FEATURE ARTICLE judicial discretion, and how they responded when their faith tradition required a result that contravened what the law required. While serving as a municipal court judge, Justice Corrigan sentenced a young man after he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor vehicular homicide. Distracted while driving, he ran into a family in a crosswalk, killing the mother and daughter. Although the maximum sentence for the crime was only one year in county jail, Justice Corrigan believed a balance had to be restored. She sentenced him to substantial jail time and community service. Justice Corrigan remarked, “Judges speak to and for many different audiences. They must take account of the life in front of them, those injured by the tragedy, and the community that gives them the authority to do what they do. They must consider maintaining the trust of those who empower them.” While attending a judicial training on eliminating bias, Justice Mihara and his classmates were asked as part of a hypothetical whether they would grant a request for a young teen to have an abortion without her parents’ consent after meeting with her. Most of the judges in the class would grant the request. Justice Mihara would not. He believed no matter what side of the abortion issue one was on, and no matter what decision the court made, the decision would affect the girl for the rest of her life. He did not know enough to grant the request based only on a 10-minute talk in chambers. As the hypothetical progressed, and the class learned the girl’s boyfriend and family would support her, no judge in the class would grant the request. The incident reminded Justice Mihara of a passage from the New Testament, James 1:19: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to
wrath . . . .” Commenting, Justice Corrigan recognized that, when Justice Mihara explained his reasoning to the class, he did not say what the rules of his faith tradition were and that his answer was driven by that tradition. She said, “Every litigant must have confidence that a court will rule based on the law, not on the judge’s privately-held religious belief.” Kevin Davis with his father, Rev. (Justice) Rodney Davis, An appeal came before & Presiding Justice Vance Raye Justice Bamattre-Manoukian and Justice Mihara’s year later, the Legislature agreed and court from a trial court’s denial of a amended the law. motion to seal juvenile records. The Rev. Davis and Prof. Brownstein appellant did well in life as an adult afmoderated a similar panel composed ter serving a term at the juvenile ranch. of local clergy: Rabbi Mona Alfi, Imam The trial court reduced his felonies to Mohamed Abdul-Azeez, Father Damisdemeanors, but ruled the law at vid Suwalsky, SJ, Pastor Lesley Simthe time did not authorize sealing the mons, and Rev. Dr. Alan Jones. As in records. The appellate court affirmed. previous years, the conference opened Writing for the majority, however, Juswith prayers by Rabbi Alfi, Imam Adtice Mihara invited the Legislature to bul-Azeez, and Father Suwalsky. New correct what the court believed was an this year, the conference closed with unjust situation. Justice Bamattre-Ma“benedictory” statements by Justice noukian concurred separately. She William J. Murray, Jr., Third District stated the appellant did not fall within Court of Appeal; Judge Barbara A. the law’s intent and urged the LegisKronlund, San Joaquin County Supelature to give courts discretion to seal rior Court; and Judge Garen Horst, juvenile records. Approximately one Placer County Superior Court.
Justice William J. Murray, Jr. (Third District Court of Appeal) offers closing remarks, while Judge Barbara A. Kronlund (San Joaquin County Superior Court), Judge Garen Horst (Placer County Superior Court), & Rev. (Justice) Rodney Davis observe www.sacbar.org | March/April 2017 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER
11 11