private practice. California might
examine the federal system in which judges are
encouraged to continue to work past normal
retirement age, on a reduced schedule if they wish,
and thus help resolve the problems of overcrowded
calendars and judicial logjams by remaining in
public service. Under the present California system,
too many valuable judicial resources are lost
entirely or are made available only to the few who
can afford them. By contrast, it is an extremely rare
occurrence for a federal judge to leave the bench
after the age of 60 in order to commence some other
business pursuit in the field of law.
Obviously the federal system is far from perfect. But
just as we can learn from state experimentation, so
the states can learn from the wisdom of our
founding fathers. The drafters of the Constitution
concluded that the independence of the judiciary is
critical to a democratic society and that life tenure is
critical to an independent judiciary. Perhaps I view
the judicial world from a biased standpoint, but I
always have agreed with those precepts, even when
I was a mere student at that outstanding institution
that produced both William Jefferson Clinton and
Clarence Thomas. I believe that however high the
quality of state judges may now be, and in some
states it is very high indeed, that quality would over
the long run reach an even higher level under a
system that offered judicial officers and potential
judicial candidates life tenure - a system that would
permanently free them of concerns over whether
unpopular decisions might mean the end of their
careers.
As to the lot of lawyers, concededly the practice is
more difficult and in many ways less rewarding
than it used to be. Perhaps the decline in public
respect is inevitable as law becomes more of a
business and less of a profession. The
depersonalization of law, like the depersonalization
of medicine reduces the human equation and breeds
lack of trust and respect. Managed health care and
multinational law firms leave doctors and lawyers,
patients and clients, frustrated and suspicious. The
family doctor and the family lawyer are a dying
breed, at least in metropolitan areas. Specialization
has its vices as well as its virtues. Whatever the
reasons, the statement "he's a lawyer (or now, she's
a lawyer) no longer evokes a feeling of awe or
respect. Instead, it's more like uttering a dirty
phrase.
I see no way to remedy this unfortunate decline in
our profession's reputation other than to try to
regain the public trust by our individual deeds and
actions. Pro bono programs and extensive
community involvement are essential, and they are
fortunately becoming increasingly common in many
firms. There simply is no substitute for human
contact, for the reaching out by individual lawyers
to individual clients who are in need of advice or
assistance - and particularly to those clients who
cannot afford to pay the cost of services. Lawyers
must think of themselves as professionals and not as
businessmen - as persons with a special mission and
a special trust. They must recognize their obligation
to the community and they must comport
themselves as public citizens throughout their
careers.
No bar organization or state disciplinary group can
instill these concepts in the members of our
profession. Nor can any external force eradicate the
cynicism and disillusionment that marks the modern
practitioner. Equally important, a return to our old
idealism cannot occur solely within a single
profession. But if it starts with us, perhaps others
will follow. Perhaps, someday, individuals will once
again be able to run for elective office without
having to subject themselves to public pillorying by
their opponents and the media, and perhaps
someday their private lives and sexual proclivities
will no longer be fair game for microscopic
examinations by a prurient public. We would have
lost a lot of good presidents and a lot of good
Supreme Court justices had we always maintained
our current puritanical barriers.
As lawyers we can try to lead a return to decency -
every one of us. And we can influence new law
school graduates, graduates like my daughter who
will be receiving her degree two years from now, to
view the profession with respect, if not with awe.
We can give young lawyers a message that is far
different from the one we have recently been
offering them upon their emergence into the "real
world". We can tell them that it's not just the
billable hours that matter, it's not just their ability
to attract business - that the height of the profession
is not being a rainmaker. We can tell them that it's
the quality of their performance as a professional, as
a member of a group charged with a unique trust
and responsibility that counts at least as heavily -
that it , the amount that they give back to their
communities, their nation, and their profession. This
is probably all quite outdated and unrealistic, and it
may even run contrary to some of the concepts of
the free market economy we tend to worship so
mightily these days. But I don't know what else we
can do, and unless someone has a better idea, it may
be worthwhile for each of us to give it a try. Thank
you all very much for your patience and for inviting
me here today.
</PRE><P ALIGN=CENTER>
<IMG SRC="/graphics/ctv/stroke.gif" HEIGHT=15
WIDTH=547><BR>
<A HREF="/map/bottom.map"><IMG
SRC="/graphics/ctv/bottom.gif" ISMAP
ALIGN=ABSBOTTOM
BORDER=0
WIDTH=533
HEIGHT=30></A><BR>
<IMG SRC="/graphics/ctv/rights.gif" ALT="Copyright
1996 by
the Courtroom Television Network. All Rights
Reserved. No parts
of this site may be reproduced in any form without
the permission
of Court TV. Disclaimer: Nothing in this site is
intended to
constitute legal advice."></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>