News
Judges and Judiciary
Feb. 20, 2002
Judge's Directness Nets Fans, Foes
NEWPORT BEACH - Although the Commission on Judicial Performance closed the case on Orange County Superior Court Judge Susanne S. Shaw with a public admonishment in June 2000, the jury is still out.
PROFILE
Susanne S. Shaw
Superior Court Judge
Newport Beach
Career highlights: Elected judge, Orange County Municipal Court, 1984, elevated to Superior Court by unification, 1998; deputy district attorney, Orange County, 1979-84; assistant U.S. attorney, Sacramento, 1978-79; deputy district attorney, Orange County, 1973-78
Law school: California Western School of Law, 1972
Age: 55
By Amy Tatko
Daily Journal Staff Writer
NEWPORT BEACH - Although the Commission on Judicial Performance closed the case on Orange County Superior Court Judge Susanne S. Shaw with a public admonishment in June 2000, the jury is still out.
The commission heard testimony about Shaw's unusual courtroom demeanor - including singing and allegedly making strange comments to defendants and lawyers - and concluded that she was guilty of prejudicial conduct in two instances and improper behavior in one case.
Attorneys who know the judge or appear in her court have mixed opinions.
Supporters call her a refreshingly honest person who speaks her mind and has only good intentions. Critics say Shaw is out of line and regularly brings victims, defendants and attorneys to tears with her rude comments and harsh attitude.
Criminal defense attorney Marshall Schulman is among those who praise the 55-year-old judge.
"I think she's a straight shooter. I think she's got a good mind. She gets to the issues quick," said Schulman, who often appeared in Shaw's Newport Beach court before moving to San Francisco. "She's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in."
Yet others think the commission's admonishment did not go far enough.
"She is the worst bench officer of the approximately 100 I've been in front of," said one lawyer who has appeared regularly in Shaw's court, speaking on condition of anonymity. "She should have been removed a long time ago.
"There needs to be a citizen watch group to sit in her courtroom for a month and document the outlandish behavior and comments - which should not be done by anyone, let alone a judge."
Shaw declined to be interviewed for this article. When the Daily Journal last published a profile of her, in 1985, she talked about her campaign for judge and shared some of her biography.
Shaw was born in 1946 in Hamburg, Germany. Her father was a concentration camp survivor and, according to Shaw, "beat on" her and her brother. The family left Germany when Shaw was 10, moving to Victoria, British Columbia, Philadelphia and New York City before settling in Orange County in 1962. Her parents managed a hotel in Laguna Beach. Shaw left home after 10th grade, following a dispute with her father.
As a teen-ager, Shaw flipped hamburgers and delivered newspapers to support herself. She put herself through school, earning a bachelor's degree in German literature from the University of California, Irvine, and a law degree from California Western University in San Diego.
Her legal career started in the Orange County district attorney's office, where she was a prosecutor from 1972 to 1984. Her tenure included one break to work as an assistant U.S. attorney in Sacramento for less than a year in 1978.
In 1984, Shaw spent her life savings - $20,000 - to win election as a Municipal Court judge for the Harbor judicial district. As a result of the unification of courts, she became a Superior Court judge in 1998, handling criminal cases at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach.
She has described herself as a conservative, law-and-order judge who supports the death penalty and believes in victims' rights. During her campaign for a Municipal Court seat, she called her opponent incompetent and an embarrassment to the court, according to the Daily Journal profile.
Fast forward several years, and Shaw is the subject of similar accusations. The Commission on Judicial Performance held hearings in November 1999 to examine 12 counts brought against Shaw. At issue was the judge's allegedly inappropriate courtroom behavior and comments, which some attorneys contend has not changed.
The commission found Shaw guilty of two acts of prejudicial conduct and one count of improper behavior, and publicly admonished her in June 2000. The remaining charges were dropped, but not without comment.
"The commission continues to have concerns with some of the types of behavior alleged in the other counts, particularly the allegation of singing in the courtroom," the decision and order stated.
Three incidents led to the admonishment. In the first, in 1993, Shaw allegedly became angry at a deputy district attorney who would not offer a drunken driver defendant a reduced charge. The judge said the prosecutor lacked discretion and human kindness and would one day regret her decision, according to the commission's report.
The second incident occurred in 1996 and involved a comment Shaw allegedly made after an arraignment of protesters who support animal rights. Shaw spoke about the case to two deputy district attorneys who were in her court for an unrelated matter, according to the commission's report. Shaw told the prosecutors that she had offered the defendants a 30-day sentence and did not want the district attorney's office to undercut her offer, the report stated. Nobody was present on behalf of the defendants when Shaw made the comments.
The commission unanimously agreed that Shaw's ex parte communication "gave the appearance of embroilment in the case," in violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
The final guilty finding pertained to a 1997 case. During the arraignment calendar, Shaw commented on a defendant's physical appearance as a skinny white male and suggested he might be the subject of unwanted sexual activity in prison. The appellate court justices who held the hearings and prepared a written report to the commission found this incident to be "the most troubling of the allegations," the commission's report stated.
The justices acknowledged Shaw's strengths on the bench, stating in their report that she is "a widely respected judge within the legal community who carries out her duties honestly, faithfully, diligently, and with a great deal of regard for her responsibilities."
Yet the commission concluded that there were problems with Shaw's judicial style, reminding her that she must respect those who appear in her court.
"When a judge fails to do so, it is the commission's responsibility to bring such failures to the judge's attention," the commission's report stated. "Our concern is that Judge Shaw may feel that her genuine concern for the litigants and the community somehow excuses her conduct."
Schulman, the longtime criminal defense attorney, called the commission proceedings a "witch hunt" started by a "cry baby DA." He testified on Shaw's behalf.
"And I'd do it again," said Schulman, who has known Shaw for more than 20 years. "I have to say, she doesn't always rule for me, either. I've been on the other side of her rulings many times."
Another prominent Orange County attorney, Paul Meyer of Costa Mesa, also testified at the hearings on behalf of Shaw. He worked with her in the district attorney's office in 1973 and has appeared in front of her many times.
"She's very compassionate, very strong-willed and very direct. You always know what she is thinking, because she tells you directly," Meyer said. "I think she has strong intelligence and good instincts."
Still, others remain concerned that Shaw's case before the commission ended with a mere admonishment.
"She treats individuals abominably. It doesn't matter whether it's a victim, defendant or attorney," one lawyer said. "It is often an embarrassment to be in the courtroom when she's being abusive. It's horrifying to think members of the public who have no other contact with the judicial system think she properly reflects the legal system in Orange County and what constitutes appropriate judicial behavior."
It's not just her behavior that the attorney finds problematic; it's also the result of that behavior.
"Justice is not accomplished in her courtroom on a regular basis," the lawyer said.
Here are some of Judge Shaw's recent cases and the lawyers involved:
People v. Reynolds, 01CF2461
Prosecution: John Cristol, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Allan Stokke, Stokke & Riddet, Santa Ana
People v. Nungarary, 01WF1438
Prosecution: James Bacin, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Michael Younge, Anaheim
People v. Martinez, 01CF2014
Prosecution: Ed Flores, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Joe Perez, public defender's office, Santa Ana
People v. Zacker, 97HF0852
Prosecution: Erin Rowe, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Jacqueline Freeman, alternate public defender's office Orange County
Susanne S. Shaw
Superior Court Judge
Newport Beach
Career highlights: Elected judge, Orange County Municipal Court, 1984, elevated to Superior Court by unification, 1998; deputy district attorney, Orange County, 1979-84; assistant U.S. attorney, Sacramento, 1978-79; deputy district attorney, Orange County, 1973-78
Law school: California Western School of Law, 1972
Age: 55
The commission heard testimony about Shaw's unusual courtroom demeanor - including singing and allegedly making strange comments to defendants and lawyers - and concluded that she was guilty of prejudicial conduct in two instances and improper behavior in one case.
Attorneys who know the judge or appear in her court have mixed opinions.
Supporters call her a refreshingly honest person who speaks her mind and has only good intentions. Critics say Shaw is out of line and regularly brings victims, defendants and attorneys to tears with her rude comments and harsh attitude.
Criminal defense attorney Marshall Schulman is among those who praise the 55-year-old judge.
"I think she's a straight shooter. I think she's got a good mind. She gets to the issues quick," said Schulman, who often appeared in Shaw's Newport Beach court before moving to San Francisco. "She's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in."
Yet others think the commission's admonishment did not go far enough.
"She is the worst bench officer of the approximately 100 I've been in front of," said one lawyer who has appeared regularly in Shaw's court, speaking on condition of anonymity. "She should have been removed a long time ago.
"There needs to be a citizen watch group to sit in her courtroom for a month and document the outlandish behavior and comments - which should not be done by anyone, let alone a judge."
Shaw declined to be interviewed for this article. When the Daily Journal last published a profile of her, in 1985, she talked about her campaign for judge and shared some of her biography.
Shaw was born in 1946 in Hamburg, Germany. Her father was a concentration camp survivor and, according to Shaw, "beat on" her and her brother. The family left Germany when Shaw was 10, moving to Victoria, British Columbia, Philadelphia and New York City before settling in Orange County in 1962. Her parents managed a hotel in Laguna Beach. Shaw left home after 10th grade, following a dispute with her father.
As a teen-ager, Shaw flipped hamburgers and delivered newspapers to support herself. She put herself through school, earning a bachelor's degree in German literature from the University of California, Irvine, and a law degree from California Western University in San Diego.
Her legal career started in the Orange County district attorney's office, where she was a prosecutor from 1972 to 1984. Her tenure included one break to work as an assistant U.S. attorney in Sacramento for less than a year in 1978.
In 1984, Shaw spent her life savings - $20,000 - to win election as a Municipal Court judge for the Harbor judicial district. As a result of the unification of courts, she became a Superior Court judge in 1998, handling criminal cases at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach.
She has described herself as a conservative, law-and-order judge who supports the death penalty and believes in victims' rights. During her campaign for a Municipal Court seat, she called her opponent incompetent and an embarrassment to the court, according to the Daily Journal profile.
Fast forward several years, and Shaw is the subject of similar accusations. The Commission on Judicial Performance held hearings in November 1999 to examine 12 counts brought against Shaw. At issue was the judge's allegedly inappropriate courtroom behavior and comments, which some attorneys contend has not changed.
The commission found Shaw guilty of two acts of prejudicial conduct and one count of improper behavior, and publicly admonished her in June 2000. The remaining charges were dropped, but not without comment.
"The commission continues to have concerns with some of the types of behavior alleged in the other counts, particularly the allegation of singing in the courtroom," the decision and order stated.
Three incidents led to the admonishment. In the first, in 1993, Shaw allegedly became angry at a deputy district attorney who would not offer a drunken driver defendant a reduced charge. The judge said the prosecutor lacked discretion and human kindness and would one day regret her decision, according to the commission's report.
The second incident occurred in 1996 and involved a comment Shaw allegedly made after an arraignment of protesters who support animal rights. Shaw spoke about the case to two deputy district attorneys who were in her court for an unrelated matter, according to the commission's report. Shaw told the prosecutors that she had offered the defendants a 30-day sentence and did not want the district attorney's office to undercut her offer, the report stated. Nobody was present on behalf of the defendants when Shaw made the comments.
The commission unanimously agreed that Shaw's ex parte communication "gave the appearance of embroilment in the case," in violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
The final guilty finding pertained to a 1997 case. During the arraignment calendar, Shaw commented on a defendant's physical appearance as a skinny white male and suggested he might be the subject of unwanted sexual activity in prison. The appellate court justices who held the hearings and prepared a written report to the commission found this incident to be "the most troubling of the allegations," the commission's report stated.
The justices acknowledged Shaw's strengths on the bench, stating in their report that she is "a widely respected judge within the legal community who carries out her duties honestly, faithfully, diligently, and with a great deal of regard for her responsibilities."
Yet the commission concluded that there were problems with Shaw's judicial style, reminding her that she must respect those who appear in her court.
"When a judge fails to do so, it is the commission's responsibility to bring such failures to the judge's attention," the commission's report stated. "Our concern is that Judge Shaw may feel that her genuine concern for the litigants and the community somehow excuses her conduct."
Schulman, the longtime criminal defense attorney, called the commission proceedings a "witch hunt" started by a "cry baby DA." He testified on Shaw's behalf.
"And I'd do it again," said Schulman, who has known Shaw for more than 20 years. "I have to say, she doesn't always rule for me, either. I've been on the other side of her rulings many times."
Another prominent Orange County attorney, Paul Meyer of Costa Mesa, also testified at the hearings on behalf of Shaw. He worked with her in the district attorney's office in 1973 and has appeared in front of her many times.
"She's very compassionate, very strong-willed and very direct. You always know what she is thinking, because she tells you directly," Meyer said. "I think she has strong intelligence and good instincts."
Still, others remain concerned that Shaw's case before the commission ended with a mere admonishment.
"She treats individuals abominably. It doesn't matter whether it's a victim, defendant or attorney," one lawyer said. "It is often an embarrassment to be in the courtroom when she's being abusive. It's horrifying to think members of the public who have no other contact with the judicial system think she properly reflects the legal system in Orange County and what constitutes appropriate judicial behavior."
It's not just her behavior that the attorney finds problematic; it's also the result of that behavior.
"Justice is not accomplished in her courtroom on a regular basis," the lawyer said.
Here are some of Judge Shaw's recent cases and the lawyers involved:
People v. Reynolds, 01CF2461
Prosecution: John Cristol, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Allan Stokke, Stokke & Riddet, Santa Ana
People v. Nungarary, 01WF1438
Prosecution: James Bacin, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Michael Younge, Anaheim
People v. Martinez, 01CF2014
Prosecution: Ed Flores, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Joe Perez, public defender's office, Santa Ana
People v. Zacker, 97HF0852
Prosecution: Erin Rowe, deputy district attorney, Orange County
Defense: Jacqueline Freeman, alternate public defender's office Orange County
#337681
Amy Tatko
Daily Journal Staff Writer
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