Comments
WESTSIDE - David A. De Jute, who finished second in the June 2nd Primary for a seat on the Los Angeles County bench, is cautiously optimistic as he prepares for the runoff phase of the campaign.
De Jute captured 31.30% of the vote, or 516, 651 to first-place finisher AJ Bayne who received 42.04% or 694,004. Trailing the field in this extremely close contest was Sharee Sanders Gordon with 26.66% or 440,156.
De Jute graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Notre Dame and also graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School. He served as an officer of the Legal Aid Bureau, the nation’s oldest student-run pro bono clinic, providing free legal aid to those in need.
For more than three decades, he has represented clients in both the public & private sectors with distinction. As an Assistant United States Attorney, he represented the FBI, NASA, and former President of the United States, Barack Obama.
As Vice President of Litigation at Sony Pictures, he managed complex cases and developed a deep understanding of an industry pivotal to the Los Angeles economy.
De Jute currently practices at Michelman Robinson, a nationally respected firm.
He and his partner Eric have been together forty years and have a son.
"I've wanted to join the bench since I was a kid, watching my dad. He died the first week of law school and, by the time I graduated, I felt that I no longer had him as a safety net. Mom and I got closer, and I know that each one of them would be very proud if I were to become a judge," noted the candidate.
Among his key endorsements are former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn and developer Rick Caruso.
We spoke on Wednesday and here are the questions and answers from our exchange:
Now that you made the runoff finishing second, have you reached out to Sharee Sanders Gordon for her support?
Yes. Many people, including Dr. Gail Willis of Citizens for Accountable Leadership (CAL), have encouraged me to reach out to Sharee Sanders Gordon for her support because we share similar values. We were also the only Democrats running for this seat and, with Sharee's exit, I am the sole remaining Democrat running for Seat 87. Even though this is a non-partisan election, I am proud to have been endorsed by many Democratic clubs, prominent Democrats and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. I am hopeful that Sharee will agree to endorse me.
What did you learn as a first-time candidate in the primary, and how will you approach the general?
Reaching as many voters as possible requires an extraordinary commitment of time and money. I am devoting every spare minute I have to the campaign and doing my best to raise money. When I talk to voters in person, or reach them through advertising, I often earn their vote. The challenge is reaching a sufficient number of those nearly 6 million registered voters in the county. The Democratic clubs who have endorsed me, such as Stonewall Democratic Club, East Valley Progressive Democratic Club and many city Democratic clubs, as well as other civic groups, unions and organizations, have been extremely helpful in getting out the vote.
How do you balance judicial discretion with the need for consistency and predictability in sentencing and rulings?
Consistency and predictability in sentencing and rulings are achieved by adhering to general principles and sentences within a range of guidelines, with a lower and upper limit. Discretion is employed to ensure fairness within those general principles and ranges. A good judge is constrained by the requirements of the law, tempered by compassion and understanding.
What reforms, if any, would you support to improve public confidence in the judicial system and increase access to justice?
Improving public confidence and increasing access to justice requires a serious commitment of money. For too long, funding for the courts has been redirected to other state needs. More money translates into giving judges and the court system more time to properly adjudicate cases, reduce the backlog, issue better reasoned and considered rulings supported by precedent, and allow outreach to the community.
Los Angeles courts face significant backlogs and delays. What steps can judges take to improve efficiency while preserving fairness and due process?
Preserving fairness and due process is non-negotiable, and any increase in efficiency cannot occur at the expense of fairness or due process. Judges can, however, require parties and their lawyers to act diligently, in preparing pleadings, in avoiding unnecessary hearing continuances, and in providing representation to their clients without needlessly delaying the system.
How should courts address issues involving mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness when these factors intersect with criminal cases?
Mental illness, substance abuse and homelessness are not themselves crimes, but they can contribute to criminal behaviour when the person lacks options. To reduce crime, we need to address its underlying causes, and judges can seek to provide rehabilitation for first time and non-violent individuals.
What role should judicial temperament play on the bench, and how would attorneys, litigants, and court staff describe your temperament and courtroom demeanor?
Judicial temperament is sometimes the only thing people remember about the judge, and I have been told that my temperament is, in fact, very "judicial." I am not quick to judge. I am courteous. I make decisions without belittling anyone. I can prevent improper conduct without being abusive. And, I believe in the role of the court and the judge; the office demands respect, not me personally. As an example, friends of mine are getting a divorce, and I have always been friends with both the husband and wife. They each turn to me to ask advice, and they do so because they know that I am honest, that I will not tell one of them something different than the other, and that I have integrity. They want me to help mediate their divorce. That's an example of judicial temperament in my personal life.
Judges are expected to remain impartial despite political and public pressures. Can you describe a time in your legal career when you made an unpopular decision because it was the right one under the law?
I had a client, an FBI agent, who was wrongly charged with ethics violations by the Bureau. It would have been much easier to abandon him, but I could not do that. He deserved my zealous representation, and that's what I provided. I've done that often for clients, even when an easier, more lucrative, more convenient path presented itself.
(Nick Antonicello is a 31-year resident of Venice and a seasoned journalist who covers politics, government, and community issues affecting the Westside of Los Angeles. Known for his in-depth reporting and passionate advocacy, Nick provides insight into the challenges and opportunities shaping Venice and surrounding neighborhoods. His work explores everything from city council decisions to local elections and development. Have a take or a tip? Contact him at [email protected]. Nick is a regular contributor to CityWatchLA.com.)
