Arguments Against the Judicial System Ignore the Facts

On July 16, The Times ran an article titled “Ballooning Judicial System Needs an Overhaul,” by Dr. Alan J. Peterson of Santa Paula. Like any other citizen in a free society, Peterson is entitled to his opinion. As chair of the Superior Court’s jury committee and a judge assigned to a civil trial department, I find that there are statements made by Peterson that require a reply to provide a factual setting to what he is offering as his opinions.

The right to jury trial is not something we have contrived at the Ventura County Government Center as a means of inconveniencing people’s lives. The right to a jury trial was written into the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 as a part of the Bill of Rights in the 6th and 7th Amendments. When California became a state in 1850, the state Constitution incorporated those same guarantees.

The phrase “jury of one’s peers” does not appear in either of these documents. It does appear in the Magna Carta, and from a society (13th-century England) where “peerage” was a concept of societal rank that has never been adopted in this country.

The decision to request a jury trial is made by the litigants in any particular case. The judicial system does not require them to do that in any case. It is only when a party requests a jury that we are charged with providing them with jurors.

*

For a jury to reflect the attitudes and conscience of the community, it is necessary to have jurors who represent all aspects of the community, and not just the government employees or retired persons. The summons to appear clearly includes physicians (witness Dr. Peterson) and also attorneys, businesspeople and judges as well.

Peterson complains that dockets are clogged with personal injury and other trivial disputes, including drug-related cases. I have some curiosity as to how Peterson knows this if he spent the day in the jury assembly room, but ignoring that for the moment, his solutions are legislative and not administrative.

No-fault automobile insurance has been an issue both on the ballot and in the state Legislature at times for the past 30 years. In each case, it has either been rejected by the voters or failed to secure the necessary votes in the Legislature. Decriminalizing drugs has also been a hotly debated subject in recent years but has also not received sufficient votes to be enacted into law.

In either case, however, the resolution of those issues is as a part of the legislative process, and not something that any of us involved with the court system can resolve.

Peterson’s theme is that the present system is based on the job security of those involved with it. That is an observation founded in anger and emotion but without any factual background. My salary is set by the Legislature and is the same as every other judge in the state. I currently have about 500 cases on my assignment. I could have 100 of those removed and I would still have plenty to do.

*

Similarly, to pick on the bailiffs, court reporters and janitors is without foundation. It ignores the efficiency with which civil litigation is processed in Ventura County. Excluding family law cases, which by their nature can go on for years, what with changing circumstances affecting spousal and child support orders, roughly 85% of all civil cases are concluded within a year of the date they are filed. More than 95% are concluded within two years.

This is the result of the hard work of all of the people engaged in the administration of justice.

This is not a system that is “broken,” as Peterson contends. It is a system that works very well.