 By Katrina Dewey To the great delight of those who know him, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno was on President Obama’s short list for elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the only man on the list, and conventional wisdom had the first open slot going to a woman. For many years, there were two women on the court, Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, since O’Connor’s retirement in 2006, Ginsburg has been alone. Obama ended up going with 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Nevertheless, Moreno’s credentials for the court are first-rate, outmatched only by his warmth and humanity. Few attorneys bring the breadth of legal credentials he has amassed. The youngest of five siblings, he was the first child in his family to attend college, earning his undergraduate degree from Yale and then graduating from Stanford Law School. His first job was as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, before entering private practice with Mori & Ota (later known as Kelley Drye & Warren). He was first appointed to the bench in 1986, and began to hear matters in Compton. In 1993, he was elevated to handle criminal trials in downtown Los Angeles. President Clinton nominated him to the federal bench in 1998 and in 2001 he joined the California Supreme Court. He has been nominated twice by Republican Governors and twice by Democrats. During an era of intense antagonism over federal judicial appointments, he won a 96-0 confirmation vote in the Senate. He is considered strong on law enforcement and compassionate on social issues. He is beloved in his hometown, where he embodies everything good about dreaming big and working hard. I went to interview him at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building in downtown Los Angeles, where I was ushered to his office and found him listening to opera in blue jeans and work boots. He is a true Angeleno, having been born to an immigrant mother, who, with his uncle, raised him in Chavez Ravine, the fabled Los Angeles neighborhood that was partly razed to make way for Dodger Stadium. He moved back to the neighborhood after law school and lived there until 1978, when the family moved to Eagle Rock. We talked about judicial independence, the importance of access to justice and his other passions – his family, opera and Los Angeles history. There are tapes of his appearances, singing in the operas of Casa Italiana in 1999: Il Trovatore, La Bohème, Les Contes d’ Hoffman and Rigoletto. There is the stunning portrait, A Pedestrian Ponders the Law, painted by his wife, Chris, the year he was appointed to the Supreme Court. This graduation season, his daughter Keiko is getting a master’s degree from California Institute of the Arts in Valencia and his son is getting his master’s degree from Stanford. Later this month, Justice Moreno and Chris, who teaches at East Los Angeles College, are adopting her niece. They brought Heather, who is autistic, into their home in 2000, when she was five. She weighed 35 pounds, she could only eat from a bottle and she was not strong enough to even ride a bike or play on a swing. Heather lived with the family for seven years, while still a ward of the New Jersey courts. She is currently in a group home in Los Angeles with three other autistic children. He recently made a trip back to the neighborhood and to his grammar school. Even in the eye of the 24-hour news cycle and speculation about President Obama’s selection, he jokes with the principal, who comes out saying, “I heard there were two suspicious people here.” Moreno is a regular in the neighborhood and at his schools. He spoke to the 5th graders a couple years ago – just part of his continuing effort to reach out to the community. Lawdragon: Tell me about your childhood growing up in Los Angeles. Was Chavez Ravine mostly immigrant families, helping your mother, who immigrated from Mexico, as a bridge to your new lives? Carlos Moreno: It was a very idyllic childhood. We all knew each other. It was a mixed, working-class neighborhood of Italians and Mexican Americans. Over the years, it’s become more Asian-American. But it’s always been a transitional neighborhood for immigrants, but also with many long term residents. Times were different then and we didn’t have the concern we have now about kids playing alone in street or at a park for hours on end. We considered Elysian Park our backyard. [He pulls down a book about Chavez Ravine and points to the roof of his house, his grammar school, the shacks where the children would go play, where Palo Verde Elementary School was before it was buried under the Dodger Stadium parking lot. He went to the first game played there, after watching the stadium being constructed.] My best friend through grammar school was Kenny Hom. The previous owners of our house were Italian; we had a wine making vat in the basement from Prohibition, since Italians were exempt from making a certain quantity of red wine. My mother raised us there with my uncle, Jose Brücklmaier. Her father was a German immigrant in Mexico. When he passed away, she moved to Los Angeles to be with my Uncle Jose, who was a role model to me. I had relatives, cousins, nephews and nieces living in the neighborhood. It was just a very, very warm nurturing neighborhood. I wouldn’t say we were poor. We were just ordinary, like everyone else in the neighborhood. LD: It’s remarkable how much of your life has been spent within a few miles of your childhood home. CM: Definitely. My federal court appointment placed me at the U.S. Courthouse on Spring Street, the site of my former post office. My chambers had been previously occupied by the postmaster general for Los Angeles. LD: This must be a really exciting time for you. CM: It’s a very busy time. I just returned from Monterrey, Mexico, in the state of Nuevo Leon. The Mexican justice system is converting from a system where all trials were once conducted by affidavit to one in which witnesses now testify before a panel of three judges. As part of the orientation for that system, there was a national competition among 16 law schools to perform a mock trial in Spanish with me as one of the presiding judges. LD: It’s interesting that you were teaching an American type legal process in Mexico, when there is some debate in the context of the Supreme Court nomination of a candidate’s views on looking to the laws of foreign countries for guidance. What do you think the proper role is of the laws of other countries in deciding U.S. law? CM: Through agencies like USAID [the United States Agency for International Development], which sponsored the program in Mexico, there have been significant measures to train jurists in foreign jurisdictions in the way we conduct trials. Los Angeles Judge Judy Chirlin is a leading exponent of this and there have been many others who have gone to Eastern Europe, Africa, China. We emphasize that we’re not exporting the American way of justice to their country. We think every country can adopt legal procedures according to its own culture, values and so forth. We explain that in the U.S. we have oral trials; these are the benefits; and if it’s something you think you can adopt to your country, here’s some guidance and training. As for the inverse, how much we as U.S. jurists look at foreign law, I think it’s something we might benefit from, but it all depends on the particular case and issue. We have a very deep and long storied tradition in American law and common law. That should be our primary focus. But it’s at least interesting to see how we might incorporate principles of foreign law to the extent they would apply to a case we were considering LD: How has your background shaped your views as a judge? CM: It has given me insight into how the decisions of the appellate courts might affect ordinary people with real lives. I’ve learned first hand that our decisions have practical implications for our trial courts and litigants. LD: Where did you find the courage to pursue an education that allowed you to accomplish so much? CM: I never felt poor or disadvantaged. I benefited from getting positive reinforcement from my teachers and family. And although there were certain structural disadvantages like the inadequate resources of our schools to the fact that our family didn’t travel much. I felt that I always had access to books. And there was no one who ever said to me ‘you can’t do that.’ LD: It sounds as though your school was very important to you. CM: I was lucky. I always wanted to go to college. I went to Lincoln High School in Lincoln Heights. While in high school I also worked at my Dad’s produce market in the wholesale district. LD: As one of the nation’s leading Mexican-American judges, you’ve drawn a lot of attention, in part because of the hope that a Hispanic jurist will be appointed to the Supreme Court. What is important to you about your work with the Mexican American Bar Association? CM: I think it’s important that Mexican-American lawyers have role models in the judiciary who they can look to for advice on proper trial techniques, to enhance their standing in the profession, and to give them confidence in having judges who will bring a certain understanding to the kind of cases they might bring to the court. I started out as a member of the Mexican-American Bar Association as soon as I became a member of the Bar. It’s always been a wonderful source of support, enjoyment and collegiality. They’ve certainly supported me at each step of my judicial career. I’m proud to say in L.A. County, we have a fair representation of Mexican-American or Latino judges on the L.A. County bench, and I think the situation is improving statewide. Overall, diversity is also important in terms of the appearance of justice to those who use our courts. Unfortunately, many of the criminal defendants I saw, both in Compton and in downtown L.A. were either black or brown. To the extent that those defendants saw there was a Latino judge on the bench, I think their sense or perception of receiving justice may have increased incrementally. I think it helps immensely to have a diverse bench that represents our community here.  LD: It’s probably also important to clarify the roles many of the bar associations have played in forging leaders for the legal profession. Many of these bars were formed because opportunities were not available to some lawyers, whether they were minorities or Hispanic. Did you ever think about going to work at a big downtown law firm? CM: Not initially, but I did spend seven very good years with Mori & Ota (later Kelley Drye & Warren) in a commercial practice. When I joined MABA in 1975, it was just evolving from a social club to a group consisting mostly of solo, East L.A. practitioners. There were very few, if any, lawyers who practiced in downtown Los Angeles or with a large firm. That has changed dramatically over the years as the complexion of law school graduates has changed and firms have realized the importance of diversifying their associate and partner ranks. And there’s been a dramatic sea change in how Latino graduates see themselves in the profession. There’s been great progress made in that area. Similarly with respect to appointments to the bench, I think that our representation on the state bench now exceeds the percentage of Latinos who are members of the bar, about 5 percent of the bar and 11 percent of the bench, while the population is 37 percent. LD: Are there particular cases that stand out in your memory from each of the benches you’ve served: Compton, LA Superior, L.A. federal and the California State Supreme Court? CM: My first assignment in Compton was to the small claims court for three weeks. Then I moved to a misdemeanor calendar court. The most significant case I handled in Compton was a multiple defendant, resisting and battery against a police officer case, that occurred in Lynwood. It was hotly contested, protracted, and all defendants were convicted. In Superior Court, I had a memorable homicide case in which an estranged husband murdered his wife when she was with her boyfriend. What was interesting was that it was a low profile case, being tried at the same time as the O.J. Simpson case, which was also a case of spousal homicide. The vast disparity between all the publicity that the Simpson case received compared to this ordinary run of the mill case being tried in the same building was just astounding. I had a film crew from Brazil that was interested in how other cases were being handled in the building at the time. They stayed for two days and left before the trial was completed. In one sense, it’s very sad. Here’s someone whose life was taken under similar circumstances and yet it got no attention from the media. LD: And how about in federal court and the Supreme Court, what have those brought to your jurisprudence? CM: On the federal level, my first trial was a patent infringement antitrust claim involving eight disputed patents and an allegation of trade secrets violations. Both sides were well represented by major firms. That was a long way from Compton. The nice thing about federal court was that I got to handle large cases involving intellectual property, trademarks and patents as well as significant criminal drug cases involving large quantities of controlled substances. And on the Supreme Court we handle everything. There’s a great variety and breadth of cases so it’s a learning experience each and every day. It really keeps you engaged. You see how the law touches so many people in so many ways, ways you never even imagined, from the simplest taking of a default judgment to an assessment of property rights to class action litigation to the ultimate penalty, the death penalty. It really does require an open mind and a willingness to keep on delving into the inner recesses of the law. LD: Do you have a favorite role to sing in the opera? CM: Rodolfo in La Boheme. LD: Do you sing while driving home? CM: Yes. Doesn’t everybody? I also like Turandot. Any Puccini or Verdi operas are my favorites. I started to like opera when I went to a couple of operas in high school. It wasn’t until years later that I was at a recital by the L.A. Opera Chorus at my daughter’s high school that I started to study opera more intensely. LD: What do you view your role on the California Supreme Court as being? CM: It’s a fairly congenial, consensus-building court. We have unanimous decisions in 70 percent of cases, and just 10 percent of our cases are resolved by 4-3 votes. Those are the cases people may look at the most. I don’t think any of us see ourselves as having an agenda or predisposed point of view. We look at each case on its merits and see where the law takes us. All of us try, at some level, to reach a consensus if we can do so. LD: Ensuring access to the courts has always been a special focus for you. Was that part of your motivation to become a lawyer and judge? CM: Oh yes. Even growing up, when someone in my family had access problems, I would be the one who tried to handle it. There’s a great reward to the person doing the helping in these situations. Specifically, I remember handling insurance claims for my uncle, who worked for the Railway Express Agency. He was the father figure in my life. LD: What are some of the important access to justice issues you see at the moment? CM: That is a key issue [California’s] Chief Justice and the Judicial Council have been promoting in so many ways. My primary outreach activity on the court has been in the area of foster care, chairing the California Blue Ribbon Commission and identifying ways in which the court can improve our dependency court system. Our commission took testimony from across the state on a wide variety of issues to ensure that children and parents and relative caregivers and others find a system that meets their needs, a system that provides reliable and accurate information to courts and to social workers, that keeps the best interests of the child as its primary focus. It’s a big project. The state takes the lives of these children into its hands and we haven’t always done a good job. We have to make our dependency courts more accessible and user friendly. In areas other than foster care, the court has been very instrumental in promoting self help centers. The various superior courts provide very informative web sites that link user to all kinds of valuable information about the courts, how to use the courts, a glossary of terms, and all of this is available in several languages. In California we’ve done a terrific job in making the courts accessible. Particularly in the family law area, the Chief has appointed the Elkins Commission to address problems with pro per litigants (individuals who go to court without a lawyer). A very high disproportionate number of litigants in family court are pro per. We’re seeing a different image of the court ― one that is making genuine efforts to make it easier to access the court in so many ways. Courts are utilizing technology and other forms of communications to improve access. We get millions of people using courts in a given year and we need to remember we’re here to help them. LD: Does your work as Chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care have special meaning to you because of Heather? CM: The commission combines my passion for access with an effort to help children. I’m very happy that my wife and I are adopting Heather later this month. LD: Do you have a role model? CM: I’ve probably had several. One person I’ve always admired is Elwood Lui (now a partner at Jones Day in Los Angeles). I was his trial calendar deputy for a few weeks back in the ‘70s when he was on the municipal court. I’ve stayed in touch with him. He’s been a valuable reference and really assisted me throughout my legal career as a lawyer and a judge. LD: How can someone who started out doing preliminary hearings in Compton become a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court? CM: I think it’s just by working hard, studying and applying the law. I genuinely enjoyed each of my court assignments. I studied very hard as a preliminary hearing judge. I took the legal issues very seriously. That just builds and builds and becomes your way of approaching legal issues. And second, you must keep an open mind and not come to a case favoring one side or the other. You just never know how a case is going to turn out. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, you have to be prepared for whatever comes before you and when it does come before you, to be deliberative in how you approach its resolution. LD: What would your mother say if she could read the newspaper today? CM:She’d be very, very proud of how well I’ve done and very happy that I have a wonderful and beautiful family. Page: 1 of 1 pages for this article
|
|
|---|
