Judges and Judiciary
Jul. 24, 2002
Sonoma Criminal Bench Is Called a 'Spirited Job'
SANTA ROSA - Every morning before Judge Elaine Watters calls her calendar, her bailiff, Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Everett Arrow, surveys the gallery for any sign of disorder.
Elaine Watters
Superior Court judge
Sonoma
Career highlights: Appointed judge, Sonoma County Superior Court, 1992; partner, Gray, O'Brien, Sawyer, Watters & Davis, 1983-1992; associate, Spridgen, Barrett, Achor, Luckhardt, Anderson, James & Zeigler, 1979-1982.
Law school: Hastings College of the Law, 1979
Age: 54
A courtroom veteran, Arrow politely informs people reading newspapers, wearing hats or using cell phones that those things just aren't done in Watters' Santa Rosa courtroom.
He also keeps on eye on hostile litigants and makes sure the level of noise in the room is appropriate for Watters, for whom he has worked eight out of the last 10 years.
The bailiff "knows I like a formal commencement of the day," said Watters, a lifelong Democrat who was appointed to the superior court in 1992 by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican.
"Proceedings should be formal because they're important," said Watters. "People should understand that important things are happening."
Watters, 54, is one of four Sonoma County judges assigned to hear felony trials.
Harry Allen, a Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney who has tried three murder cases in her courtroom, said Watters' temperament is "what you expect to [find] when you go into a courtroom."
"I never see her get into any situations that are unseemly," he said. "Some judges blow up and admonish people. I've never seen her do that."
San Francisco sole practitioner Trent Orr argued a long, "fairly complicated" environmental case before Watters shortly after she was appointed to the bench. Friends of the Esteros v. City of Santa Rosa, SCV 194467.
Orr challenged the city on a multi-volume Environmental Impact Report it had prepared for a proposed wastewater treatment facility in west Sonoma County.
Orr, who represented farmers and environmentalists opposed to the plan, prevailed when Watters set aside the city's approval of the plan.
He described Watters as a "no-nonsense" judge.
"She's very stern. You don't get a lot of personality there," Orr said. "You're impressed with the fact that you are before a judge."
Orr said he didn't mean Watters is humorless. But she isn't what he calls a "personality kid."
That said, he would happily trade judges heavy on personality for Watters, whom he described as even-tempered, smart and well prepared.
"I've been in front of very pleasant judges who are a joy to banter with but loose on the law and slipshod on rulings," he said.
Clayton Clement, a partner with Santa Rosa's Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy, tried two long civil trials before Watters within the past decade. "She had a clear idea where she was, where she wanted to go and how she was going to get there," he said. "She made it clear from the outset that it was her courtroom and she was in charge."
Clement has tried 35 jury trials in the past 30 years. He said he rates Watters among the very best judges he has encountered.
"She tends to be right even when she rules against me," he said.
Watters has long expressed an interest in an appellate appointment and has applied for vacancies with Wilson and Gov. Gray Davis.
Clement said Watters is well suited for the appellate bench, although he would hate to see her leave the trial court.
"She's a thoughtful and brainy judge," he said. "People like that tend to be attracted to the Court of Appeal."
Watters spent her career in private practice as a civil litigator with two of Santa Rosa's best-known civil law offices, O'Brien, Watters, Davis, Malisch & Piasta, and the now defunct Spridgen, Barrett, Achor, Luckhardt, Anderson, James & Zeigler.
Clement, who was familiar with her work then, said Watters excelled in her law and motion work and her briefings.
After four years hearing civil and family law cases, Watters decided in 1996 she wanted to take a criminal assignment. This was after she'd volunteered to hear one of Sonoma County's most-watched, most-emotional trials of the 1990s, People v. Scully, SCR 22969.
In that six-month trial, a jury convicted Robert Scully, a Pelican Bay State Prison parolee, of killing Sheriff's Deputy Frank Trejo. Brenda Moore, his co-defendant, was acquitted of first-degree murder but convicted of robbery, burglary and assault. Watters sentenced Scully to death and gave Moore 13 years in prison.
Larry Scoufos, the chief deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case, said Scully was Watters' first capital case. It was also Sonoma County's first case to have two juries, one for Scully and one for Moore.
Despite those apparent challenges, he said, "As far as getting the trial moving in an orderly fashion, she did it exceptionally well."
Scoufos said he was at times frustrated that Watters excluded evidence he wanted admitted. In hindsight, however, those rulings may have worked in his favor, defusing possible appeals, he said.
The only complaint he's heard is that Watters occasionally gives more deference to young drug offenders than prosecutors would like.
"She gives them more of an opportunity to clean up their act than we would agree upon," he said, conceding: "That's not necessarily a bad thing."
Scoufos agreed Watters is well suited for the appellate bench.
"She is certainly one who seeks to better herself both in an academic setting and her personal life," he said. The appellate court "is a logical step for her because of her ability to excel in research and her love of the law itself."
At first, Watters said, she was uncomfortable with the argot of the criminal assignment, which often trades words for criminal code section numbers.
Now, however, she said she is comfortable with criminal law.
"I truly enjoy working with the criminal bar," she said. "The criminal bar is comfortable with being in the courtroom, very pragmatic and very focused on outcomes."
Deputy District Attorney Jill Ravitch has tried four murder cases before Watters.
Watters' performance on the criminal bench has been admirable, particularly given her limited experience in criminal law in private practice, she said.
"It's remarkable how quickly she has learned criminal procedure rules," Ravitch said. "She has quickly become one of the best-versed [judges]."
Deputy Public Defender Virginia Marcoida has appeared regularly in Watters' courtroom for the past two years. Watters, she said, would do well on the appellate bench.
"She has a wide range of life experiences. She's lived in foreign countries, speaks foreign languages and she's a mother," Marcoida said. "She can see the big picture pretty quickly."
Watters, whose appellate court application is still active, said she isn't counting on an appointment. In a way, she said, she would miss her current job if she were appointed.
"It's a wonderfully spirited job being a trial judge," she said. "Any day you could be called to rule on something you haven't heard of before. The pace is intense, and human emotions are there."
Watters said she has little tolerance for attorneys who waste time and needlessly repeat arguments. She prefers attorneys "who aren't afraid of the word 'submitted' and stop talking."
She has yet to hold any attorney in contempt but has threatened a few for intentionally violating an order and persisting in lines of questioning she has ruled out of order. She also has little patience for attorneys who are sarcastic or laugh during someone's testimony.
Allen said Watters' judicial independence was on display in a murder case, People v. Ernst, SCR 16843. Watters disqualified certain prosecutors from the case and dismissed murder charges against the defendant on grounds of vindictive prosecution. She justified her decision with an unusually long 18-page ruling.
"I think that was a courageous step and I think she was right," said Allen.
Watters said she realized she was "going out on a limb in the ruling," noting that it is extremely rare to dismiss charges based on vindictive prosecution. Even so, she said, "it was the right thing to do."
She said she wrote the lengthy decision because "it was a good idea to guide the parties. Certainly it was useful," she said.
Watters has a 26-year-old son from a previous marriage and shares two homes with her husband, 6th District Court of Appeal Justice Conrad Rushing - one in Santa Rosa and one near Rushing's court in San Jose.
Rushing does most of the commuting but often can work from Santa Rosa using e-mail and the Internet.
Watters likes to tend to her extensive garden of about 50 rose plants in Santa Rosa and enjoys hiking, mountain biking and backpacking.
For the past four years, she and Rushing have co-taught a weeklong continuing education course for judges called "Literature and Judicial Reasoning."
Here are some of Watters' recent cases and the lawyers involved:
People v. Ramirez, SCR 26125
Prosecution: Jill Ravitch, Sonoma deputy district attorney
Defense: Harry Allen, Santa Rosa
People v. Scully, SCR 22969
Prosecution: Larry Scoufos, Sonoma chief deputy district attorney
Defense: Elliot Daum, Sonoma deputy public defender; Jamie Thistlethwaite, Santa Rosa sole practitioner: and Richard Ingram, Harrington & Ingram, Santa Rosa
People v. Forslind, SCR 31325
Prosecution: Jill Ravitch, Sonoma deputy district attorney
Defense: Chris Andrian, Andrian & Gallenson, Santa Rosa
People v. Dodele, SCR 14833
Prosecution: Maria Leftwich, Sonoma deputy district attorney
Defense: Virginia Marcoida, Sonoma deputy public defender
People v. Avalos, SCR 31399
Prosecution: Scott Jamar, Sonoma deputy district attorney
Defense: Virginia Marcoida, Sonoma deputy public defender
Erik Cummins
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com