MAILBAG - Dec. 2, 1999

Court needs more judges like Susanne Shaw

I am writing in response to the articles regarding Judge Susanne Shaw

(“Harbor Court judge faces accusers,” Nov. 16). In 1986, the Girl Scout

troop, to which my daughter Austyn belonged, attended Shaw’s courtroom.

We observed her courtroom for about 30 minutes. When cases were done,

Shaw worked late and asked the public defenders to participate in a mock

trial with the Girl Scouts sitting as the jury. This took about 20

minutes but was one of the most memorable experiences of Austyn’s

childhood.

My daughter was so fascinated with the judicial process that we invited

both Shaw and the public defender for dinner. During that brief evening,

I developed an immense respect for Shaw and the public defender. Both are

dedicated to providing justice and making a difference in the lives of

the people they serve. About a year later, Shaw invited Austyn to visit

her again. It was at that time we saw the numerous pictures of and

learned about many people who had been in her courtroom. Shaw cares about

people yet has a no-nonsense attitude about her job.

Just last year, I was in her courtroom again. I’m sure she didn’t

remember me because my name had changed and so had I in 12 years. I was

pleased to see that she was still dispensing justice with a no-nonsense

attitude. As one of 12 potential jurors, I was asked by the plaintiff’s

lawyer about my attitude regarding a monetary award for pain and

suffering in the case of automobile accidents. I and many of the 12

responded that we thought that medical expenses and restitution for loss

of wages were appropriate, but we did not favor a monetary settlement for

pain and suffering. The lawyer wanted me, and the others who had similar

responses, to be dismissed. Judge Shaw refused to dismiss three-fourths

of the potential jurors and told the lawyer that he would have to use his

preemptive rights. In essence, she refused to skew the jury by dismissing

this random collection of people from the community just because many

were not predisposed toward awarding a large settlement to his client. I

have immense respect for Shaw. It would be a travesty of justice to

remove her. I wish her many years of public service. We need more judges

who care about people and who refuse to waste the public’s time and

money.

P.S. Austyn is working in a small village in Costa Rica and only receives

mail about once a month or I’m sure she would be writing in support of

Judge Shaw.

MARCIA O’HERN

Newport Beach

Modest growth is key

The city of Newport Beach has a clear responsibility to maintain a high

quality of life for current Newport residents (“Newport Beach has its eye

on future finances,” Nov. 16). Adding more development is not necessarily

an effective method of generating revenue. Even Councilman Tod Ridgeway

agrees that building huge office towers doesn’t produce any net revenue,

since the expenses of police, fire, etc., approximate any net income from

property tax. There are six major office buildings working their way

through our Planning Department. Each of them should be denied because

the trade-off of increased traffic for added property tax is a net loss

for Newport residents.

Moderating city expenses with a modest growth of revenue-producing

development (such as retail space) makes the most sense. Allowing

excessive development as the solution to balancing the budget is a deal

with the devil.

HENRY BROOKS

Newport Beach