Pro		Con
Chief Justice Bird is opposed to the practice of depublication, which allows the justices of the California Supreme Court to declare flawed decisions by lower courts invalid, without requiring them to include a written opinion.1		The Bird court's use of the practice of depublication, which allows the justices of the California Supreme Court to declare flawed decisions by lower courts invalid, without requiring them to include a written opinion, involves a much greater number of criminal than civil cases, and many of the depublished decisions would have set precedents favoring the prosecution.2 This has resulted in confusion in the court system and a lack of conformity in many cases.3

AMA Commentary

Chief Justice Bird is opposed to the practice of depublication, and she routinely dissents when cases are ordered depublished by her colleagues on the court. According to Chief Justice Bird, "Depublication is a very imprecise and imperfect tool for shaping precedent...(it fulfills) neither of the two functions of the appellate process -- justice and predicability..."4 A study conducted by state Attorney General John Van de Kamp on the types of cases depublished in 1982 and 1983 resulted in the following findings: 51 criminal cases and 25 civil cases were depublished in 1982. 53 criminal cases and 42 civil cases were depublished in 1983. The opinions in 46 (90%) of the depublished criminal cases in 1982, and in 40 (75%) of the depublished criminal cases in 1983, were favorable to the prosecution.5

---

¹ Ashby, Alan and Carol Benfell, "Esoteric Practice Undercuts California Prosecutors," California Journal, April 1985, pp. 137-140.
² Ibid.
³ Crime Victims for Court Reform, op. cit., campaign literature.
⁴ Chief Justice Bird, the first State-of-the-Judiciary address, delivered to the California State Bar, 1978, cited in Ashby and Benfell, op. cit., p. 138.
⁵ Ibid.