Oki’s Extreme Actions Show He Did Not Care

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Page 6

LETER TO THE EDITOR:

Oki’s Extreme Actions Show He Did Not Care

(The writers are challengers to incumbent Judge Dan T. Oki, Judicial Office #95, in the March 2 primary election.)

Dear Editor:

An editor who expresses his editorial opinions without knowing the entire story is no different than a judge who decides a case without hearing all the facts. So, it does not surprise us that the MetNews would endorse Judge Daniel T. Oki for reelection to the Los Angeles Superior Court Office 95. This [letter], however, is in response to your editorial endorsing the incumbent judge dated Dec. 29, 2003 entitled: “Dan Oki, Los Angeles Superior Court.”

You pose the question: Why has Oki drawn three challengers? We will try to answer this question using your own rhetoric. You ask, “Is he intemperate in his remarks?” We believe that he is intemperate in his thinking and the orders he issues. We do know that he is intemperate in his ability to make a sound administrative decision affecting public safety in our community. On May 28, 2003, Judge Oki’s intemperance was clearly manifested by his actions in closing down the courtroom of Division 30 over the strong objections of the district attorneys and public defenders in that courtroom. Make no mistake about it. This was no aberration. Judge Oki knew that his decision was extreme, severe, and skewed but he did not care. He gave notice at 3 p.m. that he planned to shut down the courtroom in an hour and a half. Why, you might ask, would a judge do that? Any reasonable judge would respond that, “You never shut down a court where public safety is paramount!” Firemen do not stop fighting the fire that is consuming the apartment building when their eight hours are over. Policemen do not walk away from bank robberies in progress because it is the end of their shift. Doctors do not stop in the middle of surgery because they are tired and want to go home. Why then would Judge Oki order the courtroom to shut down? Judge Oki said on August 7, 2003 that “The public doesn’t want to hear this, but public safety needs to be balanced against budget concerns.” We can only conclude that he felt that it was more important to place budget issues above public safety. Were the coffers completely dry? Was there a judicial emergency in which there was absolutely no money to pay salaries? No, of course not. The budget had already been established for the year. The extra time was minuscule. Hence, we believe that the thinking behind his incredulous decision was completely intemperate. Curt Livesay, chief deputy district attorney, recently stated that “the justice system must always place public safety above budget issues.” We agree. However, not only was the decision itself flawed, revealing that Judge Oki’s priorities are skewed, but the manner in which Judge Oki made this decision was equally troublesome. It seems clear that the judge was more interested in showing everyone who was in control then solving problems. From his bully pulpit, as supervising judge of the criminal courts, he made an order with deliberately little advance notice which he knew or reasonably should have known would ultimately lead to the release of 30 or more defendants charged with serious criminal felonies, some facing life sentences.

“Does he shout at counsel?” No, he does not. Instead, he makes ultimatums that have dire consequences. “Does he bully witnesses?” No, he does not. However, he tried to bully the District Attorney’s Office by issuing a ridiculous last minute monetary demand that the D.A. pay for everything or defendants would be released. The problem with filing delays after holiday weekends is well known in the county criminal justice system. Everyone who works in the system knows that there will be more cases because of the extra day and the increased crime that occurs due to the holiday mentality. Judge Oki even states that there was progress made addressing this ongoing problem. So, knowing the problem would follow the Memorial Day weekend, how can he justify issuing an order at 3 p.m. the Wednesday after the weekend is over? What reasonable orders did he issue the Friday before the weekend? He cannot justify what he unreasonably ordered to be done. Does a reasonable judge act accordingly? We think not.

“Does he depart from the role of neutral arbiter and become an advocate for one side or the other?” Yes. This is clearly shown by his unilateral decision to stop arraigning defendants over the very strong objections of both the prosecutors and the public defenders. On that fateful day, he made his decision without any discussion or feedback or looking for reasonable alternatives. Could he have ordered that he and other available judges alleviate the load? Yes. This is proof that his goal was really not to solve the problems that day, but demonstrate that when he makes decisions people must comply. He will tell you that he worked it all out at a later time and that it will never happen again. That may be true for the future, but it certainly showed no regard for the community, public safety, or future potential victims at the time when he made his decision. Again, that he solved the problem for the future proves that the problem could have been solved with less draconian measures on May 28, 2003. Did he advocate for one side? Is letting defendants out of custody arguably advocating for the side of the criminal defendant rather than the safety of the public?

You ask, “Is he lazy?” We have no reason to believe that he is personally or professionally lazy. But we ask, why didn’t he help out on that overloaded day? He has never given any reasonable explanation why he and other judges could not have done more that day. Furthermore, he made assumptions about the law that he may have resolved by minimal research.

“Does he lack legal knowledge?” We believe that even though he [was] the supervising judge, in an effort to get re-elected he is posturing when he declares he lacked significant legal knowledge. For example, he claims that it was his expectation that if any suspects who were in custody were released they could be immediately rearrested. Judge Oki states that this is an “oft used” procedure. This is not an “oft used” procedure. His failure to know something this fundamental is scary. Frankly, we are shocked that Judge Oki believes that a defendant can be rearrested whenever the police feel like it for a matter in which that defendant is expressly released by the court. Does he really believe that the police can ignore his order to release a defendant? Anyone who knows the law knows that Judge Oki could not really have thought that a defendant can simply be rearrested for the same offense for which he is presently being charged. According to Judge Oki, these defendants were released but told to return the next day. It is even more absurd when you ask yourself, would someone facing a life sentence on a serious charge return the next day after being released? Certainly not. We realize that judges are not perfect and make errors. But this was no judicial error. We believe Oki knew and simply did not care. He was going to teach the D.A.’s Office a lesson no matter what the price. This behavior was arrogant and a significant reason to remove him from the bench. On top of all that, do you really believe a judge concerned about budget issues thinks he is saving any money by releasing criminals charged with serious felonies and forcing the police to track them down and rearrest them when they fail to show up? It is absolutely absurd.

Now, it may be possible that the District Attorney’s Office could have moved the court to dismiss each of these cases, and then prepared the paperwork to immediately refile the case, at which time they could then have law enforcement rearrest on what would legally be a new case. But Judge Oki knew this could not reasonably occur. To begin with, Judge Oki knew that the district attorney cannot unilaterally dismiss a case after it has been filed. The D.A. must ask the judge by way of motion at a hearing in which a defense attorney is present and could object. The defense attorney might object knowing that this tactic would just delay even more the time in which his client would be brought before the court for a determination on the merits. Then, assuming the judge even grants the motion, the district attorney is limited in the number of times he can refile. So, should something legitimate go wrong in the course of the prosecution of a violent felon, this strategy could result in prohibiting a refiling when it would be crucial to keeping a dangerous person off the streets. Furthermore, and of greater import, if the deputy district attorney was going to systematically move the court to dismiss each of these cases, under the circumstances of May 28th, would not that same court time have been better used to arraign the defendants in the first place? The answer, of course, is yes. So, again, to claim that rearresting is an “oft-used” procedure is a self-serving fabrication.

“Does Oki lack legal knowledge?” Probably not. It is hard to believe that he lacks such fundamental legal knowledge. Therefore, we believe that he is deliberately trying to mislead your readers and the voters into believing that he was acting reasonably when he was not. The voters may accept the explanation because they are not familiar with criminal procedure. However, as experienced lawyers, we know that his explanation is grossly misleading and we need to point this out so that the public is not deceived by his dissembling.

“Does he sleep on the bench?” No, but this was a decision that never had to be made. He simply, with what appears to be massively diminished awareness of the consequences, issued an order that directly resulted in the release of criminal defendants charged with serious felonies.

You ask, does he “[s]moke marijuana in the Judge’s Lounge?” Frankly, it is too bad we have no proof of this, because at least it would explain this totally irrational, insensitive and unnecessary decision and it might be easier to swallow. The alternative, is that he made the decision with unimpaired, but skewed reasoning, and this is what is so frightening. Furthermore, we believe that this is not an isolated incident.

Does he “[s]hoot paper airplanes at counsel during closing arguments?” Answer: no. Instead, he releases criminal defendants, one of who went out onto the street and allegedly shot an unsuspecting person, Lawrence Middleton. Mr. Middleton was a father of a 7 month old baby. This is a father who will never see his son grow up and this is a son who will never have known his father. The released felon did not shoot Middleton with paper airplanes, but with lead projectiles. This gang style shooting did not occur in the sanctuary of a courtroom during a closing argument, a place where at least Oki can feel secure because he is protected by armed bailiffs. No, this occurred in front of a barbershop in broad daylight, a place citizens would hope would be safe, a place they might assume would not be made more dangerous by judges who fail to do the basics to keep them safe.

When you add it all up, these challengers are not running because Judge Oki simply made a bad administrative decision which he then tried to justify on the pretext of budget concerns. No, they are running because Judge Oki never acknowledged any scintilla of fault or concern. He never expressed any remorse or accepted any part of the responsibility for what happened to the Middleton family. He does not think his decision was horribly flawed. Consequently, we believe that he no longer deserves to be a judge. Judge Oki did not slip and fall over that line of judicial imprudence. It was no mistake, no negligent accident. On the contrary, he brazenly marched across the line of commonsense because he wanted to be a bully. When Oki made his ultimatum, to a lower ranking supervisor of the D.A.’s office, that the D.A. pay or the defendants go their way, he knew that the deputy he contacted did not have the authority to commit money to keeping the court open. Nor was that the responsibility of the District Attorney’s Office. He gave only one hour advance notice of the ultimatum deadline. In fact, Judge Oki admitted that he knew that the District Attorney’s Office would be unable to respond to his request for them to pay, and he laughed because he knew it was an impossible demand to meet. Why would a judge impose a demand that he knew was not attainable? The obvious answer is that Judge Oki knew he was being unreasonable when he made the demand.

As you know, the only way to keep judges, who are appointed by the governor, in line and responsive to the people of this county is a fair election. A fair election is one where attempts are made to inform the voters as to the reasons why the incumbent is being challenged. It is important to have a full understanding of what occurred, because you, like the public in general, accepted the judge’s assertion that rearrest is an “oft used” procedure. We want you to know what we believe to be the truth. We are the challengers to Judge Oki and we call upon you to give our voice to the voters.

Marc Debbaudt

Hilary Rhonan

Eugene M. Salute