Prosecutors Cite 1901 Case in Fight Over Endorsements

As legal disputes go, the squabble over endorsements made by a group of Ventura County judges for top prosecutor and would-be judge Kevin McGee is fairly unprecedented.

Not since the days of vaudeville, ragtime, Teddy Roosevelt and the dawn of air flight, in fact, has there been any reported court decision giving direction on how to handle such a scuffle.

And prosecutors are now citing that 97-year-old case in their fight against public defenders who want four local judges disqualified from criminal cases for endorsing McGee.

“Obviously, you would want something more contemporary,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Schwartz said of his citation, circa 1901, cited in one of three motions filed Thursday in the disqualification matter.

“This was the closest, actually, we could find,” Schwartz said, adding, “It’s not the oldest case I’ve ever cited.”

In the nearly century-old case, a San Luis Obispo County tax collector convicted of embezzlement accused his trial judge of being biased because he had trounced the judge’s brother-in-law in the race for tax collector.

In upholding the conviction, the state Supreme Court said it was unreasonable to think the trial judge would be biased based on the defendant’s successful candidacy against his relative.

At issue in the current Ventura County case is whether four judges can remain impartial after supporting a prosecutor in his race for judge.

The controversial matter has been assigned by the state’s Judicial Council to Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle. A court hearing has not been set.

Since the beginning of this century, six court cases have cited the landmark 1901 case, People vs. Findley. But according to legal experts, none deal with the precise issue of endorsements.

The public defenders’ legal challenge comes in response to a letter of endorsement for McGee signed by 14 judges, as well as a radio advertisement in which Presiding Judge Charles W. Campbell encouraged voters to join him and other judges in voting for the prosecutor.

Public defenders have argued the letter and radio advertisement lend an appearance of impropriety and bias toward the prosecution. They have sought the disqualification of Judges Barry Klopfer, Donald Coleman, Vincent O’Neill and Campbell from four separate criminal cases.

But in their motion in response to public defenders’ recent briefs, Schwartz and prosecutor Michael Frawley argue the conduct of the judges does not form a basis for disqualification.

McGee faces Public Defender Gary Windom in a November runoff election for a seat vacated by suspended jurist Robert C. Bradley.

Schwartz and Frawley contend since neither McGee nor Windom are appearing personally before any of the contested judges, it is unreasonable to conclude the judges would be biased in favor or against their colleagues.

In other motions, the prosecutors argue that a request by the public defenders for information about McGee’s campaign is not legally required to be turned over.

They also dispute a request by the defense attorneys that the district attorney’s office recuse itself from the entire disqualification matter.