There is just something not right about an election involving judicial candidates. Part of the problem is that judges by their nature should not exercise their opinions, they should be listeners and they should take steps to make sure that the law is being followed and that all sides are given a fair chance to present their perspective.
The Vanguard had its first opportunity to sit down with Judge Daniel P. Maguire, and found him to be a calm, collected and devoted individual.
In demeanor alone, Judge Maguire is vastly different from Deputy DA Clinton Parish, who last week announced he would challenge Judge Maguire, who was appointed just last year, electorally.
Mr. Parish took off the gloves, calling the appointment “political payback,” and argued that Judge Maguire lacks criminal law experience.
Supporters of Judge Maguire, however, quickly counter that though he does lack experience on the criminal side, Mr. Parish lacks experience on the civil side.
As Judge Mcguire pointed out to the Vanguard, becoming a judge is a steep learning curve, no matter how you slice it.
He told the Enterprise in a story that appeared this weekend, “There are a number of different departments in the court, and no new judge comes into court with knowledge of all these areas… We’ve all got to learn something, and I’m confident I can learn the calendar just as the other judges have.”
The irony is that, while Mr. Parish has made a big deal out of his vastly superior criminal law experience, he would not get to preside over criminal cases for quite some time.
Coming out of the DA’s office, it will be at least three years before he could possibly move his way into criminal court, due to conflicts of interest and other problems – and probably a good deal longer than that.
Moreover, there are experienced judges with criminal experience backgrounds already on the bench, such as Judge Mock, Judge Fall, Judge Rosenberg, Judge Richardson and Judge Reed, so it is far from clear that Yolo County is really in dire need of another judge with criminal experience.
The law enforcement establishment is starting to line up behind Mr. Parish. Unlike James Walker’s ill-fated challenge to Judge Fall, DA Jeff Reisig, former DA Dave Henderson, Sheriff Ed Prieto and others in the law enforcement community have already come out backing Clinton Parish.
The problem becomes obvious here, as a judge is supposed to be fair and impartial. Talk to Judge Maguire for a few minutes and it becomes clear he is exactly that. But watch and observe Clinton Parish, look at who is backing him, listen to his rhetoric, and you question whether he can be fair and impartial.
There are prosecutors who end up being defendants’ judges because they have bent over backwards to be considered fair and above the board.
But that does not seem to be Clinton Parish’s mentality. He is brash. He practices showmanship in trial. And he is partisan.
In our last article we noted his vigorous defense of the District Attorney’s office’s decision to try to put Robert Ferguson in prison for life for stealing a $3.99 package of cheese in a case that drew national scrutiny on the follies of California’s three strikes law.
Mr. Parish played a crucial role in arguing for life in prison.
He argued that, given Mr. Ferguson’s long history of being in prison for a total of 22 years, he has not learned from his mistakes.
Mr. Parish told the court, “The people gave him another shot, yet here we are again… Simply put, this defendant is a career criminal.”
Maybe with a different role, Mr. Parish can have a different approach, but ask yourself, if you were a defendant, is that the judge you would want hearing your case?
And while eventually Judge Warriner would, in Mr. Fergusen’s case, accept the probation department’s recommendation to disregard prior strikes, during a time of economic crisis, California’s taxpayers will be paying about $50,000 per year for the next eight years to put a guy in prison for one of the most mild offenses you can imagine.
Is it unfair to consider one case by a prosecutor? Probably. However, as Mr. Parish said in his statement to the media, he is an experienced attorney.
He has a track record. He is flamboyant, such as in the case of Ronnie Barhona, accused of attempting to murder two Sacramento Police Officers in West Sacramento.
In his rebuttal closing argument, he wildly waved a gun over the heads of the jury asking them the color of his eyes – an explanation of why the officers who were shot at gave poor and conflicting accounts of what happened.
He punctuated an explanation of the “kill zone” with a PowerPoint presentation that was accompanied by generic gunfire sound-effects that were blasted on his speakers at the jury.
In his final act, Mr. Parish told the jury to imagine it is Thanksgiving dinner and the story of this trial is being told to family. He relayed a story at breakneck pace that could have been out of the Fast and Furious. The story began with a man taking a blow torch to a Sacramento ATM, then culminated in a high-speed pursuit, tearing through the streets of Sacramento and then West Sacramento. It ended with a car hitting a fire hydrant and a foot chase, and with the man opening fire on the police.
Mr. Parish was dramatic in his presentation, delivering it rapidly, and he closed his story talking about how the man shot at the police, “bang,” and shot again “bang, bang,” and finally the fourth shot, “bang.”
Mr. Parish said, and your family turns to you and asks, what happened? “Nothing, he was shooting at the ground, we walked him.”
And finally we have numerous cases where Mr. Parish has thrown what is tantamount to an adult tantrum when he has not gotten his way.
In one courtroom episode last year, Deputy DA Parish began complaining about the policy of converting fines to jail time. He argued that the county was hurting for revenue and needed to start collecting these fines rather than allowing the defendants to work them off with time served in jail.
Judge White quickly overruled him, arguing that the best thing for the county’s fiscal outlook was to get the individual rehabbed, and in a job where he could pay his taxes.
Worse yet, when a defendant was given a suspended sentence, he practically exploded.
“This has become a joke,” he said. “Suspended prison sentences are never imposed in this county and it has become a running joke.”
He then mocked the probationer’s claim that relapses happen. Judges bend over backwards not to impose suspended sentences.
He then said the DA is no longer going to offer suspended sentences. And then he said, “When we stop offering suspended sentences, remember this day.”
Perhaps we can believe that some of these episodes are merely acts intended to reach a desired end. But when we select a judge, I do not believe we can afford to take a chance that Mr. Parish will mature and suddenly become fair and impartial.
It makes a lot of sense why Judge Maguire would be the subject of what could perhaps be called a powerplay by the DA’s office.
The other judges up for election next year are Judge Rosenberg, a political heavyweight, and Judge David Reed. Judge Reed, a former defense attorney, is a close ally of Judge Rosenberg and is the President of the Oddfellows, following in the shoes of Judge Rosenberg.
What is far less clear is why the DA’s office would be pushing and backing Clinton Parish, when they have better, more experienced and more mature alternatives.
Judge Maguire got strong support from Presiding Judge David Rosenberg in the Davis Enterprise this week.
“He has done a great job – he’s handled a very busy civil calendar, and everything else we’ve given him,” Presiding Judge David Rosenberg said. “He seems to have all the ingredients you’re looking for in a judge in terms of intellect and demeanor, and I’ve heard nothing but compliments from the people who appear before him.”
Speaking for himself, the judge told the Enterprise: “I’ve got a well-rounded, balanced background, so it’s not hard for me to be neutral and fair.”
“I have found it’s very natural for me to work as a judge. I think it fits my temperament,” he added.
The Vanguard’s brief meeting with him this week bears this out. In the end, both men would have a lot to learn about their jobs – Judge Maguire will have to learn criminal law at some point, but a Judge Parish would have to learn civil, family or juvenile law, he would have to do it immediately, and he would have a huge learning curve there as well.
The biggest difference is one of temperance. Judge Maguire seems very even-keeled and has a very measured and analytic approach, whereas Clinton Parish is flamboyant and prone to leaping to conclusions.
The voters can decide for themselves which mentality and demeanor they prefer from a judge, but we have to, in the meantime, question whether they are the best ones to determine that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The voters can decide for themselves which mentality and demeanor they prefer from a judge, but we have to in the meantime question whether they are the best ones to determine that.[/quote]
Why would the voters not be the best ones to determine which mentality and demeanor they prefer from a judge? I’m not following you here. What is it about voters that would make you question their ability to decide? You haven’t given any indication in your article as to why you would think voters are not the best ones to determine which mentality and demeanor they prefer…
David:
I thought you did not endorse candidates. Seems like you have done that here.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Matt may be correct, but David appears to be successful in clioning one… it appears we now have two Judge Richardson’s…
hpierce, yes I have been trying to get clarification on the intention of that entire paragraph. I am going to make an interim decision!
[i]”Why would the voters not be the best ones to determine which mentality and demeanor they prefer from a judge?”[/i]
Because 99.92748% of them will never make their decision based on a thorough and fair appraisal of either man’s mentality or demeanor. They won’t go to court to witness Judge Maguire in action. They won’t witness Deputy DA Parish prosecuting a case.
If you polled a representative sample of Yolo County voters–say only people who have voted in each of the last 4 countywide elections–I would bet that 75% or more could not name a single Yolo County judge. Even in Davis, I bet 75% don’t know that our former mayor, Dave Rosenberg, is the presiding judge.
Being a good judge or not is partly a question of temperament, partly a question of work ethic, partly time management, partly one of managing his own staff, and partly one of legal experience and mastery of the laws.
The average voter not only doesn’t follow the individual judges closely enough to know their names, they have no objective way to accurately assess whether Maguire or Parish is better suited on the basis of temperament, work ethic, time management, staff management, legal experience or mastery of the laws. The average Joe is just too busy to take the time to find out what he needs to know to make an informed vote. (I include myself in that too ignorant to vote smartly on judges category, as well.)
A counter argument is to say: well, if you don’t feel qualified to vote for a judge, then don’t vote. Leave that part of your ballot blank. To that I say: if at least 75% of the people who are regular voters, who participate in every election, are too ignorant to make an informed decision on this type of election, then why not leave the decision entirely up to the governor and his staff who are well informed and will be checked by the state legislators and their informed staff members?
A big secondary issue for me in electing judges is the money issue: how can we expect judges to be completely independent when we are forcing them to raise money to win office? It’s obvious who will contribute to these campaigns: lawyers and lawyer lobby groups. They will try to elect someone who is biased in their favor and who will, once on the bench, feel compelled to pay them back. It’s the same reason it is foul in Davis City Council elections to have candidates taking money from developers and public employees: those groups are, like lawyers who fund judges, trying to game the system against the general interest.
For anyone who thinks it makes sense that the average uninformed voter should elect our judges, tell me this (without looking it up): Who is your Los Rios Community College Trustee? You elected her. Did you even know she was a female? Have you been paying attention to how well she has been doing her job, so that the next time that position comes up for a vote, your vote will be an informed one?
And this: who did you elect last year to the State Board of Equalization? What? You don’t know?!!! You don’t have time to pay attention to that office?
You don’t know who represents you on the County Board of Education? You elected him. You also elected your Auditor-Controller/Treasurer Tax Collector and your Assessor and your County Superintendent of Schools. When you voted for these men–all happen to be males–were your votes informed? Have you made sure they are doing their jobs well?
Voters should not be voting for minor or technical offices. We should not, in Davis, leave it to the voters to decide who the Asst. City Manager or the City Manager is. These are professional positions. We should elect legislators–the City Council, the Board of Education, the Board of Supervisors, the state assembly and the state senate–and we should choose the governor. After that, we need to pay attention to the work those limited number of elected officials are doing and hold them accountable and not re-elect them if they perform poorly or if a challenger to them seems to be better.
The worst thing we do with excessive elections is put people in office with the imprimatur of legitimacy and then forget about them completely. When half or more of the people we elect are unknown names to most people who voted for them, it’s clear to me that we have made it too hard for too many people to cast informed votes and to keep an eye on their elected officials.
I should add that I don’t favor having the people elect any of the statewide executive positions below governor: Rather than have a Gavin Newsom run on his own for Lt. Governor (a mostly meaningless job unless the governor’s health fails), I think Jerry Brown (or his party in a convention) should have chosen Brown’s running mate.
I also think jobs like Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner and Supt. of Public Instruction should be appointed by the Governor and approved (or rejected) by the legislature. That is how we deal with these sorts of offices at the federal level, and it seems to me we get better people because of it.
Well we know who DG is supporting. Have you set up an interview with Parish?
I’ll admit to knowing absolutely nothing about either of these men, but if Reisig is pushing Parish that would be enough to give Maguire my vote.
[quote]I’ll admit to knowing absolutely nothing about either of these men, but if Reisig is pushing Parish that would be enough to give Maguire my vote.[/quote]
Why would you dismiss Parish because of Reisig’s endorsement?
[quote][i]”The Vanguard had its first opportunity to sit down with Judge Daniel P. Maguire, and found him to be a calm, collected and devoted individual….The problem becomes obvious here, as a judge is supposed to be fair and impartial. Talk to Judge Maguire for a few minutes and it becomes clear he is exactly that.”[/i][/quote]Well, that’s good enough for me! (Thank goodness, David’s endorsement is consistent with my standard, alphabetical-order voting method for candidates and issues about which I’m totally ignorant.)
It would have been nice to have read something about Judge Maguire’s interview conversation other than his learning curve comment. Will you be interviewing Deputy DA Parish as well?[quote][i]”The worst thing we do with excessive elections is put people in office with the imprimatur of legitimacy and then forget about them completely.”[/i][/quote]Another big concern (maybe the biggest for me) is the unknown impact the election process has on how the winners end up judging.
First, there’s the need for money and endorsements. Then, there’s the matter of how voters might view “performance”–even on a single controversial case–when reelection time rolls around. Do any of these issues play any role in any court decisions?
I’ll be happy to interview Mr. Parish as soon as he returns my email request.
“Moreover, with experienced judges with criminal experience backgrounds, such as Judge Mock, Judge Fall, Judge Rosenberg and Judge Richardson, it is far from clear that Yolo County is really in dire need of another judge with criminal experience.”
What are the criminal law backgrounds of Rosenberg and Fall prior to their appointments? From what I can tell, neither one had any.
“But watch and observe Clinton Parish, look at who is backing him, listen to his rhetoric, and you question whether he can be fair and impartial.”
I think it depends on whether you’re basing your opinions of him through his role as a prosecutor. In that sense, he is not expected to be impartial as a presiding judge. It may be that DDA Parish has a specific function within the DA’s Office and/or his tactics/style are utilized for certain purposes, at the request of his superiors.
I think most judges and candidates would seek the support of law enforcement and proudly display such support on their campaign literature.
[quote]ERM: “Why would the voters not be the best ones to determine which mentality and demeanor they prefer from a judge?”
Rifkin: Because 99.92748% of them will never make their decision based on a thorough and fair appraisal of either man’s mentality or demeanor. They won’t go to court to witness Judge Maguire in action. They won’t witness Deputy DA Parish prosecuting a case. [/quote]
I guess I was being a bit obtuse, but the sentence actually reads “Why would voters be the best ones to determine which mentality/demeanor they prefer?” Who else could determine how the voter feels – but the voter himself/herself? The sentence just doesn’t make any sense to me bc of its awkward phrasing, unless I am missing something… I don’t think it was exactly what dmg meant, but I was gently trying to get him to clarify… Further, the sentence seems to be out of context w the rest of the article – there is no supporting opinion or anything to say why the author might feel the voter should not decide these things, if that is even what dmg meant by the sentence. I’m actually not sure what was meant by the sentence…
Elaine, if my comment was a misinterpretation of your question, my apologies.
[quote]Elaine, if my comment was a misinterpretation of your question, my apologies.[/quote]
No problem. My question was probably too obtuse, and I should have done a better job of explaining myself 🙂