Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Dan Kapelovitz
Current job title: Criminal Defense Attorney/Experimental Filmmaker
Age: 55
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: RadicalLawCenter.com
What do you consider to be your judicial philosophy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I’ll actually follow the Constitution. I’m an originalist, but one with the understanding that the original Constitution was written to be a “living” one with room to expand as our nation progresses. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and must be interpreted to serve liberty and justice and to protect individual rights.
I oppose our broken two-tiered criminal-law system: One for the rich, and one for the poor. We need to uphold all constitutional rights, including the Equal Protection Clause.
To further uphold the law and the Constitution, I will not be afraid to grant Racial Justice Act petitions that deserve to be granted. Judges need to do everything possible to eliminate racial bias in all forms from the courts.
Sentencing should be truly proportional. Extreme sentences serve no purpose and can actually be counterproductive. The goal should be to prevent harm – not cause more harm. And we must not have any bias towards one side or another. That is one of the main reasons that I decided to run for judge and why I chose to run for this particular office.
How do you think your personal experience — legal or otherwise — would inform your decisions as a judge? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I didn’t go straight from college to law school. I’ve had years of experience unrelated to schooling or law, during which I’ve made friends from all walks of life. Judges who have never lived in the real world are missing life experiences crucial to being a good judge. I
‘ve also had a variety of jobs prior to going to law school, so I have at least some understanding of what working people deal with. No one knows exactly what anyone else is going through, but having diverse life experiences allows a judge to better identify with others. Many judges have never even personally known someone accused of a crime.
I’ve appeared before every kind of judge. I even clerked for a federal judge. I’ve learned what makes a good judge (and, unfortunately, what makes a bad one). I represent indigent clients as well as witnesses and victims. I understand how just being in a criminal courtroom can be extremely stressful. Some judges add to the misery by abusing people. Nothing is gained by abusing others. It only makes a bad situation worse. Judges who do this are insecure about their judicial abilities. I promise that I’ll never act like those judges.
How would you approach situations where you have judicial discretion within the law? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Where I have discretion, I promise to never abuse it. I will seriously consider all arguments. And I would not be biased toward one side or the other. However, I will err on the side of justice. I understand how seriously it is to use discretion wisely, especially because appellate courts rarely find that a trial court judge has abused his or her discretion (even when that judge clearly has).
How would you weigh your own personal beliefs against the law, should they conflict? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My personal beliefs are to uphold the law, especially the Constitution. So there is currently no conflict. If a situation comes up where my beliefs do come in conflict with the law, as a judge, I would follow the law. And if a situation arose where I could not follow the law in good conscience because I believe doing so would be immoral, I would have to recuse myself or even resign, if appropriate.
The people vote judges into office to uphold the Constitution, not to unethically act on their own personal beliefs, especially when those personal beliefs are themselves quite disturbing. That is precisely why I entered this election.
As an existing member of the legal community, how would you handle potential claims of misconduct against local attorneys, law firms or law enforcement organizations? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Claims of misconduct must be taken extremely seriously. At the same time, the accused is entitled to a meaningful hearing to address these accusations.
For years, Thomas Girardi got away with stealing tens of millions of dollars from his clients, in part, because State Bar employees had accepted gifts from his firm. This is precisely why I refuse to accept campaign contributions from attorneys or from PACs funded by attorneys. I challenge all judicial candidates to do the same.
We also need more transparency. Just to learn of complaints against law enforcement, attorneys must jump through numerous hoops – even though the Constitution requires the disclosure of this information. And if an attorney is finally given this information, that attorney is forbidden from sharing it.
Judges also need to be held accountable. One judge, Emily Cole, sent an ex parte text to the prosecution during trial because she thought the DA should be calling a certain witness to testify. Instead of removing this judge from the bench for this outrageous conduct, the Commission merely imposed what it called “a severe public censure.” I was asked to run against Cole. But I decided that unseating Walgren was even more important.
What is your philosophy on judicial activism and a judge’s potential role in shaping or setting public policy? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
People call judges they disagree with “activist judges” and judges they agree with “judges who faithfully follow the law.” The truth is that too many judges base their decisions on their politics. This is especially true of the Supreme Court, and why its approval rating is so low.
While completely ignoring one’s politics is almost impossible, politics has no role in any judge’s decision-making.
However, when a judge has discretion, that judge can and should consider public policy consequences and the effects any decision may have on the parties involved. For example, judges should give defendants a chance to change for the better by participating in various treatment programs, including mental health diversion, when appropriate. Such programs prevent crimes from happening in the first place. Judges also need to rid their courtrooms of racial bias and take Equal Protection claims seriously, where stops and searches are based on racial profiling.
Furthermore, judges need to rule against any party who tries to dismiss a juror based on that juror’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or any other similar impermissible grounds. Trial court judges rarely shape public policy, but they have a huge effect on individual people’s lives.