Gates Wonders Which Judge to Obey in Jail Dilemma : Administration: Sheriff faces hearing on contempt charges lodged by local jurists for trying to implement federal rulings.

By DAVE LESHER and JIM NEWTON

April 12, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SANTA ANA — Sheriff Brad Gates, who faces a hearing later this month on charges that he has willfully broken the law by releasing prisoners to relieve jail overcrowding, said Thursday that he is “caught between a rock and a hard spot.”

Local Municipal Court judges, who have long argued that Gates’ inmate release policies illegally undermine the county’s justice system, are accusing him of contempt because he has freed prisoners charged with violent crimes or other offenses for which they may not be released, under state law.

Seven judges charged in affidavits that “the disobedience of this court’s order by the sheriff-coroner has been willful and with the intent to frustrate the processes of this court.”

Gates’ dilemma revolves around three issues: A federal judge has ordered him to cap the population at the Central Men’s Jail; all four other county facilities already hold many more prisoners than they were designed for; and county supervisors have not appropriated money to build a major new jail.

“I’ve got one judge telling me to turn ‘em loose, and another telling me to keep ‘em in,” Gates said in a telephone interview Thursday. “They’ve got me in a position where I can’t obey both of them.”

A hearing on the contempt charge has been set for April 26. Municipal Court Presiding Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr., who has been outspoken against Gates’ release programs, will preside.

That hearing will mark a long-anticipated showdown between Gates and the Municipal Court judges, and will come just weeks before county voters consider Measure J, which seeks to raise the sales tax by half a cent to pay for new jails.

Still, despite the legal and political issues that may envelop the April 26 hearing, the personal stakes for Gates appear to be surprisingly low. Attorney Philip D. Kohn, who is representing the Municipal Court judges, said he does not expect Stanford to fine or imprison Gates if the sheriff is found guilty of contempt.

Municipal Judge James Brooks agreed. “We’re not out to barbecue Sheriff Gates,” he said. “But our system’s eroding. We’re determined not just to let it continue.”

Even Gates, who has been cited for contempt twice in the past six years, has some reason to welcome the latest development: It is likely to heighten public awareness of jail overcrowding and therefore bolster the prospects for the passage of Measure J, which Gates strongly supports.

In a written statement released Thursday by the Measure J campaign office, Gates said: “If it were up to me I’d make sure that every criminal served every single day of his sentence. That’s why I think it is so important to pass Measure J on the May 14 ballot. Without a new jail, this problem will continue to escalate.”

The Municipal Court judges and the sheriff agree on the need for a new jail, and some observers privately speculated that the judges may have timed their contempt hearing for maximum effect on the May 14 results. Measure J also would provide money that could be used for construction of new courthouses.

“Isn’t it a coincidence that a month away from the election, they decide to cite the sheriff?” one county official who asked not to be identified asked. “It does seem there is a political linkage.”

Rick Violett, a leader in the anti-Measure J campaign, agreed. “It’s good PR for them,” he said. “You almost wonder if they didn’t call and ask for it. What better way to cry for help?”

Kohn and some of the judges, however, denied that the upcoming election influenced their action.

“We wanted to do something on this a long time ago,” Brooks said. “It took a while to get through the thousands of files.”

Brooks added that the judges are pressing this case out of frustration, both with Gates and with the County Board of Supervisors. Neither has shown sufficient imagination or initiative in tackling the jail-overcrowding crisis, he said.

County officials also have had a few harsh words for the judges. Some supervisors are dissatisfied by what they see as a judicial resistance to new scheduling ideas and other improvements that they believe might speed trials and relieve overcrowding.

While judges, the sheriff and county officials all point fingers at each other, more than 180,000 inmates have been freed early since 1986. That’s when Gates implemented the two release programs to comply with U.S. District Judge William P. Gray’s order capping the population of the Central Men’s Jail.

Gray also has required that the Sheriff’s Department find a bed for inmates within 24 hours of their arrival at the jail.

Gray did not, however, specifically authorize the release of prisoners to make room in the jails. In a federal court hearing earlier this month, lawyers for inmates asked that the jail populations at all five county facilities be capped and that Gates be given specific authority from the federal judge to make such releases.

Gray has not yet ruled on that request. If granted, it would supersede any action by the Municipal Court judges.

In an interview Thursday, Gray declined to wade into the battle between Gates and the Municipal Court judges, but he reiterated that he will not tolerate the jails becoming overcrowded.

“My role has been to say, ‘You cannot have too many people in the jails,’ ” he said. “How the sheriff does it or how the judges do it is really up to them.”

Meanwhile, nearly 1,000 prisoners a week are being released early to make room in the jails for more serious offenders. Built to hold 3,203 inmates, the county’s five jails typically hold more than 4,400.

Included among the prisoners who have been released are some that the Municipal Court judges say should not have been allowed to go. State law prohibits the sheriff from releasing certain types of criminals--including those arrested for violent crimes and narcotics offenses, and those who have lied about their identification to a police officer.

But in affidavits filed with the contempt action, the judges say that Gates has freed such prisoners. They cite 18 specific examples in their affidavits, many involving cases in which prisoners presented false identification to a police officer. Other charges included assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest and violations of the vehicle code.

Thirteen of the suspects who were cited and released by the Sheriff’s Department failed to appear in court on their scheduled date. Those suspects then have had to be rearrested, sometimes only to be released again.

It was that infuriating cycle of arrest and rearrest that led Judge Stanford to first threaten Gates with contempt charges last year, noting at the time that the release policy was encouraging criminals’ disrespect for the system. Jail overcrowding has badly undercut judges’ ability to sentence criminals, Stanford said at the time.

“I can offer a defendant the choice of a $30 fine or a day in jail,” he said. “And you’d expect they’d pay the fine. But people now would rather take the day in jail because they know they’ll never serve it. They’ll just be released.”

Stanford declined to comment Thursday on his previous statements about Gates’ release policies, citing his need to remain objective.

But his previous comments condemning the release policies and supporting a contempt charge led some observers to wonder privately whether Gates could get a fair hearing.

Brooks, however, said he believes Stanford can set aside his personal feelings about the release policies and consider the action against the sheriff on the merits of the evidence. None of the affidavits filed with the court involve cases that Stanford has heard.

Brooks said that even though he and his colleagues recognize that Gates himself would like to abolish the release programs, the judges reject the idea that he should be allowed to violate state law in an effort to prevent jail overcrowding.

“You cannot release certain people under state law, and that’s what he’s doing,” Brooks said. “We’re saying that needs to stop. Someone’s got to stand up and do their damn job.”