Four justices from the sixth division of the California Second District Appellate Court hosted a panel titled “What is the Judge’s Role?” in the Christopher Cohan Performing Arts Center about the judicial process, activism and restraint, and appellate court cases on May 6.
Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert and Associate Justices Kenneth R. Yegan, Steven Z. Perren and Paul H. Coffee led a discussion at 2 p.m. on the role of justices in appellate courts. The justices also invited the 40 students in the audience to voice their opinions and ideas.
Cal Poly political science professor Dr. Ron Den Otter has organized the panel for three years and said it is a very educational experience.
“I think that most people have the idea in their head that judges are always above the law, and that the law is always clear,” Den Otter said. “People need to have a better understanding of how the justice system works, especially college students.”
The four justices in the sixth division travel from Ventura to San Luis Obispo every year to hear selected cases and meet with the San Luis Obispo Bar Assocation. The sixth division’s jurisdiction encompasses Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo and is the only division in the second district that takes on cases outside of Los Angeles.
The justices first came to talk to Cal Poly students in 2008. Presiding Justice Gilbert has held this position since 1999; he said things like visiting Cal Poly are part of the justices’ responsibility.
“We think that we should be out in the community we serve, and what better place than a university?” Justice Gilbert said. “Why not let students meet members of a California court rather than just read about them?”
Justice Gilbert began by describing how the appellate courts in California work in between the state trial courts and the California Supreme Court.
The divisions in the Second District Appellate Court hear cases in rotating panels of three; each case needs a two-thirds majority vote before a decision can be made. Appellate courts examine every case appealed from trial courts for errors, but only 2 or 3 percent of appellate court cases are heard by the California Supreme Court.
It’s hard to predict how cases will be decided on his court, Gilbert said, because two of the justices are Republican and two are Democrats. Gilbert said there have been several instances where one justice convinced another to change his mind and vote the other way. Despite political differences, the justices still remain good friends.
The justices then described several real cases from American history and asked members of the audience how they would rule and why they would act with activism or restraint. One example was a case from 1899 determining whether a man who killed his grandfather to keep from being written out of the will should get any of his inheritance.
“When you’re making a decision in court, like when you make any decision, the most important word is ‘because.’ You have to support your decisions, and it’s not always perfectly clear,” Gilbert said.
The justices were very open and willing to hear students’ opinions. More than once they half-jokingly asked, “You’re going to law school, right?”
In recent years California courts have seen an increase in parole cases, Gilbert said, and the courts have used these cases to review how often the governor should be able to overturn paroles in order to gain political popularity.
In Gilbert’s experience, the California justice system deals with a variety of issues because of the state’s enormous jurisdiction and population, and recent decisions have been rather surprising, he said.
“I think that the California Supreme Court is more conservative than it was 40 years ago,” Gilbert said. “In the 1960s, the court made several landmark decisions extending the rights of defendants, but I was recently called up to serve on a murder case where I dissented the court’s decision to use the death penalty.”
Associate Justice Perren has served on the Sixth Division of the Second District Appellate Court since 1999. He emphasized the difficulty justices often face when rationality conflicts with the rules of law.
“Court decisions have to be practical and realistic, but it’s not always easy. When justices start going with whatever they feel is right or wrong, the system falls into chaos,” Perren said.
The students were enthusiastic about hearing about how the California court system works firsthand.
“When I heard about the panel, I realized I didn’t really know much about what appellate courts do,” said communication studies junior Christine Herman. “I thought it would be interesting to see, and I loved it.”