Humble beginning turns into love of justice system for Judge Lam

From Western Edition News Desk

Life is filled with complexities and the outcome of our cumulative experience can exceed our expectations. Newton Lam’s life is one such example.

As a youth from humble beginnings in Chinatown, Lam expected that he might become an auto mechanic or a restaurant manager. Those aspirations gradually changed when he decided to follow his father’s advice and went to college. Today, he serves as a Superior Court Judge, a position he has held since 2002.

“When I first got on the bench, there was never a time in my life when I thought I was going to be a judge. That was not what I intended to be,” Lam said. “I grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s and I was going to be a defense attorney. That’s what I was. I was in the public defender’s office for a number of years, I then went on to the mayor’s [Art Agnos] office to work as one of his assistants in public safety. I have always had a passion for criminal law and how it affects regular people.”

But Lam said it was during his time in the mayor’s office that changed his mind.

“There was an issue regarding jail overcrowding and we were under a consent decree,” he said. “We developed an idea that maybe the best thing to do was to try to manage those individuals with drug problems outside of the county jail rather then to recycle them into the county jail. We developed a drug court and put that in place. The municipal court decided to make me the commissioner to make the decisions about OR (own recognizance) releases and supervised releases. Eventually they had me run that drug court. That was why I got into it … I felt that was the direction we should be going.”

Noting that celebrities often received compassion when they were found to have drug abuse problems and were historically given the option of checking themselves into a treatment center, Lam said he believed everyone should have the same options.

“I wanted to give the same opportunity here (in San Francisco), so those individuals could get into treatment. I really do believe we should concentrate more on treatment in regards to intervening in this area.

“My feeling at that time and it’s still my feeling now, is that the area of criminal law has become more inclusive of some ills that probably should not be in criminal law,” Lam added. “Especially where we are lacking in regards to medical resources.”

Judge Lam said this problem becomes more obvious when you understand other court systems, for example European courts.

“You can see that when you go to Europe, in what they do regarding drug and alcohol abuse,” he said. “There, they handle it more as a medical issue and we at times tend to handle it as a criminal issue. I can understand why because there are no resources on the other side (medical) to handle it and someone has to. So it gets shoved over to our (criminal court) side.”

So does our judicial system work well?

“I think if you look at the European model and you have to look at it in a variety of ways. When I was serving in the drug court, I was the only commissioner at the time, but I had judges from Europe, Japan and Australia come and visit the drug court that we were conducting. When they (European judges) learned that our courts charged for drug possession, they explained that in Europe people were not charged for possession, but were referred to medical care.

“Now you have to understand that their medical referral system is different from ours,” Lam continued. “In our system, you can be referred, but if you choose not to participate you can just walk out. That’s not completely true in Europe. Based on their tax structure, they do provide a more significant public health service, but then of course their tax rate can go up to 70 percent, while our tax rate is about 30 percent.”

Lam said that while that particular system – treatment instead of incarceration – is a good model, comparing the systems issue is complicated. He looks at this approach because of his own past work.

“Having a strong health care side is very beneficial to society. When I was doing drug court, most of the people I’ve seen, many of them were homeless. They were people that had an illness that were waiting for appointments at San Francisco General Hospital or the Haight Ashbury clinic or the Veteran Administration facility. They didn’t have a place to stay, they didn’t have the money and they had significant illness concerns, like ongoing cancer concerns and lot of them were Vietnam Veterans. There were reasons why they ended up in drug court.”

To address issues of cost, the direction that our country is moving is toward privatization, which will mean less government involvement. Lam said that moving towards the privatization of services could include schools, public hospitals and managing problems of homelessness.

As an example of the complexities of managing criminal issues, countries and localities that have legalized prostitution still have to deal with illegal prostitution. The legalities now involve compliance issues. There are people who are engaged in prostitution will not comply with the rules such has getting health tests or drug screenings, instead they practice without these requirements and the result is illegal prostitution.
In terms of improving our judicial system, Lam said he believes that accessibility to the civil courts could be improved.

“I think if we can work on accessibility and at this point, given budget concerns, the courts have been reduced (by budget cuts). By the Constitution, we are the third branch of government, but we are like the stepsister to the Executive and the Legislative branches. They have grown and grown and the judiciary has really not been treated as an equal part of government. I think that access is the real issue because most of the people that get into court are people that don’t have money to get into court. The cost of litigation is such that often times they (people with lesser means) don’t reach the court where they can get their issue decided by a jury or a judge.”

Lam said that on the criminal justice side, access to the courts is a right. He also said that the criminal courts have such a heavy caseload that adequate time is a concern. He also cautions young attorneys to make the best use of their time in presenting to the court so that the court can make the best decisions. If there are 100 cases and too much time is spent on “floury” speeches, it could affect the decisions that people are making.

A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, where he obtained his Bachelor’s and Juris Doctorate degrees, Lam shared his perspectives on several areas of the Superior Court.

Perspective on jurors
Lam said he holds jury trials in high esteem. He admits there are challenges – often, in the beginning, there can be a lot of tension because some of the potential jurists may need to be excused because of hardships or for health reasons. But he said, “In a felony case, you have to have enough jurors to deal with all the preemptory challenges that both parties have a right to.

“When I first walk into a panel, there is sometimes a lot of people,” he said, which reminded him of one past serious felony case. “We had 170 people I had to introduce to the case. I am not a public speaker. It is always my most difficult challenge talking to a group of strangers, many of whom do not wish to be there because we have taken them out of their regular lives and they have to come down to the Hall of Justice, which as you can see, we don’t have many amenities. We are bare bones down here at the hall. It’s a very difficult transition for them to make. I usually get more comfortable after we go through the hardships phase.”

Lam said he likes to be respectful of both those who are accused and the juror’s time. He said the rights of the defendant are a priority.

However, the time of the juror’s must be considered.

“My first responsibility is the rights of the accused, I make sure that the all the rights of the accused are complied with. The second is the time of juror’s, not taking up unnecessary time of the jurors. I like to resolve most of my legal issues – evidentiary issues – prior to the time that we select the jury. I don’t want them sitting while we go through those issues. That is what I usually let both counsels know.”

During the panel selection process, potential jurors are allowed to share as much information with the court as possible.

“I let the individuals speak as much as possible,” he said. “My usual course is to allow counsel as much time as they wish. What you want is a discourse with the potential jurists, the jury has to feel free and comfortable enough to bring up the issues that they wish.”

Although there are some criminal cases as short as three weeks, jury trials can last from three to four months and even up to a year or more.

Perspective on jury trials
Criminal court differs from civil court in that jurors are expected find those who are defending themselves guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Juror instructions are very specific – set forth by state law – so as to ensure the jurors understand what constitutes evidence and fact.

Lam explained the process of “reasonable doubt.”

“People have to be satisfied that their decision is correct (and) that they have reasons. They look at the evidence and there are things that they see from the evidence that support why they came to their decision. They are confident that those facts support their decision. They are comfortable with their decision. It’s not a mere possibility they have reached a certainty about their decision.”

When asked if serving as a juror affected them permanently, Lam said he felt it did.

“Depending on the type of case that your in – I believe so. There are even books written by former jurists about cases that they’ve sat in on. It can have a real effect. I think that when we are sitting and reading the newspaper we are looking at decisions made by the legislature it is easy think that ‘oh boy if I were there it’d be so easy!’ It’s not easy.

“When you are sitting with a group of people deliberating whether it is legislation or an issue before the court, its a difficult decision because you’ll find that people are from all walks of life and they have completely different ideas. You have to sit and deal with all of those folks. It’s just like in the U.S. Senate there are a hundred people that you have to deal with, one from Alabama another from California. You have to find the middle ground. That is very hard to do and that is what governing is … the art of compromise.

“That is what a jury has to do when they go in there,” he continued. “They have to reach middle ground or some agreement that allows them to go forward.” However, Lam added, there are times when jurors don’t reach an agreement.

Perspective on advocacy
When asked who is the stronger advocate the public defender or the district attorney, Lam said it is an individual thing.

“Not by office, but by the individual that is working in that office. I went to the public defender’s office because I felt that I was more in control of the case. In the public defender’s office you represent an individual and with your client you are discussing and trying to find out what the facts are; and what you can or cannot do with regards to presentation of the case. It’s your decision, with the district attorney’s office, there is oftentimes office policy, it is that district attorney that decides what types of crimes they are going to concentrate on where they are going to expend their resources and they are given marching orders with regards to a particular case.

“In regards to who advocates harder there are great district attorney’s and there are great defense attorneys and I think that a real good lawyer can do both.”