Her Honor of the Desert Bench : Margaret Grignon Is Tough, Fair, Antelope Valley Colleagues Say

There is only one Superior Court judge in the Antelope Valley, a desert expanse of northern Los Angles County that is a tough blend of rural and urban frontier.

Her name is Margaret M. Grignon, and she has a reputation for her own tough blend of legal diligence and scholarship. The first and only woman judge in the valley, she maintains a serene, almost gentle courtroom presence, even as she hands down sentences that some defense lawyers criticize as severe.

But many prosecutors, public defenders and private attorneys say Grignon’s ability supersedes ideology. They point out that lawyers in a recent death penalty case agreed to argue the case before Grignon (pronounced “Grin-yo”) in a rare non-jury trial.

“That indicates a tremendous level of respect for a judge,” said Justice Armand Arabian of the State Court of Appeal, Grignon’s longtime mentor. “That only happens when both sides have full faith in the judge. It is a badge of honor.”

Grignon ruled that medical negligence had contributed to the death of the victim but found the defendant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. It was only the second time in California that the death penalty had been imposed after a non-jury trial.

Opinion on that sentence appears split between prosecutors and defense attorneys. But regardless of where they stand, people who have worked with the 38-year-old Grignon say her handling of the case demonstrates her willingness to take on challenges.

There was doubt and resentment in the valley’s insulated legal community in 1984 when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed Grignon to the Antelope Valley Municipal Court. She was 34, a little-known tax lawyer and a newcomer with minimal courtroom experience and prominent allies such as Arabian, who swore her in.

‘Nobody Knew Her’

“It was a complete surprise,” one attorney recalled. “Nobody knew her. She wasn’t part of the local old-boy network. A lot of people thought of her as a carpetbagger.”

The doubts have given way.

“She came, she saw and she conquered,” said valley defense attorney Eugene Siegel, who described himself as a liberal at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the judge. “She is one of the smartest, hardest-working judges I have appeared before.”

Grignon, her husband, James, a doctor, and their two children have lived in the valley for six years. She is a former director of the Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council and recently cut down on her active public speaking schedule to spend more time with her family.

“I love it up here,” said Grignon, named Woman of the Year of the 34th Assembly District by legislators. “There is a real sense of community.”

Although critics are hard to find, some defense attorneys say Grignon’s hard-line sentencing philosophy is in the tradition of other Deukmejian appointees and of her predecessors in the valley judiciary.

She is like other “Republican right-wingers who believe everyone should be in jail,” said longtime local attorney Dell Falls. “I think she is highly intelligent, affable and well-read. The only thing I can find wrong with her is that she’s too heavy in sentencing.”

In relatively minor cases in which defendants have plea bargained to receive a sentence ranging from no jail time to 180 days, Grignon invariably imposes the maximum, several lawyers said.

‘Common Sense’

But she resists the label of rigid conservative, describing her philosophy as “common sense.”

Siegel said: “She believes strongly in punishment as a mechanism to deter crime. However, that’s tempered a little bit. She will step out of that role when appropriate.”

Attorney William A. Clark said: “She rarely gives a no-jail sentence. . . .”

Grignon said: “I think I follow the law. You would think a Superior Court judge would have a lot more discretion, but in fact what we do is based on determinate sentencing. If you apply the statutory parameters, you arrive at a sentence.”

Grignon said it was difficult to arrive at a sentence for James Scott of Palmdale, charged in the murder of a woman who died in February, 10 months after he raped her, beat her unconscious and set her bed afire.

Defense attorney Clark and Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Kent Cahill agreed to try the death penalty case before Grignon rather than before a jury. Clark thought it would be difficult for a jury to remain objective because of the horrible nature of the crime. Both he and Cahill said their confidence in Grignon played a role in their decisions to waive the right to a jury.

Negligence Moot

Grignon found Scott guilty in April. Clark requested a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, arguing that medical negligence contributed to the victim’s death. But Grignon ruled during sentencing that aggravating factors, such as use of a deadly weapon, outweighed any medical negligence. She sentenced Scott to die in the gas chamber.

“She had the power not to impose the death penalty,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Stephen L. Cooley, head of the Lancaster office. “She made the decision alone. It’s a lot harder for one person to make. The fact that she followed the law does not mean that it was easy.”

Clark, who continues to represent Scott on appeal, said he thought medical negligence played a greater role in the victim’s death than Grignon acknowledged. But he said: “I don’t think her imposition of the death penalty was inconsistent with her verdict and her view of the facts.”

A lawyer in the public defender’s office, who asked not to be named, was more critical of the decision.

“I thought the defense made a very valid showing,” he said. “Once she found that the hospital was negligent, to blame the defendant for the death was inappropriate. . . . It shows she’s not opposed to the death penalty and may feel it should be used more.”

‘Intellectual Exercise’

Grignon said she thought Clark made the right move in opting for a non-jury trial because the case was an intellectual exercise.

Of the death sentence, she said: “It was one of the hardest decisions I have made. I spent a lot of time, a lot of sleepless nights. Once it was made, the angst, the anxiety went away. That’s what judges do. We bring things to a conclusion. You don’t have to agonize after the decision because you have agonized before.”

The population and crime rate of the Antelope Valley have exploded during Grignon’s tenure. Palmdale, the fastest-growing city in the state for the past three years, grew 17% last year, and Lancaster grew 10%. The number of reported crimes in the valley went up 35% during the first six months of this year, a per capita increase of 11%.

Two Superior Court commissioners handle family, probate and juvenile cases while Grignon handles criminal and civil trials. A recent study of the workload at the courthouse found that two more judges are needed. The district attorney’s office has filed more than 700 felony cases in Superior Court over the past year, compared to about 250 four years ago.

Cooley said Grignon has improved the efficiency of the Superior Court and, previously, the Municipal Court, when she was presiding judge.

Higher Goal

Grignon has her sights on a higher goal. She is among the applicants for the seat on the state Court of Appeal vacated by Justice Joyce Kennard, whom Deukmejian recently appointed to the state Supreme Court. Once the State Bar Assn.’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation has rated applicants, the final decision is up to the governor.

Grignon was born in New Jersey, raised in Riverside and studied law at Loyola University Law School, where she graduated first in her class. After clerking for Justice Robert S. Thompson of the state Court of Appeal, an expert in tax law, she decided to pursue a specialty in that area.

Grignon later was the only woman in the tax departments of law firms in Los Angeles and San Diego. Then, and as a newcomer on the Antelope Valley bench, she said she has never been discriminated against because she is a woman.

“I didn’t feel much resentment,” she said. “It was more a sense of ‘Can she do it?’ ”

Although the judgeship does not require the 70-hour workweeks of corporate practice, Grignon said: “It takes a toll. I have worked longer hours, but never where it has taken more out of me.”