Challenge to Anonymity of Jurors Rejected : Courts: Municipal judge turns down request by public defender, saying it is up to the bench to protect panelists.

A judge Wednesday rejected the first legal challenge to his unusual policy of withholding the names of all jurors in every criminal case tried in his Bellflower courthouse, saying that if judges don’t take steps to protect jurors, no one else will.

In a hearing marked by the unusual spectacle of a judge arguing his own case from the bench, Philip K. Mautino, presiding judge of Los Cerritos Municipal Court, spurned an attempt by the Los Angeles public defender’s office to disclose the names of jurors in an upcoming case.

Deputy Public Defender Steve Lund, echoing criticism leveled at Mautino’s policy by legal scholars and defense attorneys, said juror anonymity violates a defendant’s right to a public trial. It also biases a case against the defendant, he said.

“It creates prejudice in the minds of the jurors that the defendant is dangerous and that they have something to fear,” Lund said.

The public defender’s office plans to ask the appellate department of Los Angeles Superior Court today to reverse Mautino, joining a similar challenge that was filed Aug. 19. The earlier case seeks to force the presiding judge of Downey Municipal Court, David Lord, to disclose the names of jurors in a case in his courtroom.

Mautino has drawn national attention for presiding over what is probably the only courthouse in America where jurors in every criminal case are anonymous. Anonymous panels are generally employed in the rare cases in which jurors might face threats or harassment. But Mautino, saying that jurors are increasingly nervous about serving, decided in January to use anonymity in all five of the courtrooms in Bellflower, even though they handle only misdemeanors.

The Los Angeles public defender’s office decided to challenge any policy of blanket anonymity it discovered. Cases being heard by Mautino and Lord have resulted in the only challenges so far. One other judge in the Downey courthouse and all four of the others in Bellflower use anonymous panels.

The county counsel’s office will defend the two judges. Deputy County Counsel Dan McCoy said he will argue that judges have the discretion to withhold jurors’ names. But Lund argued that the California Code of Civil Procedure, on which Mautino based his policy, does not allow juror anonymity without a demonstration that there is a “compelling governmental interest” in it.

During the hearing Wednesday, Mautino said public defenders and prosecutors are advocates for their own positions, so looking after jurors’ safety and peace of mind fell to him.

“I don’t think, gentlemen, that there is anyone stepping up and advocating for the jurors’ rights,” he said, “and if the judge doesn’t do it, I don’t think there is anybody in the court process who is going to do anything about it.”

Mautino said that since January, 1,800 jurors have reported for duty and been offered the choice of anonymity or use of their names. All have selected anonymity, he said.

The state Code of Civil Procedure allows jurors to have identifying information sealed after trial, Mautino said. But that is a “misrepresentation” because by then, jurors’ names have been announced in open court and written down in lawyers’ and spectators’ notes, he said.

If the intent of the Legislature is to protect jurors, Mautino said, the only way is to offer anonymity from the beginning.

Mautino said prospective jurors are more forthcoming about their lives in pretrial questioning than they were before he began using anonymity. That frankness, he said, is good for everyone because the defense and prosecution can better evaluate potential panelists.

Alex Ricciardulli, the deputy public defender supervising the appeals on the jury anonymity issue, said that if the appellate department strikes down Mautino’s and Lord’s practices, the decision will not be binding on other courts, but will be influential because “other judges know how to read the writing on the wall.”

The case would have to be decided by the state appeals court to be cited as precedent for all California courts, Ricciardulli said.