Judges and Judiciary
Dec. 2, 2014
Kruger lacks the necessary experience
As a retired judge who spent 30 years in the California judiciary, I oppose the appointment of Leondra Kruger to the California Supreme Court.
Rick Sims
Rick Sims is a retired associate justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal.
As a retired judge who spent 30 years in the California judiciary, 28 of those years on the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, I oppose the appointment of Leondra Kruger to the California Supreme Court.
If intellectual brilliance alone were sufficient to qualify someone to serve on the California Supreme Court, then Kruger might be found qualified. But there are other qualities that are essential to doing that job, and Kruger lacks all of them.
Lack of Knowledge of California Law
It has been reported that Kruger has never practiced law in California. As of this writing, she is an inactive member of the State Bar of California. Her practice of law has been mainly in the federal courts. Federal law is different from California state court law in numerous respects. At minimum, a justice of the state Supreme Court should have a good working knowledge of California law. Only in this way can the justice appreciate the ramifications of continuing a line of law or of departing from it. Just read some cases from the halcyon days of the state Supreme Court, where the Traynor court traced the history and reasoning of so many areas of California law before deciding how a case should come out. In short, Kruger cannot possibly have a sufficient working knowledge of California law sufficient to do the job.
Lack of Judicial Experience
Kruger has never been a judge at any level. By his recent appointments, Gov. Jerry Brown apparently considers this a virtue. I do not. The duty of the California Supreme Court is not to write law review articles; rather, it is to decide real cases that often have real consequences to trial courts. For example, can someone who has never been a trial judge fully appreciate the utter gamesmanship that underlies many requests for self-representation in criminal cases under Faretta?
The occasional appointment of someone with no judicial experience to the California Supreme Court may be a good thing: It may keep the court from turning into a bureaucracy. Certainly, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu has been a welcome addition to the court. But where prior judicial experience becomes disqualifying, there are bad consequences for the remainder of the judicial system. It is a slap in the face of trial judges, who are seen as not competent to serve on their state's highest court, and believe me, I have talked to a number of trial judges about Kruger's nomination, and they resent it.
Many will also question whether Kruger has the experience to tell them what to do. An appointment of someone with no judicial experience to the California Supreme Court should be the exception, rather than the rule, even where the appointee went to the Yale Law School (as did the governor and all of his appointments).
Not Qualified
Kruger should be found, "Not Qualified" for appointment to the California Supreme Court. At 38 years old, she would have plenty of time to pay her dues on a lower California court, where she could learn about California law. And there would be plenty of time to put her on the California Supreme Court after that.
Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com