Ami Sagel and Charles Pell – Orange County Register

On the June 2 ballot is the post of Superior Court Judge, Office No. 41.

Judge Ami Sagel is being challenged by retired federal prosecutor Charles Pell. Last month, editorial board member John Seiler interviewed Judge Sagel and Pell about their campaigns.

Here, we present their responses, slightly condensed for consistency in response length, to surveys sent by the editorial board.

How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Ami Sagel: Judges have the privilege and responsibility of holding the public trust and must never underestimate the importance of their role in the administration of the law and in the public’s overall confidence in the judicial system. Those coming to Court to seek resolution or justice place their trust in judges to follow the law in a fair, knowledgeable, unbiased, and compassionate manner. My judicial philosophy entails serving the public with empathy, know-how, and a strong sense of fairness. In my service as a judge, I strive to never lose my humanity and serious responsibility of accountability to the public.

Charles Pell: My judicial philosophy is simple: apply the law fairly, treat people with dignity, and decide every case with an open mind and without fear or favor. That philosophy has been shaped by a lifetime of public service. My experience as a public-school teacher taught me patience, listening, and the importance of treating every person with respect. My service in the United States Navy taught me discipline, responsibility, and the value of duty. My years as a federal prosecutor taught me that justice requires preparation, sound judgment, and the willingness to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.

Does a judge’s personal politics, whether liberal, conservative or something else, affect her or his rulings and courtroom? Do you have a judicial hero of the past or present?

Ami Sagel: Personal politics do not have any place in the courtroom. Judges must do the right thing, especially when it is the hardest or most unpopular thing to do. As imperfect beings, we are all prone to carrying biases that could cloud our judgment and we struggle with changing our position when faced with evidence that runs contrary to our beliefs. On a daily basis, as a sitting Superior Court judge, I make choices that may affect someone’s life, family, livelihood, or freedom — decisions that impact the lives of litigants and their families and have lasting consequences. When doing so, I must always remain vigilant and mindful of implicit biases, and protect against falling prey to those unsupported assumptions, in order to reach a fair and just conclusion.

There are many judges — ones that I have appeared before and worked with as colleagues — who I admire as they possess the character and strong legal minds to serve in this serious role. However, I’ll focus my attention on Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two jurists with significant impact on women pursuing the law and public service. Both were known for their preparedness, integrity, character, and reputations of working well with others holding contrary opinions.

Charles Pell: A judge’s personal politics should not affect his or her rulings or courtroom. Judges, like all people, may have personal views, but the duty of a judge is to set those views aside and faithfully apply the law to the facts of each case. The courtroom is not a place for ideology, favoritism, or personal agendas. It is a place where every person deserves a fair hearing, respectful treatment, and a decision based on the law and the evidence.

That is also how I approached my work as a prosecutor. My investigative decisions and charging decisions were never based on politics, ideology, or the identity of the person involved. They were based on the facts, the law, and the interests of justice. Whether a matter involved a public official, a professional, or a vulnerable victim, my responsibility was the same: to follow the evidence fairly and make decisions without fear or favor. My commitment to fairness did not depend on the personalities involved. Even in highly adversarial cases, including those involving difficult defense counsel, I treated every defendant fairly and focused on the facts, the law, and the interests of justice.

I particularly admire Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. As a Californian who served first on the Ninth Circuit and then on the United States Supreme Court, he exemplified independence, civility, and respect for the rule of law. I admire that he was not governed by labels like “conservative” or “liberal,” but by his own view of what the law and the Constitution required in each case. That kind of independence — deciding cases based on principle rather than politics — is the kind of fairness, open-mindedness, and restraint I would strive to bring to the bench.

Do you believe the composition of juries adequately and fairly reflects society at large? Why or why not? If not, what can we do to change this?

Ami Sagel:  I believe that in our country, most people want to fulfill their civic duty by serving on a jury and they know the importance of this fundamental privilege and responsibility. In today’s busy and fast-moving world, however, most find it extremely difficult to do so because it may pose challenges to work, child care, elder care, and other commitments in their lives. The composition of juries may be affected by these factors, especially when it comes to working households with children and multi-generational families.

One effective tool in helping individuals make the sacrifices involved with serving on a jury is to ensure that they understand the importance of their service and to show gratitude for their willingness to make this commitment. In Orange County, judges volunteer to come speak at the beginning of each day to talk to those called for jury duty about their service and to thank them. I have volunteered to serve as one of those jury greeters this year. I have learned from others the significant positive impact this has on the satisfaction of those called to jury duty.

Charles Pell: Not always. Our jury system aspires to draw from the whole community, but in practice, economic barriers, caregiving obligations, language issues, and distrust of the system can prevent juries from fully reflecting society at large. That matters because the legitimacy of the jury system depends in part on whether people believe juries represent the community they serve. When entire groups are underrepresented — whether because of work demands, childcare responsibilities, transportation problems, limited English proficiency, or skepticism about the courts — the system is less fair in appearance and, potentially, in fact.

We should work to reduce those barriers. That includes improving juror compensation, making scheduling more flexible, and reducing unnecessary hardship for working people and caregivers. Courts should also continue improving language access, public outreach, and the summons process so that more people understand the importance of jury service and are realistically able to participate.

What do you believe to be the root causes for the high numbers of juvenile offenders, the so-called school-to-prison pipeline. What changes can the court system make to reduce these numbers?

Ami Sagel: The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judicial candidates from making statements or taking positions with respect to cases or issues that may come before the courts. (Canon 5B). In general, as a Family Law judge, I see people dealing with divorce, child custody, and domestic violence. Children and adults living in a situation of turmoil can be both the cause and the consequence of deep-seeded mental health issues, prolonged exposure to conflict and trauma, and the need to look elsewhere to solve or escape from one’s problems, which may include unhealthy decisions such as drugs or crime. These problems exacerbate when there is a clear lack of resources and gap in affordability.

The Court system in Orange County has worked hard to create collaborative courts that help try working with individuals (minors and adults) who face nearly insurmountable circumstances. The goals of the collaborative courts are to provide support to allow the offender to take responsibility for his/her own life. The key is SUPPORT and RESPONSIBILITY. These programs are not get-out-of-jail free cards (if one does not follow the strict requirements, they will face consequences) — but they also aim to equip people with resources to help them avoid the same dangerous cycles. Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders all come together in collaborative courts to provide input throughout the case. This is one way to help juveniles improve their chances at success when the odds may otherwise be stacked against them.

Charles Pell: The so-called school-to-prison pipeline is not caused by any one thing. It is usually the product of a combination of factors: chronic truancy, instability at home, untreated mental-health or substance-abuse issues, exposure to violence, poverty, and a lack of early intervention when children first begin to struggle. Too often, by the time a young person reaches the juvenile justice system, the warning signs have been there for years and the system has responded too late.

The court system can help reduce these numbers by focusing on early intervention, accountability that is age-appropriate, and coordination with families, schools, and community-based services. Programs like Orange County Superior Court’s Peer Court — a juvenile diversion program that offers first-time juvenile offenders who committed non-violent misdemeanors a second chance — are the kind of early-intervention efforts courts should continue to support and expand. Courts should support programs that address truancy, counseling, mentoring, substance abuse, and mental-health treatment, while reserving more punitive responses for cases where public safety truly requires them. Judges should also recognize that not every bad decision by a young person should become a life-defining event.

At the same time, accountability still matters. The goal should not be to excuse misconduct, but to respond in a way that protects public safety while improving the chances that a young person gets back on the right path. A court system that is fair, thoughtful, and focused on rehabilitation where appropriate can reduce recidivism and strengthen communities.