Skip to main content

Full text of "A California Supreme Court justice looks at law and society, 1964-1996 : oral history transcript / 1997"

See other formats

University of California Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office University of California 

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California 

University of California Black Alumni Series 

Allen E. Broussard 



With an Introduction by 
Carl B. Metoyer 

Interviews Conducted by 

Gabrielle Morris 
in 1991, 1992, 1995, and 1996 

Copyright c 1997 by The Regents of the University of California 

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading 
participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of 
Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral history is a method of 
collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a 
narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well- 
informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the 
historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for 
continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected 
manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and 
placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in 
other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, 
oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete 
narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in 
response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, 
and irreplaceable. 


All uses of this manuscript are covered by two legal 
agreements between The Regents of the University of California and 
Allen E. Broussard dated January 29, 1992, and February 1, 1996. 
The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All 
literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, 
are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of 
California, Berkeley. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for 
publication without the written permission of the Director of The 
Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be 
addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, 
University of California, Berkeley 94720, and should include 
identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated 
use of the passages, and identification of the user. The legal 
agreements with Allen E. Broussard require that he be notified of 
the request and allowed thirty days in which to respond. 

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: 

Allen E. Broussard, "A California Supreme 
Court Justice Looks at Law and Society, 
1964-1996," an interview conducted in 
1991, 1992, 1995, and 1996 by Gabrielle 
Morris, Regional Oral History Office, The 
Bancroft Library, University of 
California, Berkeley, 1997. 

Copy no. 

San Francisco Chronicle 
November 6. 1996 

Allen Broustard 

Allen Broussard 
Former California 
Supreme Court Judge 

Allen E. Broussard, who as a 
liberal state Supreme Court justice 
in the 1980s wrote major opinions 
on subjects ranging from the 
death penalty to tenant rights, 
died yesterday, court officials an 
nounced. Justice Broussard, who 
died at his Oakland home, was 67. 

Before the justice stepped 
down from the bench in 1991, he 
was the author of many of the 
opinions of the court's liberal ma 
jority under then-Chief Justice 
Rose Bird. After Bird and two oth 
er liberal judges, Cruz Reynoso 
and Joseph Grodin, were ousted by 
voters in 1986, Justice Broussard 
quickly found himself the court's 
most frequent and vehement dis 

As a dissenter, he voted against 
majority court decisions uphold 
ing police roadblocks for drunken 
drivers and sharply limiting work 
ers' rights to collect monetary 
damages when claiming they had 
been unfairly fired. 

As an African American grow 
ing up in Louisiana, Justice Brous 
sard recalled once that he had to 
fend off dogs and rock-throwing 
white boys on his way to high 
school. He moved to California 
with his family in 1945, attended 
the University of California at 
Berkeley and then went on to earn 
his law degree at Boalt Hall. 

He was admitted to the bar in 
1954 and worked as a law clerk for 
Raymond Peters, then a respected 
state Court of Appeal judge who 
later served on the California Su 
preme Court. After Justice Brous 
sard served 17 years on the Munici 
pal and Superior courts in Alame- 
da County, Governor Jerry Brown 
appointed him hi 1981 to the state 
Supreme Court. He was the second 
black jurist, following Wiley Ma 
nuel, to serve on that court Manu 
el died in 1981. 

In 1982, Justice Broussard won 
a 12-year term at the polls and did 
not have to run four years later 
when a major campaign by conser 
vatives and prosecutors unseated 
Bird, Grodin and Reynoso. 

In 1983, Justice Broussard sup 
ported the state's right to protect 
the environment by restricting di 
versions from lakes and streams. 
The same year, he wrote the 
court's decision requiring proof of 
intent to kill in most death penalty 

Two years later, he wrote an 
opinion upholding a tenant's right 
to sue an apartment owner with 
out having to prove negligence af 
ter the tenant was injured by a de 
fective fixture. The same year, he 
wrote another opinion permitting 
strikes by non-safety related pub 
lic employees. 

In 1987, Justice Broussard pen 
ned one of his major dissents when 
the court overturned his earlier 
opinion and allowed death sen 
tences without proof of the intent 
to kill. He wrote: "Periodically, 
when the political winds gust in a 
new direction, it becomes neces 
sary to remind all concerned of the 
virtues of a steady course." 

John Burns, an Oakland law 
yer who described Justice Brous 
sard as one of his mentors, said of 

the former justice, "He was a gi 
ant, not only as a man but also as a 
lawyer. He never lost his touch 
with the community. You always 
knew that he thought about the 
human issues, about the common 

Stephen Barnett, a law profes 
sor at Boalt and longtime court ob 
server, said Justice Broussard 
"survived the Bird court and be 
came a lonely liberal dissenter on 
the court," headed by Malcolm Lu 
cas. "He will be remembered more 
for his dissents than for his role as 
a pillar of the Bird court. He did 
much to keep the Lucas court 
from going overboard in undoing 
liberal precedents." 

When Justice Broussard re 
tired in 1991, Governor Pete Wil 
son replaced him with Ronald 
George, who is now the court's 
chief justice. Following his retire 
ment, Justice Broussard became a 
partner in the San Francisco law 
firm of Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & 

He is survived by his wife, 
Odessa, and their two sons, Keith 
and Craig. 

Services are pending. 

Staff ond wire report 


Allen E. Broussard, 1990. 

Photograph by Paul Latoures 

Cataloging information 

Allen E. Broussard (1929-1996) Judge 

A Calfornia Supreme Court Justice Looks at Law and Society, 1964-1996, xii, 
266 pp., 1997. 

Boyhood in Louisiana; education at San Francisco City College, UC Berkeley, 
Boalt Hall (1950-1953), influence of Jacobus tenBroek; practising law; 
community activities: NAACP, Oakland Men of Tomorrow, Democratic party, 
East Bay Community Foundation; Bay Area African American political leaders; 
service on Oakland Municipal Court (1964-1975), Alameda County Superior 
Court (1975-1981), California Supreme Court (1984-1991), observations on 
fellow judges; work with Advisory Committee on Race and Gender in the 
California Courts (1991-1996), other judicial administrative bodies; as 
board member, Port of Oakland (1991-1996). 

With an introduction by Carl B. Metoyer, former law partner 

Interviewed 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996 by Gabrielle Morris for the University 
of California Black Alumni Project 

San Francisco Chronicle 
November 6. 1996 

Allen Broucsard 

Allen Broussard 
Former California 
Supreme Court Judge 

Allen E. Broussard, who as a 
liberal state Supreme Court justice 
in the 1980s wrote major opinions 
on subjects ranging from the 
death penalty to tenant rights, 
died yesterday, court officials an 
nounced. Justice Broussard, who 
died at his Oakland home, was 67. 

Before the justice stepped 
down from the bench in 1991, he 
was the author of many of the 
opinions of the court's liberal ma 
jority under then-Chief Justice 
Rose Bird. After Bird and two oth 
er liberal judges, Cruz Reynoso 
and Joseph Grodin, were ousted by 
voters in 1986, Justice Broussard 
quickly found himself the court's 
most frequent and vehement dis 

As a dissenter, he voted against 
majority court decisions uphold 
ing police roadblocks for drunken 
drivers and sharply limiting work 
ers' rights to collect monetary 
damages when claiming they had 
been unfairly fired. 

As an African American grow 
ing up hi Louisiana, Justice Brous 
sard recalled once that he had to 
fend off dogs and rock-throwing 
white boys on his way to high 
school. He moved to California 
with his family in 1945, attended 
the University of California at 
Berkeley and then went on to earn 
his law degree at Boalt Hall. 

He was admitted to the bar in 
1954 and worked as a law clerk for 
Raymond Peters, then a respected 
state Court of Appeal judge who 
later served on the California Su 
preme Court. After Justice Brous 
sard served 17 years on the Munici 
pal and Superior courts in Alame- 
da County, Governor Jerry Brown 
appointed nun in 1981 to the state 
Supreme Court He was the second 
black jurist, following Wiley Ma 
nuel, to serve on that court. Manu 
el died in 1981. 

In 1982, Justice Broussard won 
a 12-year term at the polls and did 
not have to run four years later 
when a major campaign by conser 
vatives and prosecutors unseated 
Bird, Grodin and Reynoso. 

In 1983, Justice Broussard sup 
ported the state's right to protect 
the environment by restricting di 
versions from lakes and streams. 
The same year, he wrote the 
court's decision requiring proof of 
intent to kill in most death penalty 

Two years later, he wrote an 
opinion upholding a tenant's right 
to sue an apartment owner with 
out having to prove negligence af 
ter the tenant was injured by a de 
fective fixture. The same year, he 
wrote another opinion permitting 
strikes by non-safety related pub 
lic employees. 

In 1967, Justice Broussard pen 
ned one of his major dissents when 
the court overturned his earlier 
opinion and allowed death sen 
tences without proof of the intent 
to kill. He wrote: "Periodically, 
when the political winds gust in a 
new direction, it becomes neces 
sary to remind all concerned of the 
virtues of a steady course." 

John Burris, an Oakland law 
yer who described Justice Brous 
sard as one of his mentors, said of 

the former justice, "He was a gi 
ant, not only as a man but also as a 
lawyer. He never lost his touch 
with the community. You always 
knew that he thought about the 
human issues, about the common 

Stephen Barnett, a law profes 
sor at Boalt and longtime court ob 
server, said Justice Broussard 
"survived the Bird court and be 
came a lonely liberal dissenter on 
the court," headed by Malcolm Lu 
cas. "He will be remembered more 
for his dissents than for his role as 
a pillar of the Bird court He did 
much to keep the Lucas court 
from going overboard in undoing 
liberal precedents." 

When Justice Broussard re 
tired in 1991, Governor Pete Wil 
son replaced him with Ronald 
George, who is now the court's 
chief justice. Following his retire 
ment, Justice Broussard became a 
partner in the San Francisco law 
firm of Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & 

He is survived by his wife, 
Odessa, and their two sons, Keith 
and Craig. 

Services are pending. 

Stuff and u'Lrr report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Allen E. Broussard 


INTRODUCTION by Carl B. Metoyer iv 




College Options 5 
Segregation in Lake Charles and San Francisco; the Comfort Zone 8 
Student NAACP Chapter at San Franicsco City College; Postwar Job 

Pressures and Intergroup Accomodations 11 

Deciding to Be a Lawyer; Commitment to the Community 16 

Oakland Men of Tomorrow and the East Bay Democratic Club 18 
Electing Black Candidates at the Local Level 20 

Preparing for Law School 24 
Professor Jacobus tenBroek 25 
Friendship, Work, and Managing Personal Finances 27 
Boalt Hall School of Law 30 


Clerking for Justice Ray Peters 38 
Realities of Wages and Race Relations 40 
With the Firm of Vaughns, Dixon & White 42 

Governor Pat Brown's Appointments 43 
Community Service; Evelio Grille's Influence; Hispanic 

Participation 45 
Senator Nick Petris and Assemblyman Byron Rumford Coordinate 

Their Campaigns 48 
Thoughts on Justice Thurgood Marshall's Retirement; Race Relations 50 

Attorneys George Vaughns and Tom Berkley 54 
Joining Wilson, Metoyer & Sweeney Firm 56 
Getting Married, 1959 57 

More on Men of Tomorrow 58 

Business Clients; Impact of Fair Employment Legislation 60 
Ford Foundation and Federal Government Grey Areas Programs to 

Develop Oakland's Potential 62 

A Change in Life Style 65 
Center for Judicial Education and Research 68 
Conference of California Judges, Leadership and Controversies 70 
Judicial Appointments and Evaluation 72 
Spurgeon Avakian and Other Buddy Judges 75 
Trial Assignments 77 
Responsibilities of a Presiding Judge 78 

SUPREME COURT, 1982-1991 81 
Looking to the State Supreme Court for Guidance 81 
Uniqueness of the Court 85 
Presiding Judge, Alameda County Superior Court, 1980-1981 87 
Law and Order Sentiments 89 
Superior Court Appointments in 1975 90 

Justice Wiley Manuel 95 
Appointment to Justice William Clark's Seat 96 
The Confirmation Process 98 
Getting Acquainted; Volume of Work 101 

1982 Confirmation Election as Precursor to 1986 105 
Working with Chief Justice Rose Bird 109 
Broussard 1982 Retention Campaign 110 
Reviewing Cases and Preparing Opinions 112 
The Ninety-Day Decision Rule 118 
Ironies of Death Penalty Measures 121 
Initiative Ballot Measures 123 


Acceptable Bounds for Discussion 127 
Doctrine of Federal Abstention; Mono Lake Decision 128 
Interpretations of the Death Penalty; Importance of Precedent 131 
Balanced Budget Initiative, 1984 134 
Concerning Civil Liability 136 
Public Employees and Consumer Protections 138 
Achieving a Unanimous Decision 140 

Malcolm Lucas as Chief Justive; Broussard as Acting Chief Justice 142 
Diversity and Discussion on the Court 144 
Social Context of the Law and Policy Choices 146 

Organizational Obligations 148 
Changing Times 150 
California Association of Black Judges 152 
Committee on Racism in the Courts 153 
Developing Minority Interests in the Law and the Courts 156 
Decision to Retire, 1991; Unfinished Judicial Business 160 

Travels to China and Japan; Observing Judicial Systems 164 
Responsibilities as Port of Oakland Board Member 169 
Varieties of Civic and Judicial Responsibilities 183 
Advisory Committee on Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts 185 
Professional Ethics and Conduct 191 
Alternative Dispute Resolution 193 
Judicial Retirement Considerations 195 
Capital Punishment Revisited; Supreme Court Stature in the 

Nineties 200 

Concluding Thoughts; Visions 2000 204 


A. "In Memoriam," Eulogy for Wiley Manuel, Allen Broussard, 

Hastings Law Journal, vol. 32, March 1981 208 

B. "Retention Elections," Symposium remarks, Allen Broussard, 

Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 28, spring 1988 210 

C. Citation honoring Allen Broussard, Boalt Hall Alumni 
Association, 1991 215 

D. "From Segregation to Role Model: Justice Broussard continues 
the fight for equal opportunities for all minorities," 

California Lawyer, May 1991 216 

E. "California Supreme Court Opinions by Broussard, J.," LEXIS 
compilation, as of May 12, 1991 219 

F. Citation, Alumnus of the Year, California Alumni Association, 

1992 247 

G. "California Q&A: Allen Broussard," William Rodarmor, 

California Monthly, vol. 103, no. 4, February 1993 248 

H. Memorial Service Program, November 8, 1996 252 

I. "Broussard Eulogized by Brown, Bird at Service," Bob Egelko, 

West [Contra Costa] County Times, November 9, 1996 257 

J. "The Death of a Friend, Colleague and Guiding Light," Harriet 
Chang, [San Francisco] Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, November 
24, 1996 258 

K. "Justice Broussard, "talented jurist, 1 " California Bar Journal, 

December 1996 260 

The following volumes donated by Justice Broussard to The Bancroft 
Library have been deposited for scholarly use in the University 
Library Documents Department: 

"1992 Public Hearings on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the California 
State Court System," Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial 
and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, 1993. 

"Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, 
Attorneys and Court Personnel," California Judicial Council Advisory 
Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, 1994. 

"Racial and Ethnic Composition of the California Courts," Judicial 
Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, 

INDEX 261 


In America, education has long been an important avenue of 
opportunity. From our earliest years young people and their families have 
looked to the nation's colleges and universities to provide the knowledge 
and experience that will enable the new generation to take its place in the 
world of work and government and creative activity. In turn, one measure 
of the quality of American universities and colleges is the breadth and 
diversity of their students, including how well they reflect the mix of 
social, racial, and economic backgrounds that make up the communities from 
which they come and in which they will take part as graduates . 

On the West Coast, the University of California at Berkeley has from 
its beginnings in the 1860s welcomed the sons and daughters of small 
farmers and shopkeepers, railroad workers and laborers, as well as the 
children of lawyers and doctors, corporate executives, from many ethnic and 
racial groups. By 1900, the first black students had enrolled at Berkeley, 
pioneers of yet another group of Americans eager to seek the best in higher 
education and to broaden their participation in the life of California and 
the nation. 

Those first black students to come to Cal were indeed on their own, 
with few fellow black students and no special programs or black faculty to 
guide them or serve as role models. During the Great Depression of the 
1930s a few more came, maybe a hundred at a time in all. The education 
benefits of the G.I. Bill for men and women who did military service during 
World War II opened the doors to many more black students to attend Cal in 
the late 1940s and early 1950s. A census taken in 1966 counted 226 black 
students, 1.02 percent of all the students at Berkeley. By the fall of 
1988, there were 1,944 black graduate and undergraduate students, 6.1 
percent of the student body. With changing population and immigration 
patterns in recent years, as well as active campus recruiting programs, for 
the first time there is not a single majority ethnic group in the entire 
undergraduate student body at Berkeley. 

Looking back from the 1990s, those early trailblazers are very 
special. Though few in number, a large percentage of them have gone on to 
distinguished careers. They have made significant contributions in 
economics, education, medicine, government, community service, and other 
fields. It is fitting that a record of their initiative and energy be 
preserved in their own accounts of their expectations of the University of 
California, their experiences as students there, and how these experiences 
shaped their later lives. Their stories are a rich part of the history of 
the University. 

Since 1970, the University has sought to gather information on this 
remarkable group of students, as noted in the following list of oral 
histories. In 1983, the UC Black Alumni Club and University officials 


began planning an organized project to document the lives and 
accomplishments of its black graduates. In order to provide scholars 
access to the widest possible array of data the present series includes 
oral histories conducted for Regional Oral History Office projects on 
California Government History Documentation and the History of Bay Area 
Philanthropy, funded by various donors. 

With the advice and assistance of the Black Alumni Club, the 
Chancellor's Office, and the support of other alumni and friends of the 
University, the Regional Oral History Office of The Bancroft Library is 
tape-recording and publishing interviews with representative black alumni 
who attended Cal between the years 1920 and 1956. As a group, these oral 
histories contain research data not previously available about black 
pioneers in higher education. As individuals, their stories offer 
inspiration to young people who may now be thinking of entering the 

Material from the series has been used in numerous campus outreach 
programs to Bay Area schools and community organizations. Abstracts of the 
interviews appear in Head of the Class, An Oral History of African-American 
Achievement in Higher Education and Beyond (Twayne, 1995). Most recently, 
the East Bay Community Foundation has underwritten extensive distribution 
to East Bay libraries of selections from the oral histories in soft-cover 
format . 

The Regional Oral History Office was established in 1954 to tape 
record autobiographical interviews with persons significant in the history 
of California and the West. The Office is under the administrative 
direction of The Bancroft Library and Willa Baum, Division Head. Copies of 
all interviews in the series are available for research use in The Bancroft 
Library and UCLA Department of Special Collections. Selected interviews 
are also available at other manuscript depositories. 

Gabrielle Morris, Director 

University of California Black Alumni Project 

Willa K. Baum, Division Head 
Regional Oral History Office 

February 1997 

Regional Oral History Office 

The Bancroft Library 

University of California, Berkeley 


Interviews completed as of March 1997 

Allen E. Broussard, A California Supreme Court Justice Looks at Law and 
Society. 1964-1996. 1997. t 

Lloyd Noel Ferguson, Increasing Opportunities in Chemistry. 1936-1986. 

Walter Gordon, Athlete, Officer in Law Enforcement and Administration. 
Governor of the Virgin Islands. 1980.* 

Ida Jackson, Overcoming Barriers in Education. 1990. t 

John Miller, "Issues of Criminal Justice and Black Politics in California, 1 
in Legislative Issue Management and Advocacy. 1961-1974, 1983.* 

Charles Patterson, Working for Civic Unity in Government. Business, and 
Philanthropy. 1994.* 

Tarea Hall Pittman, NAACP Official and Civil Rights Worker. 1974. t * 
Marvin Poston, Making Opportunities in Vision Care. 1989. T 

Emmett J. Rice, Education of an Economist; From Fulbrieht Scholar to the 
Federal Reserve Board. 1951-1979. 1991. t 

William Byron Rumford, Legislator for Fair Employment. Fair Housing, and 
Public Health. 1973.* 

Archie Williams, The Joy of Flying; Olympic Gold. Air Force Colonel, and 
Teacher. 1993. 

Lionel Wilson, Attorney. Judge, and Oakland Mayor. 1992. 

tAlso available in abridged form in the Black Pioneers at the University: 
1920-1956 pamphlet series. 

interviews conducted for other Regional Oral History Office projects, 
funded by various donors. 


The Regional Oral History Office wishes to express its thanks 

to the following individuals and organizations 
whose encouragement and support have made possible 
the University of California Black Alumni Series 


Robert Beck, in memory of Catherine Harroun 
Black Alumni Club, University of California 
Boalt Hall School of Law Alumni Association 
California Judges Association 

Ruth C. Chance 

Chancellor's Office, University of California, Berkeley 
Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer 

W. R. Ellis, Jr. 

Morley S. and Patricia Farquar 

Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation 

Dr. and Mrs. Marvin Poston 

Mary and Norvel Smith 

Morris Stulsaft Foundation 

Ruth Teiser, in memory of James T. Abajian 

Ernest D. and Eleanor Slate vanLoben Sels 
Charitable Foundation 


INTRODUCTION by Carl B. Metoyer 

To Odessa, Craig, Keith, Mother Broussard, James, Rita, and the other 
member of Al's family: I extend my heartfelt sympathy in your loss of Al, a 
devoted husband, father, son, brother, and friend. 

Knowing Al as we all did, I am sure that he would want us to gather 
today to celebrate his wonderful, productive lifenot to grieve his death. 

Al and I go back nearly fifty years to the day when we first met on 
the bridge at UC Berkeley's Sather Gate. At the time, we were both 
undergraduate students at Berkeley, pursuing prelegal studies. I went on 
to study law at Hastings College of the Law, and Al entered and graduated 
from Boalt Hall. 

Al and I saw little of each other from 1949 until 1957 when we both 
started practicing law in Oakland. In 1958, Al, Lionel Wilson, Wilmont 
Sweeney, and I began to explore the possibility of joining our individual 
practices to form a law firm. In 1959, we decided to combine our practices 
into a law firm, purchased a lot at 60th and Market Streets in Oakland, 
built a new office building in which to house our practice, and we were off 
to the races. 

Our new firm was known as Wilson, Metoyer & Sweeney, and we set out 
to provide the community with excellent legal services at an affordable 

In addition to practicing law, and participating in legal 
organizations, all of us were active in community and political affairs. 
Three of the organizations to which Al devoted substantial time were the 
17th Assembly District Democratic Club, the Men of Tomorrow, and the 
Charles Houston Law Club. Al's contributions to these organizationswhich 
then were in their infancy- -were critical to their development as forces 
for change within the Bay Area. 

Let me remind you that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were 
only a handful of black attorneys in the Bay Area, and we were not fully 
accepted within the legal and general community as competent legal 
practitioners. One of our firm's primary goals was to demonstrate to all 
that we were capable of performing any legal or judicial task which we 
undertook or to which we aspired. 

In 1960 just as we were developing a head of steam Lionel Wilson 
was appointed judge of the Oakland Municipal Court, and we had to seek out 
a replacement for him. At that time, Al became a full partner, and we 
hired an associate attorney. 

Lest you should think that Al was all work and no play, let me assure 
you that in his youth, as in his more mature years, he loved to party, was 
an excellent dancer, played a tough game of table tennis from either the 
right or left side, and, as many of us know from being the brunt of his 
jokes, loved to play practical jokes on unsuspecting targets. 

By 1964, the firm's practice had grown to the point where we were 
contemplating taking on a second associate. Suddenly, Al received that 
fateful call from the governor beckoning him to the municipal court, and 
the rest is history. 

Al, I missed you then, and I shall miss you now. 

Carl B. Metoyer 

A former law partner, Mr. Metoyer' s 
remarks were delivered at Justice 
Broussard's funeral on November 9, 

INTERVIEW HISTORY- -Allen Broussard 

This oral history of Allen Broussard (1929-1996) adds greatly to 
understanding of the accomplishments of African American graduates of the 
University of California, of which he is a distinguished alumnus. His 
narrative documents the dedicated work as a citizen and as an attorney on 
behalf of fairness and justice that led to his appointment to the bench, 
where he came to have considerable impact on the affairs of California. 
"Judge Broussard "s wise guidance," said President Clinton at a Western 
Center on Law and Poverty gathering in 199A, "has infused the state supreme 
court with both intelligence and compassion." 

A dapper person of medium size with a friendly, humorous manner, 
Broussard addressed the interviewer's questions, based on an outline of 
topics sent to him prior to the recording sessions, thoughtfully. His 
answers reconstructed a hardworking life that was deeply involved in many 
critical issues of the 20th century. 

From a boyhood in segregated Louisiana, Broussard came to San 
Francisco with his family as a teenager in the 1940s at the urging of an 
older brother. In 1950 he graduated high in his class at the University of 
California at Berkeley and in 1953 from its school of law. He immersed 
himself in the NAACP, Men of Tomorrow, and other organizations working for 
the betterment of black men and women in the Oakland Bay Area. 

His narrative touches on friendships with Byron Rumford, Lionel 
Wilson, Elihu Harris, and other leaders with whom he forged the political 
base that brought Oakland significant governmental economic development 
programs and elected African American legislators and mayors in a period 
when other cities its size were experiencing racial unrest. 

While still in his thirties, Broussard was tapped by Governor Edmund 
G. (Pat) Brown, Sr. for the Alameda County Municipal Court in 1964 and, in 
1975, for the superior court, where he developed an interest in working to 
improve court administration and judicial education. As he liked to relate 
with a chuckle, Broussard became a Triple Brownie in 1981 when Governor 
Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr. named him to the state supreme court, notable 
at the time for the diversity of its members and independence of its 
decisions. As a member of Chief Justice Rose Bird's court, Broussard wrote 
the majority opinion on many significant cases. 

When Bird left the court after her 1986 election defeat, she 
appointed Broussard acting chief justice. From 1987 to 1991, he served 
with Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, who named Broussard co-chair of the 
distinguished Advisory Committee on Race and Gender in the Courts. In its 
work, the committee sought to ensure not only that the courts would be fair 
in their work but that they would be perceived as fair. "As a judge, I was 


involved in matters bearing on equal treatment for our diverse population," 
he states in his oral history, "And I spoke out on these issues." 

Many times in court and other judicial activities, Broussard notes, 
"I was aware that many judges were seeing or working with a Black judge for 
the first time in their lives . " A person of conciliation rather than 
confrontation, he saw these encounters as opportunities "to set an example 
for a lot of people" and to suggest that "the court is well-served by 
having people who have different experiences and views in its membership so 
that they can have an impact on each other's thinking and conclusions." 

Broussard left the court in 1991 to return to the practice of law. 
While on the first cruise he and his wife, Odessa, had ever had time to 
take, he was appointed to the Port of Oakland board of directors, a major 
real estate, transportation, and economic development engine for the Bay 

Taking up full-time duties as a member of the noted San Francisco 
firm of Coblenz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer, he relinquished his status as a 
judge and embarked on the newly popular private practice of mediation. 
Carrying this load plus numerous civic obligations proved too much for the 
energetic and generous Broussard. He died in November 1996 after a brief 
illness, following surgery the previous year. 

There was a rich outpouring of affection and admiration at the 
community memorial service in his honor at the Paramount Theater in 
Oakland. Speaker after speaker mentioned Justice Broussard 's love of 
parties and practical jokes as well as his deep understanding of the 
intricacies of the law and its integral relation to the complexities of the 
society it serves. Remarks by one of the speakers, Broussard 's former law 
partner Charles Metoyer, are included in the volume as an introduction. 

"He was a great role model" for people of all ages and ethnicity 
commented William Rodarmor in the California Monthly, reporting on 
Broussard being named the Alumni Association's Alumnus of the Year in 1992. 

The quality of his personality and his impact on those who knew and 
worked with him are perhaps best summed up in Broussard 's own words 
eulogizing Wiley Manuel, a close friend who preceded him on the state 
supreme court. He "refused to allow himself to be victimized by race, 
poverty, or any other adversity, and he persistently refused to tolerate or 
to participate in victimization of any other person for any reason. . . 
realize and remember that his life was a great gift to all of us." 

Broussard 's oral history was recorded in six sessions. The first two 
were taped in June 1991 in his chambers San Francisco's Civic Center and 
focussed on his early years. The next two sessions dealt with his years on 
the municipal and superior court and his appointment to the supreme court; 


these interviews were conducted in January of 1992 in temporary quarters in 
the Marathon Plaza building on Folsom Street while the courts building was 
being remodeled. When the justice finally had time to review the 
transcript of these four sessions in 1995, he suggested a further interview 
to consider matters subsequent to his retirement. This grew into two 
sessions, recorded in late 1995 and early 1996 in his law office, which are 
a valuable addition to the volume and reflect on Broussard's years as a 
judge as well as on his work with the Advisory Committee on Race and Gender 
in the Courts and other of his many pro bono activities. 

Broussard made minor revisions and factual corrections in the 
transcript of the interviews, which did not change the sense of the text. 
He also provided a summary listing of decisions he wrote while a member of 
the supreme court, which is included in the appendix. 

Associated Press legal affairs writer Bob Egelko provided helpful 
background information for planning of the interviews, which is much 
appreciated. The Oakland Tribune library was also a valuable resource for 
dates and other details. And special thanks are due to the justice's 
assistants, Janet Ellenberg at the supreme court and Ginnie Chan in his law 
office, for their friendly assistance in scheduling and rescheduling 
appointments, supplying documents, and tracking the progress of the 
interview manuscript. Photographs and additional appendix materials were 
provided by William Rodarmor from the files of the California Monthly. 

Gabrielle Morris 

Interviewer /Editor 

Regional Oral History Office 

The Bancroft Library 
February 1997 


February 1991 




South Tower, Ninth Floor 

303 Second Street 

San Francisco, California 94107 

(415) 396-9430 

Nominated as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme 
Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., on June 25, 1981; 
confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on 
July 17, 1981; oath of office July 22, 1981. Elected to a 
twelve-year term in a statewide election on November 2, 

Formerly Judge of the Superior Court 

County of Alameda 
1225 Fallen Street 
Oakland, California 94612 

Appointed to the Alameda County Superior Court by Governor 
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., on October 1, 1975. Elected Presiding 
Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court for the year 
1980. Re-elected for the year 1981 and served as Presiding 
Judge until appointment to the California Supreme Court in 
June 1981. 

Formerly Judge of the Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Court 

600 Washington Street 
Oakland, California 94612 

Appointed to the Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Court by Gover 
nor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, Sr. in March 1964. Served as 
Presiding Judge in 1968. 

Served as a Justice Pro Tempore on the Court of Appeal, First 
Appellate District, in August and September 1977. 

Personal Background: 

Resides in Oakland, California. Born April 13, 1929, Lake 
Charles, Louisiana. Came to California in 1945, residing 
first in San Francisco, then Berkeley and now Oakland. 
Married to Odessa. Have two sons, Craig and Keith. Member 
of Saint Paschal 's Catholic Church. 


Sacred Heart High School, Lake Charles, Louisiana - 1945. 
City College of San Francisco, Associate in Arts Degree - 

1948. Elected to the Club Advisory Board and the Student 

Council . 
University of California, Berkeley, B.A. Degree in Political 

Science - 1950. Member, Varsity Debate Team. 
University of California School of Law at Berkeley (Boalt 

Hall) - J.D. Degree - 1953. Top 15% of class. 

Member of the Editorial Staff of the California Law 

Vice President of Boalt Hall Student Association. 

Recipient of Arthur Newhouse and Arthur Gould Tashiera 

Member of Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity. 

Military Service: 

Honorable discharge from United States Army - 1956. 
Served 24 months, 19 months in Germany. 

Legal Experience: 

Admitted to the California Bar in January, 1954. 
Research Attorney for Presiding Justice Raymond E. Peters 

until 1956. 
Entered private practice in 1956. 

Vaughns, Dixon and White - 1956 - 1959. 

Wilson, Metoyer and Sweeney - 1959 - 1961. 

Metoyer, Sweeney and Broussard - 1961 - 1964. 


Board Memberships 

Formerly a Member of the Board of Directors of the 
following community and civic organizations: 

Oakland Men of Tomorrow 

Alameda County Council on Social Planning 
Bay Area Regional Hospital Planning Committee 
Children's Hospital of the East Bay 
East Bay Chapter of Big Brothers of America Vice 
- Berkeley NAACP 

East Bay Community Foundation 

Alta Bates Corporation and Alta Bates Hospital 

Member of the Berkeley Fellows 


Activities (cont'd): 

Formerly a Member of the Board of Directors of the 
following professional organizations: 

Charles Houston Bar Association 

California Association of Black Lawyers (Judicial 

Judicial Council of the National Bar Association 
Alameda County Criminal Courts Bar Association 

Boalt Hall Alumni Association 
California Judicial Council 

- Governing Board of the Center for Judicial Education and 
Research (CJER) Chairman 

Continuing Judicial Studies Program Chair 
Member of the Faculty of the California Trial Judges 
College -- 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1979 
Commission on Judicial Performance 
American Bar Association Chair of the Judicial 
Administration Division's Task Force on Opportunities 
for Minorities and Liaison to the ABA Commission on 
Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession 
Chair, California Commission on Racism and Ethnic Bias 
in the Courts 

Activity with the California Judges Association, the 
state-wide organization of California judges: 

Elected to the Executive Board in 1970 
Elected to the office of Secretary-Treasurer in 1971 
- Elected to the office of President in 1972 (the first 
Black judge ever elected President of CJA) 

Listed in Who's Who in the West and in Who's Who in 
American Law 

In addition: 

Member, UC Task Force on Reproductive Technology 

- Joined Coblenz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer, 1991 

- Appointed director, Port of Oakland, 1991 

- Member, Western Center on Law and Poverty, 1994 

- Received Charles Houston Bar Association Hall of Fame Award, 1995 


Addendum to Resume of Allen E. Broussard 


1980 Alameda-Contra Costa County Trial Lawyers 
Association: Award for Alameda County Trial 
Judge of the Year 1980 

1981 Northern California Black Chamber of Commerce: 
The Charles Thomas Award for Contributions to 
the Judiciary and to the Community 

1982 University of California Black Alumni Club: 
The Alumus of the Year Award 

1982 California Association of Black Lawyers: The 
Bernard S. Jefferson Award for Judicial Excel 

1982 The Boys' Club of Oakland: The Image Builders 

1982 The College Bounders Committee, Inc.: Award 
for Outstanding Service to Education 

1982 City College of San Francisco: Award of 

1983 Council for Civic Unity of the San Francisco 
Bay Area: The Civic Unity Award 

1984 United Nations Association of San Francisco: 
The Eleanor D. Roosevelt Humanitarian Award 

1985 Wiley Manuel Law Foundation: Distinguished 
Service Award 

1988 Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association: 
Appellate Justice of the Year Award 

1988 John Langston Bar Association: Jurist of the 
Year Award 

1989 California Trial Lawyers Association: 
Appellate Justice of the Year Award 

1990 California Law Review Alumnus of the Year 

[Date of Interview: June 27, 1991]!! 1 

Morris: We usually start at the beginning. You were born in Louisiana? 

Broussard: Yes, in Lake Charles. 

Morris: And lived there until you were--? 

Broussard: I lived there through high school. I graduated from high 
school just after turning sixteen years of age. 

Morris: Really. That is very young. 

Broussard: Well, in Louisiana then they had a seven-four plan. It was 
only eleven years. And I skipped the fourth grade. So I 
really graduated from high school in ten years. 

Morris: Was that because you really enjoyed school, or you had good 

Broussard: No, it was a combination of things. My first two years at 

school were in the public elementary school. When my sister, 
Rita, was school age we started going to Catholic school. I 
went there my third grade, and then, because of the school's 
population, fourth and fifth grades were combined: they took 
two or four of us out of the fourth grade and put us in the 
fifth grade. Just to balance out the class sizes. And I was 
one of those who skipped the fourth grade. I just had do a 
little making up on the short division and some of those things 
like that that are basic to the fourth grade. 

Morris: Great! Do you have lots of brothers and sisters? 

'This symbol indicates the start of a new tape or tape segment, 
guide to tapes follows the transcript. 

Broussard: No, I'm the middle of three, an older brother, James, and a 
younger sister. 

Morris: Did you grow up a Catholic, or did your parents just choose to 
send you to Catholic school? 

Broussard: No, I was reared Catholic. There's quite a French influence in 

Morris: And there's some French ancestry as well? 

Broussard: Well, that's where the Broussard comes from. Don't ask me to 
trace it. As a matter of fact, this may be a joke, but-- 
[laughter] --somebody has done a book about the Broussards. 
It says that the first Broussard came to Carolina in 1695. Her 
name was Jeanne. There's just a whole genealogy. But I don't 
know how much the book will tell me about my background. 

Morris: Well, that's part of the story of America. There's been lots 
of people come from many places and settled down. Did your 
family think of coming to California before you graduated from 
high school? Or was that something that developed--? 

Broussard: Well, I can tell you exactly how that came about. My brother 
was two years ahead of me in school. He graduated from Sacred 
Heart High [School] in 1943; he was drafted into the army, and 
wound up in the Transportation Corps, and served in several 
West Coast cities, including San Francisco. My father 
[Clemire] was employed as a longshoreman in Lake Charles. A 
weekend barber and a longshoreman during the week. And my 
brother interested my dad in coming out because of the better 
working conditions and better pay for waterfront work in San 

So in 1944 my dad came to San Francisco, as had some of 
his other longshore brethren prior to that. In Christmas of 
'44, my mother [Eugenia] came out and visited. And then when I 
graduated from high school in the end of May in '45, my mother, 
sister, and I came out and joined my dad. So it was my brother 
who initially interested my father in coming out. It's a 
rather typical storybetter opportunities in employment, 
education, and often housing. 

Morris: They settled in Oakland rather than in San Francisco? 

Broussard: No, we were in San Francisco initially. We lived in apartments 
or flats in San Francisco until we were able to acquire a 
single- family home in South Berkeley. It was difficult in San 
Francisco to get any detached single family home if you were 

Black. Almost all of the houses available to us were limited 
to certain areas, and none of them contained detached single 
family homes. That was in 1948 when we moved to the East Bay. 

Morris: Was there less discrimination in Berkeley? 

Broussard: Well, there was more available housing of the single-family 

type available in Berkeley. Berkeley just never was built up 
like San Francisco. We'd had a single-family home in 
Louisiana, and when we started looking for housing, we were 
able to find what we wanted in Berkeley. Or my parents were 
able to find what they wanted in Berkeley. 

Morris: Were there already some friends or relatives in Berkeley? 

Broussard: Probably not in the neighborhood into which we moved. I'm sure 
we had some friends and relatives in the East Bay, but I don't 
think that was a very large factor in the decision. It was 
really just the availability of the kind of housing that we 

Morris: And your brother had settled here, too. 

Broussard: Well, my brother had been separated from the service in either 
late '45 or '46. I've forgotten which. He was married by the 
time we moved to Berkeley. He was living in San Francisco and 
then later acquired a home in the East Bay, also. Eventually, 
all of us moved over to the East Bay. 

Morris: And the longshoremen that had been friends of your father, did 
they continue to be people that he worked with and saw? 

Broussard: My dad retired from the waterfront. 
Morris: Had he been active in the union? 

Broussard: Yes. Oh, yes. I guess Harry Bridges was the big person in my 
dad's life, because of all the work that he did on the 

Morris: Did he ever talk about the union trying to help sway public 
opinion when Bridges was being tried in court for supposed 
communist activitythey wanted to take away his citizenship 
and move him out of the country? 

Broussard: Oh, I'm sure the union fought that all the way. I'm not 

intimately familiar with those events. See, Harry Bridges was 
primarily a CIO [Congress of Industrial Organizations] man. 
And Locals 6 and 10, Warehousing and Waterfront Workers, were 

really his major unions. They were very supportive of him 
throughout all of the forties. 

I worked a couple of summers as a warehouseman, at the 
old Central Warehouse out on Third and Townsend in San 
Francisco. Made me a little student money. And then at that 
time, if you were the son of a longshoreman, you could get a 
"B" card, I thinkand work the waterfront occasionally when 
they had extra work. 

Morris: Oh, that's a pretty nice perk. 

Broussard: Yes. So, I spent some timenot an awful lot, but some time- 
working on the waterfront, also. 

Morris: On through your college years? 

Broussard: In the undergraduate years, yes. My brother worked several 

jobs after the service. He worked the post office, and then he 
wound up on the waterfront, where he still works. He's what 
you call a walking boss. 

Morris: I've heard that term before, but I don't know quite what it 
means . 

Broussard: Oh, you supervise a group of people. And I don't know the 

exact derivation of the term, but he works now for a maritime 
company, and supervises a group of men who are working loading 
and unloading ships. Most of his work is supervision, though. 
On-the-job supervising more than hands-on work. 

Morris: So you and he know about the dock situation from the working 
end as well as from the management end. 

Broussard: Oh, I had very limited experience and exposure where he's had a 
long experience. He's approaching retirement now, and he's 
worked at every level up to where he is now, including crane 
operatora winch driver is what you call them. 


College Options 

Morris: How come you decided to go to college, but your brother didn't 
decide to take up the G.I. Bill? 

Broussard: After he came back from the service, he did not pursue any 
further education. He worked various jobs and then got 
married, raised a family. 

Morris: Did the family always intend you to go to college, or was this 
a new idea that you brought home? 

Broussard: Well, it was probably more my idea. The situation is that my 

family never really pushed me, but they always supported me. I 
knewwell, this is interesting. I'll just tell the story. 

When I was graduating from high school and knew that the 
family would be coming to California, I went to- -I called him 
my favorite high school instructor, he was the one male that I 
had instructing me in high school. You have to remember, I 
graduated from Sacred Heart High School; there were ninety-five 
students in the school, and there were fourteen in my 
graduating class twelve girls and my first cousin and me. 
Twelve girls and two boys. And Mr. William Parker was the one 
male instructor; we were taught primarily by nuns. Some lay 
teachers, but the one male was Mr. William Parker. And so in 
that sense, he was my favorite high school teacher. 

So I went to him and in essence I said, "Mr. Parker, when 
we graduate, the family will be moving to California. I know I 
want to continue with my education, but I don't have any 
definite career goals." He said, "Well, Allen." He says, 
"You've got a fine mind. I think you can do anything you want 
to do, but I think you'd make a good lawyer." And that idea 
remained with me, but it was not until I started upper division 
at Cal [University of California at Berkeley] that I made the 

definite decision that I wanted to be a lawyer, 
where the idea first came from. 

But that's 







What size town was Lake Charles when you were growing up? 

About twenty, twenty-nine thousand is 

Under thirty thousand, 
my recollection. 

A farming town? 

No. Well, there was a lot of rice growing on the perimeters of 
the town, but it was a port town. My father worked at the 
waterfront. We had some manufacturing in the area, meat- 
producing, and there was some farming, primarily rice. It was 
--what--the fourth or fifth city in Louisiana at that time. I 
mean, we were not considered a farming or a rural city. 

My mother and father had lived outside of New Iberia. New 
Iberia was a smaller city than Lake Charles. My mother lived 
in a place called Olivier, which is south of New Iberia, and my 
dad lived in Abbeville, which is a small city west of Olivier. 
They were both reared on farms. Met and married in New Iberia, 
and then moved to Lake Charles. And that was, in essence, 
moving away from the farm to town. 

Into town, yes. Looking for more opportunities. 

And then my dad, I think- -if my information is correct--! think 
he started working on the waterfront shortly after he moved to 
Lake Charles. 

And did your mother work outside the home? 

My mother did sewing, but in the home. I don't think she 
worked outside the home in Louisiana. She did in San 
Francisco; she did alterations in several dress shops in San 

So they weren't surprised when you said you wanted to go on to 

No. But, you know, it was just almost assumed. I just knew I 
wanted to continue. My mother would have been elated if I had 
become a schoolteacher and not too unhappy if I had chosen to 
be a barber, which was the easier of my dad's two jobs. But I 
just had the determination that I was going to continue with my 
education. I was yet too young for the service. To me, it was 
just the normal thing to do. And the family was supportive of 

An interesting story on that, too, though. You see, we 
lived right across the street from the public high school- 
segregated. Lake Charles, you have to remember, was de jure 
and de facto segregated at that time. And we lived right 
across the street from the public high school. But we had been 
attending Catholic school, all of us. And we had to walk some 
distance to go to school. And I guess there are two sides to 
that story, the one I started off telling you first is that 
Louisiana law required that everybody go to school through age 
sixteen. But if you went to the public schools you didn't have 
to get an education, you just had to be in school. [chuckles] 

Anyway, I graduated in this small class that I was telling 
you about, and when we came to San Francisco, my cousin and I, 
the two boys in my classwe both applied to Cal Berkeley for 
admission. I was told that I had everything that I needed to 
get into Cal, except that I had to make up a "D" which I had 
gotten the old-fashioned way--I earned it. There was a class I 
didn't like, and although we later became friends, I didn't 
really like the teacher, and I made the one "D" that I made in 
my whole life. And Cal told me, "You make up that 'D' in the 
summer and you can come to Cal as a freshman in September." My 
cousin went to Cal as a freshman. 

Morris: What was this dreadful subject? 

Broussard: Algebra. And I have told this story before, so it's not new, 
but in a way I credit that "D" with maybe saving my life 
academically. Lake Charles was a town that I could only see a 
part of, but the town is smaller than the Berkeley campus. And 
at that time, there weren't all of the support systems and 
everything that students, especially minority students, have 
at the university now. And I still feel that if I had gone to 
Cal as a freshman I might have gotten lost. That's what 
happened to my cousin. By the end of the first year, he was 
back in Lake Charles. 

Morris: Oh, that's too bad. His family didn't come with him? 

Broussard: His family was out herewell, he had a split family, and his 
father was here. His mother and his stepfather were still in 
Lake Charles. So I looked at all the options, and instead of 
spending my summer going to school, my cousin and I worked at 
Central Warehouse that summer to make some money. And I opted 
to go to City College of San Francisco, intending initially to 
go there for a year and then transfer to Cal. 

I wound up getting an A. A. degree from there. That campus 
was five thousand-plus. And I was able to handle that 
adjustment, eventually getting active in student government and 
functioning on the campus. Making it work for me was a very 
large transition--f rom a small Catholic school to a five 
thousand-person campus. 

Morris: Yes, urban campus. Were you commuting from the East Bay? 

Broussard: No, I was living in San Francisco then. I commuted to Cal 
initially. But that also probably influenced my parents to 
move to the East Bay. But not entirely, because then my sister 
was commuting to City College in San Francisco. 

Morris: You must have been a pretty good student if all you needed to 
make up was algebra. 

Broussard: My point is simply that that little school was giving us a good 
education. The Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament were the order 
that basically ran the school and taught us in the school. And 
they gave us a good fundamental education. You couldn't say 
that for a lot of the students in the public schools. You 
could, if you insisted on it, you could get a good education 

Segregation in Lake Charles and San Francisco; the Comfort Zone 

Morris: You said that there were just two boys in the high school. 
What was the mix of Black kids and white kids? 

Broussard: Oh, well, I told you it was a de jure and de facto segregated. 
The law required strict segregation; it was all Black, it was 
all Black. 

Morris: The Catholic school was all Black, too? 

Broussard: Louisiana law at that time required segregation, even in the 
Catholic schools. 

Morris: Even in the private schools. I wasn't clear about that. 

Broussard: And by then, that was also de facto the situation. Even though 
we were Catholic, attending Catholic church and Catholic 
school, it was segregated. If we were ever downtown and went 
to the Catholic church downtown, we didn't go beyond the back 
pew or two. For example, the people who were working downtown, 



Blacks who might be working in homes and stuff downtown, if 
they did go to the Catholic church- -the white church- -they were 
limited to the back pew or two. It was just a fact of life 
then. It was both accepted and required. 

Did that pretty much change when you came to California? 
were there still some barriers in the forties? 


Well, the California situation was different primarily in that 
the law didn't require segregation. But, remember, the Black 
population in San Francisco-Bay Area before the war was quite 
small. And there was a tremendous influx in numbers during the 
war years. So most of us were new to an urban community. 
Segregation was not required by law, but maybe was still 
expected, both by us and by the dominant white community. 

I can remember at City College, the Black students had a 
tendency to sit in one section of the cafeteria, for example. 
And Dean Brady used to walk around and talk to some of the 
students and try to get them to separate, to mix with others. 
That was sort of a natural coming-together, I suppose. And-- 
oh, I don't want to get ahead of myselfthere was no legal 
requirement, you could venture outbut I guess there was a 
comfort zone. But then it's more than that, because as you 
began to venture out, you began to get opposition. You know, 
San Francisco was not always "the city that knows how" . We can 
get way ahead of ourselves if I don't get out of that. 

Now, I want to go back to Lake Charles for a while. There 
were two things about going to the Catholic school. We would 
leave our home- -when I say "we", there were about five of us, 
all boys, who worked in five downtown stores, retail stores. 
We'd get on our bicycles in the morning before school, ride 
past our school, through the white residential neighborhood, to 
the downtown area. We would all have to squeegee down the 
windows, sweep out the lobbies, you know, little, small 
Southern towns. We'd sweep out the lobby and wash the windows, 
get on our bicycles to go back to school. And by that time the 
white kids would be coming out of their homes to go to school, 
and we used to ride our bicycles with broom handles and billy 
clubs, because they'd sic their dogs on us, or chase us, throw 
rocks at us. Whatever. 

And we always had to be prepared to defend ourselves as we 
were riding back to school from our morning work. Then at noon 
we would walk home for lunch. We didn't have any hot lunch 
program. And there was always a certain amount of rivalry; 
I'll be overly general here. Most of the kids in our school 
were Catholic, not all. Most of the kids in the public school 


were non-Catholic, but not all. Well, as we were walking for 
lunch, they would be walking in the opposite direction, and we 
used to have turf battleswho was going to walk on the 
sidewalk and who-- [chuckles] . 

Morris: It sounds like there was not much area of interaction that was 
acceptable in Lake Charles. 

Broussard: I wouldn't say that, but there was certainly de jure and de 

facto segregation along race lines. There was a certain amount 
of competition, a rivalry between the Catholic school and the 
non-Catholic school. And that was largely, but not entirely, 
along religious lines. Also influenced to some extent, by 
whether or not there was a Creole concept. I mean, those who 
had a little French admixture back there tended to have a 
lighter skin tone. All of those elements played a part. 

Morris: Was being Creole a different category? 

Broussard: No, no. We were all Black. But within the Black race there 
was some--. We had Blacks in Louisiana who could be your 
sister--! mean, who had all the characteristics and features of 
a white person. But they were known and identified as Black. 
As a matter of fact, some of them would come to San Francisco, 
and they'd be what you call pas en blanc . Come to San 
Francisco and then live- 
Morris: Pass into the white community? 
Broussard: Yes, pas en blanc. 

Morris: Were there any white children or white families that you did 
have any friendly contact with, as a boy growing up in Lake 

Broussard: Yes and no. The neighborhood store was owned by a white family 
whose kid we played with until he got a little older. It was a 
family that owned the store just catty-corner from our house. 
The father drove the local bus, and the end of the bus line was 
right at that intersectionMill and Shattuck. So he would 
park his bus in front of our house, go check on the store, and 
we'd be playing with little Charles, as I said, until he got a 
little older. Then that sort of stopped. But the bus, of 
course, was segregated. Except for that, I had no--. I worked 
in several downtown stores, for white storekeepers. And I 
primarily worked in 



Broussard: --the most exclusive women's dress shop in town. Riff's Palais 
Royal, the Riff family. They were a Jewish family. In terms 
of the times in the community, I meanthey were very 
supportive and very nice. But sometimes in the summer or on 
weekends you would have either high schoolers or young college 
studentswe had a community college in Lake Charles; it was 
white who would work in the stores. And you know, you could 
develop some rapport, but it was just two different worlds. 
The young white employees were working in sales, and I was 
working in stock and inventory; you'd never see me. I couldn't 
sell shoes or anything like that. 

Student NAACP Chapter at San Francisco City College; Postwar 
Job Pressures and Intergroup Accommodations 

Morris: When you came to California, were you looking for, or aware of, 
any civil rights activities or organizations? 

Broussard: Yes. We formed a college chapter of the NAACP at City College. 
And 1 was sort of the perennial president. And this is a very 
important chapter in my life, because much of what I became 
really got started then. We formed our college chapter of the 
NAACP; we were very active and we had a clubroom in the Madam 
C. J. Walker home at 1966 Bush Street. We had that basement; 
we had a clubroom with a lending library with books and a whole 
schedule of activities. 

I think maybe, for me, the most significant thing was that 
as the president of the college chapter, I was ex officio a 
member of the executive board of the senior branch NAACP. And 
I participated with them; I went to those meetings and I was 
exposed. At that time I told you a minute ago that San 
Francisco was not always the "city that knows how"? Well, in 
those years, the late forties, we were about the business of 
teaching San Francisco how. And all of the great leaders like 
[Carleton] Goodlett, Cecil Poole and William McKinley Thomas, 
and Josephine Cole and- -just so many I can't even name them 
all Noah Griffin and-- (I should have spent more time, really, 
trying to recollect some of those names) Terry Francois, Joe 
Kennedy, Audley Cole- -were the nucleus of the NAACP, which was 
very much in the forefront in terms of integrating San 

And when you were asking me a minute ago about the 
difference between Louisiana and here, one of the differences 
is that I left a community where the law required segregation, 


the law defined what you could do. We accepted it in the main, 
and the white folks accepted it, and insisted on it in the 
main. You come to a community like San Francisco where the law 
doesn't require segregation, where there hadn't been a lot of 
pressures and demands in a lot of areas before because there 
hadn't been the numbers. But then during the war [World War 
II] you got numbers, and when the wartime jobs started closing 
down, then we started running smack into problems of lack of 
job opportunities, lack of housing opportunities. And what we 
found was that--. See, in Louisiana, a young couple would get 
married and in two weekends their families would get together 
and build them a home. They have what we call "sharpshooters". 
You ever hear that term? 

Morris: Ah, not in relation to housing, no. 

Broussard: Some people call them "shotgun homes". The idea was you'd have 
a front porch, a living room, a bedroom or two--all in a 
straight lineand then the dining area or big kitchen and a 
back porch. And if you take a rifle and shoot it- 
Morris: Your shot can go straight through from front to back, yes. 

Broussard: --from front to back. But the fact is, though, that within the 
Black community you had carpenters, brick layers, cement 
finishers, cabinet makers, roofers. And they were working in 
those jobs in the South and then on a weekend two or three 
weekends --would pitch in and build a home for a young couple. 

Morris: Sort of like the pioneer community in cabin-raising. 

Broussard: Yes. But the point I want to make is, then when you came to 
San Francisco, all of those jobs were union, and the unions 
were closed to Blacks. 

Morris: In the forties. 

Broussard: Yes. And the unions had closed shops and union shops and 

segregated membership. In the South, all the best restaurants 
had Black waiters. But you couldn't get a job as a waiter in 
San Francisco in any of the decent restaurants. You couldn't 
get a job in any of the craft industries that I was talking to 
you about. You couldn't get a job selling in a retail 
department store. I remember when the first known Blacks were 
employed in that downtown department store in San Francisco- 
Jane Chambers and Jane Venable. 

I'll tell you how it came about. The NAACP started 
negotiating with the Downtown Merchants' Association to get 



them to open up retail selling jobs to Blackswith no success. 
Ultimately, they identified the four major downtown department 
stores: Macy's, Emporium, and I think the other two were the 
White House, and I believe, Livingston 1 s--I'm not sure about 
that and began in-depth negotiations with them and making 
their demandswith no success. Finally decided that they were 
going to have to picket. 

Now, mind you, I'm participating in all the executive 
board meetings and planning sessions. The decision was made 
that they wouldn't picket all four stores at one time because 
it might spread out our resources too thin. And they were 
going to picket two stores initially. And one was to be 
Macy's. So I seriously questioned that. I said, "Well, why 
Macy's?" Now, let me give you the setting. Macy's had just 
come to San Francisco, they'd bought out O'Connor & Moffat, 
which was a big department store. And Macy's position was: 
Look, we're the new folks in town. In New York, we have a 
healthy policy of employing, training, retaining, and promoting 
Blacks. We're willing to do that in San Francisco, we just 
don't want to be the first ones to do it. You get the other 
stores to go along and we'll be happy to go along. 

So I said, "Why do you want to picket Macy's?" And I 
learned a lesson. They said, "Look, Allen, when you're 
picketing, it's like you're at war. And when you're in war you 
hit your enemy in his weakest spot." They said, "Macy's is 
number one because it is least able to withstand picketing and 
less opposed to our goals and therefore will be the first one 
to succumb and agree. And then we'll have a success." 

And then the second level will fall. 

Broussard: And that's what happened. That's what happened. As I said, 
ultimately the first two Blacks to be employed other than at 
Macy's were at Emporium, which, interestingly, was one of the 
most resistant of all of the stores. 

Then you can go along to the public sector--it took 
pressure to get Blacks employed even in the public sector. You 
had to bring political pressure, threaten to picket and strike 
and editorialize in the paper and bring lawsuits and everything 
else. I remember when the first Black high school teacher, 
Josephine Cole, was hired in the mid-forties. The first Black 
firemen, the first Black police officer, first Black probation 
officer, first Black bus driver, and on and on. That was the 
public sector. 


Morris: In each one of those, it took a campaign like you've just 
described for the department stores? 

Broussard: They all took some kind of concerted effort, political, legal, 
you know. It just didn't come easy. These were all firsts. 

And then, as I said, in the private sector, you couldn't 
sell cars. That came a little later with the mass picketing 
that developed when Van Ness Avenue was Auto Row. You couldn't 
get a job as an auto salesman until there was mass picketing. 
You couldn't, as I said, wait tables. You couldn't work in the 
craft unions. All of those barriers had to be broken. 

Morris: But you could work on the waterfront. 

Broussard: Well, if you'll remember, the CIO had a long history and 

tradition of open membership and involvement of Blacks and 
other minorities in their unions. It was the AFL [American 
Federation of Labor] that had had a much more restrictive 
policy. That's primarily the craft unions. The CIO is the 
Congress of Industrial Organizations. And Harry Bridges, I 
mean, even before 1934, had opened all of that up. That's why 
I said Harry Bridges was a big man in my dad's life, and, 
consequently, in my life. The real struggles came with the AFL 
unions and ultimately, through both litigation and legislation, 
it was all broken down. 

We haven't talked about housing. 

Morris: I remember in Berkeley, in the fifties, by then there was an 
interracial committee that was working on housing. Was there 
one of those in San Francisco? 

Broussard: Ultimately, yes. There were several. Of course, out of the 

NAACP grew the Council for Civic Unity, which developed later. 
The Urban League was not primarily into housing. But there was 
another phenomenon that you have to remember when we talk about 
housing in San Francisco: to be true to history, we have to 
talk about the encampment of the Japanese Americans during the 
war. And one area where I wish some scholar would do some 
research and some writing would be in the history of the 
interrelationship between the Blacks and the Japanese Americans 
in San Francisco when they returned. 1 

'Yori Wada, Working for Youth and Social Justice: The YMCA, the 
University of California, and the Stulsaft Foundation, Regional Oral 
History Office, University of California, Berkeley, 1991. 


Primarily, the new Blacks in San Francisco lived either in 
public housing or in housing that Japanese Americans had 
vacated in the Western Addition of San Francisco just this side 
of the Fillmore area. It was housing mostly which had been 
occupied by Japanese Americans who had then been sent to 
relocation camps [during the war.] It was available housing, 
and it was occupied by the Blacks who were coming in to work in 
defense plants during the war. 

Morris: Did some of those Japanese families come back [after 1945] and 
want to rent or buy those houses back again? 

Broussard: Well, that's primarily where the Japanese Americans settled 

when they came back. I mean, you return to your neighborhoods. 
That's the area I'd like to know more about. I lived through 
it, but I wasn't really aware of all of the intergroup 
accommodations. I know we had a Japanese-American Citizens' 
League, which worked with the American Friends' Service 
Committee, with the NAACP, with the Council for Civic Unity, 
with the Urban League. 

You know, it was all of these various groups working on 
the accommodations that were necessary for the groups to 
coexist. My own impression is that there was a minimum of 
conflict between the Japanese Americans and the Blacks. In a 
situation where, I think, it would have been easy to have real, 
outright conflict. And you're a scholar; you might want to 
take a look at what has been published in that area, and what 
might need to be done. 

I have good personal relationships with a lot of the 
Japanese Americans who came back from camp and went to City 
College. A couple of them I still see and relate to. But, 
then, we had good relations in what could have easily been a 
conflict situation. 

Morris: Who were the fellow students with whom you've stayed in touch? 

Broussard: Well, there's only one or two that I still see. Pete Ito was a 
Bay Bridge toll collector, and I see him now and then. He's 
retired now. His daughter is now a lawyer, and I've met her. 
But the group is largely dissipated. Vivian Ashigawa is always 
in New York. There were several other women in the group; most 
of them I have not seen for some time. Most of them have left 
the area. Katherine Miyou, M-i-y-o-u, I think it is, has left 
the area. Through Pete I just hear about some of the other 
people sometimes, but I remember them often. 


Deciding to Be a Lawyer; Commitment to the Community 

Morris: That sounds like a lot of civic ctivity for a young college 

Broussard: Well, I guess I never even really thought of it that way. But 
my work with the NAACP, which started while I was at City 
College, not only involved me in all of this that we're talking 
about, but I think it was a large factor in my deciding that I 
wanted to be a lawyer. And it played a large part in something 
I've always exemplified in my life and that has been the 
commitment to the community and being involved and trying to 
make a difference. I think a lot of it really started right 
there, and I'm just grateful to have been a part of the change 
that we were making. It's not something that I planned, you 
know; it was there and I did it. 

Morris: It sounds like it was exciting, too. I'm really interested 

that the NAACP had the student chapter presidents on the senior 
board. Young people don't often have a chance to share in 
their elders' decisions that way. 

Broussard: Well, I don't know. My impression is that that was not 

uncommon in the NAACP, where you had a youth or a college 
chapter. I think that was probably the prevailing practice 
within the NAACP. I don't think it was something unusual with 

Morris: But other organizations tend not to have very active 

participation at the board level by their younger members. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, you see, through that linkage the NAACP had a 

resource, because they had a direct contact with the younger 
people in the youth chapter or the college chapter. And 
whenever they needed assistance in any of their mass work- 
passing out leaflets and doing door-to-door work, or picketing, 
or demonstrating, or whatever. 

Morris: They'd call on the student branch for volunteer help? 

Broussard: Sure. They'd call in all the resources they could. I mean, 
the churches and everybody. They'd call in all the resources 
they could. 

Morris: You mentioned Carleton Goodlett. Was he active in the 

planning, or was it more that he had the newspaper available to 
publicize everything? 


Broussard: Oh, yes. I know Carleton was there and he enhanced the 

activities a young, dynamic leader. Carleton, Cecil Poole, 
Terry Francois, William McKinley Thomas, and many others. 



Oakland Men of Tomorrow and East Bay Democratic Club 

Morris: Were you still a student when Terry Francois decided to run for 
the [San Francisco] Board of Supervisors? Were you part of 
that campaign? 

Broussard: I wasn't a student, I was living in the East Bay, and I may 
have contributed to his campaign. I was not that intimately 
involved in it. Do you remember what year that was? 






I would say it was in the early '60s. 
Rumford in the state legislature. 

After we've got Byron 

Byron was elected in 1948. Yes. And I graduated from law 
school in '53 and was admitted in January of '54, worked for 
Justice Raymond Peters, went to the army, came back, and went 
to work for Peters and then went into private practice in 1956, 
Terry was in private practice, and he was not on the board at 
that time. But I went on the bench in 1964. I think it must 
have been in the '60s when Terry went to the board of 
supervisors . 

I guess the question more broadly is at what point did the 
NAACP and some of the groups you worked with start thinking 
about electing somebody to the board of supervisors? 

I don't have a good handle on that, 
homework for today. 

Maybe I didn't do enough 

You probably were working on a lot of things in those days. 

I became more of an East Bay-oriented person. And I have more 
of a handle of what went on in the East Bay than I do here. I 
can get in trouble for saying it, but in a sense we were a 
little ahead and a little more cohesive in the East Bay than we 
were in San Francisco. 


Morris: Really? 

Broussard: Yes. 

Morris: Even though dealing in a bigger area. 

Broussard: Well, Byron's presence was significant, D.G. Gibson's was 

always important and, starting in the late '50s, a couple of 
things happened. We had, in the East Bay, an organization 
called Oakland Men of Tomorrow. It was an umbrella group to 
which most of the Black business and professional men belonged. 
It was a nonpartisan group; it was intended to build 
relationships, contacts, networks. We met weekly at lunch, 
with a speaker. Our organization was a little loose; we did 
have an executive board, but we had a rotating chair. We 
didn't have a president. 

We did a lot of things, one of which was to develop within 
that group of men a sense of community, a sense of obligation, 
of responsibility, to be involved in community service and in 
the various organizations that served the community. We built 
the kind of relationships that carried over into business 
contacts. And, very significantly, out of that organization we 
built the East Bay Democratic Club. And people who knew talked 
to Evilio Grille, Don McCullum, Lionel Wilson, Allen Broussard, 
Dolly Hughes. Then Viola Taylor, Ruby Dins, Fay Mitchell. And 
I'm not calling everybody. 

Morris: There were women as well as men in the Oakland Men of Tomorrow? 
Broussard: No, no, no. East Bay Democratic Club. 
Morris: Okay. All right. 

Broussard: No. The men that I named first were all members of the Oakland 
Men of Tomorrow. But that relationship carried out to the East 
Bay Democratic Club, which did include a lot of significant 
women. And we were the group that basically supported Rumford, 
that related to Rumford through D.G. Gibson. And they were 
about the business of trying to organize the Democratic party 
in the minority community. I mean, the Seventeenth Assembly 
District was what Byron had at that time. And the Eighth 
Congressional District was our congressional district. And we 
began to build a political base in the East Bay. 

A lot of things came out of that. In 1958, members of the 
East Bay Democratic Club chaired the campaigns of all of the 
Democratic candidates who were on the ticket, that was with Pat 


[Edmund G., Sr.] Brown, if you don't remember, Bert Betts and 
Alan Cranston, and that whole ticket. 

Morris: A great Democratic sweep, yes. 

Broussard: Except for one spot. Do you remember that? 

Morris: Secretary of state. 

Broussard: Henry Lopez was the one non-white on the ticket and the one 
Democrat who was not elected. 

Morris: He was probably one of the first Hispanic guys at the state 

candidate level. But Frank Jordan, the incumbent, was sort of 

Broussard: Oh, he was an institution. He was an institution in 
California, yes. The whole Jordan family. 

Morris: I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to unseat him. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, we wondered whether or not if there 'd been a 

different candidate the sweep might not have carried the whole 
way. I mean, there was a drop-off in the ticket. But you're 
right, Jordan was certainly an institution in California 
political life. 

Electing Black Candidates at the Local Level 

Broussard: Then, not only were we involved in the Democratic politics, but 
we started agitating at the local levels, in both Oakland and 
in Berkeley. And while obviously you operate differently when 
you're in the nonpartisan arena--. Remember, we joined 
alliances in Berkeley, and that led to the selection and 
election of Wilmont Sweeney as the first Black city councilman 
in Berkeley. Barney Hilburn was a product of our efforts when 
he first went on the school board in Oakland. Barney was a 
Republican, but, we felt, a responsible Republican. With him 
as a candidate we could get together some Republican and 
Tribune support. 

Morris: Oh, really? Yes, okay. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, remember that at time the Oakland Tribune and the 
Knowlands were dominant political factors in Oakland. At that 
time, the key to getting a Black elected in Oakland was to get 


someone who had a good, basic support in the Black community, 
but who could also get some white support. And Barney became a 
perennial member of the Oakland school board for many years. 

Morris: Was the school board an easier proposition to develop a viable 
candidate for with this kind of coalition? 

Broussard: In development it was, yes. 
Morris: Why is that? 

Broussard: I'm trying to remember. I know in Oakland, you ran in the 

councilmanic districts, except for, I think, one at-large seat. 


Broussard: It's a little difficult for me right now to recapture that. I 
can't remember now who was the first Black to run for city 
council. 1 I mean, I know Lionel Wilson was the first to be 
elected mayornot the first to run, but the first to be 
elected. 2 I can't remember whether it was Carter Gilmore or 
whether it was someone who ran before Carter. I did not 
refresh my recollection in that regard. 

Morris : Would it have been somebody that came out of your Oakland Men 
of Tomorrow? 

Broussard: Maybe not that candidate. I'm trying to remember now when the 
Black Panthers got active. 

Morris: About "64, '65, in there. That's one of my questions: when do 
you recall the beginning of the more militant young activists? 

Broussard: Well, you started in the early sixties with the Afro-American 
Association, which was not itself that militant, but was 
developing race and cultural awareness and Black pride. Don 
Warden was the head of that. Then came Bobby Seale and Huey 
Newton and the more militant Black Panthers. But then, 
remember, I went on the bench in '64, and that movement was 
still on the ascent at that time. So my involvement was a bit 
different because I was on the bench. 

'Attorney Thomas Berkley and others ran for the Oakland City Council 
in the 1950s. Joshua Rose, appointed in 1964, was the first Black person to 
sit on the council. 

2 In 1977. See Lionel Wilson, Athlete, Judge and Oakland Mayor, 
Regional Oral History Office, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. 


Morris: I wondered if the early activities of the Afro-American 

Association and the Panthers might have caused some distress in 
the East Bay Democratic Club? 

Broussard: Well- 
Morris: For example, people taking action against the advice of the 

Broussard: Not really. People adjusted pretty well. The Panthers were a 
very positive influence for a long time. They didn't operate, 
initially, in the mainstream political activity. They did a 
fair job at that time. 

There's another phenomenon which has gone by the board. 
The Democratic party was so largely dependent upon the club 
movement for many years, and that's not nearly as true today. 

Morris: Did the East Bay Democratic Club take an active part in the 
California Democratic Council? 

Broussard: Well, certainly, yes. Yes, we were involved in the CDC. 

Morris: How was that in terms of Black and white relationships? Were 
there any tensions there? 

Broussard: No, not overt. I mean, we were all working for the same end. 
There were even some integrated clubs to go to. We had a 
modicum of white membership in the East Bay Democratic Club, 
but it was primarily Black. We functioned within the party as 
a unit that had some muscle, some strength, and ability to 
deliver. Insofar as CDC was concerned, you had representation 
based upon membership. So we were involved in that. No real 
friction. The real goal that we were working on was to be able 
to select our own candidates and to deliver within our own 
district, and not be dictated to or spoon-fed by Democrats from 
outside of the district. 

Morris: Had that been the way it operated? 

Broussard: Yes, very largely. This is what Byron and D. G. were committed 
to, that we would have our own political self-determination. 1 

'See "D. G. Gibson: A Black Who Led the People and Built the 
Democratic Party in the East Bay," Evilio Grille, in Experiment and Change 
in Berkeley, Essays on City Politics, 1950-1975, Institute of Governmental 
Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1978. 


But in order to do that, you have to perform, you have to 
function, you have to deliver to the party. 

Morris: To get the respect of Democrats at the other levels. 

Broussard: So that even [Congressman] Jeff Cohelan owed his campaign 

victory to the Rumford-Gibson organization. And when Cohelan 
no longer had that base of support he was no longer elected. 

Morris: When Ron Dellums ran against Cohelan [in 1970], he was a new 
kind of candidate from the Black community. 

Broussard: Yes. 

Morris: Did Dellums come through the Men of Tomorrow? 

Broussard: No, Ron Dellums did not. Ron Dellums did not come through Men 
of Tomorrow; he did not come through the East Bay Democratic 
Club. He came primarily from a young, liberal, Berkeley base, 
and an interracial base of support. Young, active, liberal 
Berkeley people were the sources of his political base. 

Morris: I always understood that his aunt, Frankie Jones, was active in 
NAACP and Democratic politics. 

Broussard: Frankie was perennial president of the NAACP. But Ron Dellums, 
at least in the years that I was active in the NAACP with 
Frankie Jones, Ron Dellums was not active in that organization. 
I didn't know Ron until he ran. And as I said, his base of 
support, I think, came primarily out of students and young 
people who were not particularly involved in the NAACP or in 
the Democratic party as such. 

Morris: Oh, yes. At that point, there was a whole collection of clubs 
in Berkeley. You might know that there wouldn't be just one 
Berkeley Democratic Club. 

Broussard: No. [chuckles] No, never in Berkeley. That's right. 



Preparing for Law School 

Morris: Could we go back and talk a little bit about your student days 
in Berkeley? 


Broussard: Thurgood Marshall just announced his retirement today, citing 
health reasons. 

Morris: He certainly has put in a long, long haul. 

Broussard: Yes, and he continued to serve at great personal sacrifice. I 
mean, his health has not been good for a long time. But with 
the stuff that's been coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court and 
with his obvious inability to sway the majority on any of the 
controversial things, I can't blame him. I would not be at all 
surprised if Harry Blackmun followed. 

Morris: Well, it's certainly a great difference from when they went on 
the bench. 

Broussard: Now, you wanted to go back to--? 

Morris: I wanted to go back to what it was like being a student at Cal 
after you'd finished up at San Francisco City College? 

Broussard: Okay. Well, as I told you, I made a big adjustment at City 
College. When I went to Cal, I was upper division. 
Consequently, my courses were all Monday, Wednesday, Friday 
courses. I worked Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday while I was at 
Cal. What was it like? Oh--. 

Morris: Didn't have much time for student activities? 


Broussard: No, I didn't. But I did have some good friendships there, both 
Black and non-Black. It was an excellent school, obviously. 
It was a very large school. There was no supportive network 
for minority students. A very small Black enrollment at that 
time. Almost all of us on campus got to know each other; all 
the Black students got to know each other. 

In my first semester of my junior year, I decided it was 
time for me to make a career choice, and I thought about it and 
I decided I wanted to go to law school. Then I started 
thinking about, well, what law school should I go to. I looked 
around, and I said, well, right here in Berkeley is one of the 
finest law schools in the country and certainly one of the 
cheapest law schools to go to, for anyone. And especially for 
me, when I'm living at home with my parents in Berkeley. So I 
said, "I want to go to Boalt." 

Then I stopped to find out what it took to get admitted 
into Boalt. And I said, "Well, Broussard, you better start 
making some better grades." My grades went up almost a point. 
Because I then had a specific goal and I knew what it took to 
achieve it. So I just started producing some better grades. 
I'd been a sound student, but never really pushed for grades, 
you know, until I decided--. Boalt was the only law school 
that I applied to, and fortunately, was accepted. 

Professor Jacobus tenBroek 

Broussard: I did not box. I had boxed at City College. You can tell from 
my background that I had a lot of experience fighting, 

Morris: Both physically and--. 

Broussard: Yes. But I boxed intercollegiately at City. Started to at 
Cal. See, my size just virtually ruled out football, 
basketball, or anything like that. But, in boxing at least- 
Morris: But you loved sports? 

Broussard: Yes. One of the things I gave up because of the Monday- 
Wednesday-Friday, Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday schedule was 
participation in real athletic competition. Although I joined 
the debate team. That grew out of my enrollment in a class 
with Professor Jacobus tenBroek. Do you know tenBroek? 


Morris: Ah, yes. 

Broussard: Or anything about him? 

Morris: He was chairman of the state social welfare board for a time in 
the 1940s. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, he taught a class in the speech department, and it 
was intended for pre-law majors. The class consisted of 
reading and writing critical analyses of supreme court 
decisions. The classroom work consisted of tenBroek engaging 
students in a Socratic discussion of the cases that we were 
reading. And, of course, you know he was blind. And it was 
just--he was so brilliant. And then, he had overcome his 
blindness. People would try to come into his classroom late. 
And you just couldn't get away with anything in his classroom. 
If you were absent, he knew it. If you tried to get in late, 
he knew it. The only concession that he made to his lack of 
sight was that he required his students to be seated 
alphabetically in the classroom. You had assigned seats. 

Morris: So he could match your voices with your name? 

Broussard: Yes. He could learn his students, and he could engage in that 
Socratic discussion and turn from one student to the next; he 
knew where you were supposed to be seated. If you were not in 
your seat, he would recognize it. But that was the only 
concession he made to his blindness. [Richard B.] Wilson, who 
was the person who headed the debate team and later became a 
professor at Cal, was sort of his protege. The debating sort 
of grew out of the tenBroek class. 

The only other concession, I guess, that he made to his 
blindness was that he had advanced students as readers for the 
written work. And I was very proud that I later became a 
tenBroek reader. I would read and grade the critical analyses 
of his students, and then meet with him and discuss the written 
work of his students. He'd, of course, give them the overall 
grade in the class. 

Morris: Did you find this class in the catalog? Or was there any kind 
of a counselor at Boalt who said these kinds of courses would 
be helpful when you wanted to apply? 

Broussard: No. I didn't have a counselor from Boalt. Frankly, I heard 
about tenBroek on campus, and I don't think through a regular 
counselor. I can't even remember who was my counselor. 


Well, he was one of the great figures of his era. 





Oh, yes. Yes. And I think I just heard about him from 
students or other people. I can't identify a counselor at Cal. 
I can't remember any particular counselor. I can remember my 
counselor at City College. But I can't remember a particular 
counselor or advisor at Cal. 

You majored in political science, 
poli sci department? 

I majored in poli sci. 

Was there somebody in the 

You'd just stand there in line with the catalog and all the 
other students and take your chances? 

Broussard: That's right. That's right. That's my recollection. Just 

going through the catalog, picking your classes. And standing 
in line to try get your classes. And through the catalog and 
some inquiry about the speech courses, I learned about tenBroek 
and I took that class. And it was probably my most significant 
undergraduate class at Cal. 

I was so impressed with him in terms of his teaching. And 
because of his teaching, I developed some lasting friendships 
with other students in that class. There were five of us in 
the particular group; we'd leave his eight o'clock class and 
continue the discussion, because we all had the nine to ten 
o'clock time free. And we would continue that discussion. I 
think I'm correct on this, but out of the five of us, three of 
us got "A"s and the other two got "B"s in his class. And he 
didn't give out a lot of "A"s. But we were all motivated and 
would pursue his classroom discussions. And then, ultimately, 
several of us went onto the debate team where we continued this 
same kind of activity. 

Friendship, Work, and Managing Personal Finances 

Morris: Did any of the other four fellows--? I'm assuming they're all 

Broussard: In that group, yes, there were all men. Although, we had some 
women in the class. 

Morris: Did any of this group that you particularly liked and followed 
up the discussions with, did any of them go on into the law and 
into the judiciary? 



Morris : 

Donald Cahen is a lawyer here in San Francisco. Al Bendig was 
in that group. Ralph Hanley went into city management, city 
government. [snaps his fingers trying to remember] Bob 
Costello became a lawyer, he's down the Peninsula somewhere. 
Several of us went on to law school. And Ralph went into 
government. Then there were Herb Moore- -let's find the list-- 
[ looks through papers] Bob Dagget went on to become a lawyer. 
Harry Hanson went on to become a lawyer. Dick [Hofelt?] went 
on to become a lawyer. Herb Moore became a lawyer. Larry 
[Shostak?] became a lawyer. 

And you're still in touch with these folks? 
a current list. 

You're reading off 

Broussard: Well, I haven't responded to this letter, which I got last year 
from Herb Moore, who was trying to reconstruct all of the 
members of tenBroek's Speech 1A class in about a two-year span, 
'48, '49. This was a listing that he gave and to which I added 
a few people. He didn't have Bob Costello, who was in my 
class. Herb Moore was the year after me, I think, with 
tenBroek. Pat Christiansen, now Hawkins. She's, I think, in 
Hillsborough, but not in law. Interestingly, she's the only 
female who's included on this list so far. But all of these 
peopleexcept Jack Jackson, I don't remember him, I think he 
must have been a year or so after me, also- -we all remember 
each other because the impact of that class was so forceful. 

Morris: Everybody I've ever known who's taken one of his classes has 
said it was a shining light in their experience. 

Broussard: So then, my view of Cal was many large classes, because they 

tended to be the lecture classes with study groups. One of the 
major exceptions was tenBroek, which was a small class with 
intensive Socratic discussion. Other than that, it was--. I 
didn't belong to any undergraduate fraternity. 

Morris: Did any of the Black fraternity groups invite you to join? 

Broussard: Yes, but my motivation wasn't high. The Black fraternity 

groups did not have houses on campus. I was living at home. I 
didn't feel I really needed them for social exchange. And I 
just wasn't that motivated to join. Later on--I think I was 
actually in law school then- -there was an interracial 
fraternity that was organized. Beta Sigma Tau, I think was the 
name of it. It was an interracial fraternity that was new, and 
they organized, and they had a house near campus. I already 
had friendships with some people who joined that fraternity, 
but I never did join that one, either. As I said, I was 


actually in law school at that time. But I never did join any 
undergraduate or social fraternity. 

Morris: The Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday job, did that continue to be 
working on the waterfront? 

Broussard: No. That was C. H. Baker Shoe Store. Do you know C. H. Baker? 
Morris: No. Did they move you up to salesperson? 

Broussard: No. Always shipping, receiving, and stock. But I worked there 
three days a week during the school year. That was my 
undergraduate years at Cal. When I went to law school, I would 
spend most of my summers working at Del Monte cannery in 
Emeryville. That was interesting. I worked at Del Monte in 
the summers and made as much money as I could and saved as much 
money as I could. 

I didn't put it in the bank; I'd give it to my parents and 
have them give me back so much a month. Then I had two 
scholarships which gave me money on the first of the month. I 
would look up when Cal would be playing UCLA, and then I would 
take a little out for a trip to Los Angeles. That's basically 
the way I financed my way through school. I was living at 
home. I saved what I could, scheduled it out. 

Morris: You must have been a very well-organized young person. 

Broussard: Well, I didn't think so at the time. I didn't think it was 
very unusual. 

Morris: But, you know, college fellows usually can spend whatever is in 
their pocket. 

Broussard: Well, I appreciated all that my folks were doing for me. But I 
wanted to help as much as I could. So I was pretty 
conscientious about my money and my fun. Did my share. 

Morris: Was there time for occasional parties, and a girlfriend? 

Broussard: Oh, sure. A lot of them. Yes. Certainly. And I managed to 
get a little car, and everything. 


Boalt Hall School of Law 

Morris: It sounds as if you didn't really have any doubts that you'd be 
accepted at Boalt. Or any anxieties about going? There's a 
report in a press clipping I read that your first semester at 
law school was really quite of a shocker? 1 Why was that? 

Broussard: Everything was new and strange, I'll tell you. We started with 
three Blacks in my class and one woman. It was the first time 
there had been three Blacks in the law school at one time. 

My class was the largest first-year class to be accepted 
by Boalt, because it was anticipated that, by the time classes 
started, (what I call the new) the present law school, would 
have been available for our entering class. Prior to that, 
Boalt Hall was housed in Boalt [now Durant] Hall on campus, 
right opposite Wheeler. It was a very small school, and it had 
a limited student body. Our first year of classes were held in 
a classroom in Wheeler Hall, because we started off- 
Morris: So it was physically a transition. 

Broussard: Yes. We started off with, I think, one hundred ten students in 
our first-year class. I know we had one hundred six at the end 
of the first semester. The first year we had our classes in 
Wheeler, we studied in Boalt Hall. It wasn't until the middle 
of our second year that we actually went into the new law 

Morris: The building that's called the Law School. 

Broussard: Yes, the building that is called Boalt Hall now, yes. Right. 
That was a brand new building when we occupied it. 

This is a little interesting sidelight. I lived at home, 
drove my car, and generally had to park a little distance from 
campus . 

Morris: Still do! 

Broussard: Every time it would rain, my mother would give me one of her 

umbrellas. And I would come home wet because I didn't want to 
use a red umbrella or a woman's umbrella. And she wised up and 
bought me one of the first pop-up men's umbrellas that I'd ever 

'William Rodarmor, "A Conversation with Allen Broussard," California 
Monthly, February 1993. 



seen. So I would stick my arm out of my car window and pop my 
umbrella, and get to Boalt real dry. 

In the old Boalt Hall there was a big vestibule. All the 
law students would put their briefcases in that vestibule going 
into the library to study. When we would leave Boalt Hall to 
go to Wheeler, if it was raining, I'd pop my umbrella up and 
everybody else was-- 

Running to get out of the rain? 

There was a time when Boalt graduates were known to use 
umbrellas when it was not popular for men to do it . And I 
started that tradition, because my classmates started buying 
umbrellas. Because we had to go back and forth from Wheeler to 
Boalt Hall. 


Morris: After the legal discussions in Professor tenBroek's class, what 
was it like in the law school? Were the people there as 
impressive as he was in the subject, what you'd hoped? 

Broussard: Well, to go back to that first semester. They seated us 

alphabetically in the first year of law school. Everything was 
new and strange. The teaching technique- -while we had read 
excerpts from U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the tenBroek 
class, we were dealing with more of a textbook than a casebook. 
The whole casebook method, the concept that prevailed in most 
law schools and certainly in Boalt at that time, was that it 
was the students' job to read the cases and to learn the law. 
You had to operate pretty much on your own. 

I had no exposure other than the tenBroek course to the 
law and to lawyers, to the concept, the terminology, the 
teaching methodology, the tools, the technique. And there was 
just so much self-doubt, because I didn't know whether I was 
learning what I was supposed to learn. They started using 
terminology that I had never heard, and I sort of glanced over 
my shoulder and looked at the rest of class, and I said, "I 
wonder if everybody else in here is as mystified as I am." 

The saving grace was to get into a study group and not try 
to get through alone. Get yourself into a study group. 

Morris: How are the study groups formed? 
Broussard: Just informal. 



Morris : 


You just sort of pick them out? 

You just pick people who you are compatible with. You drop in 
and out of them if you don't like them. You know, it's just 
self -match. No structure to it. I was in a couple of 
different study groups. That requires not only that you keep 
abreast with the work and brief your cases, but that you have 
the opportunity and the necessity of articulating the concepts 
that you're studying. And that's very important. You know, 
you read it and you think about it and then you say it. And 
that really cements the learning process. If you can't 
articulate a concept to your study group, you don't understand 
it well enough to do well on an exam. 

Is part of what you're doing sharing the work? 
cases and present them to the group? 

You brief some 

No, we would all brief all of our cases. In the study group, 
you'd try then to develop an outlinea summary actually is 
what it is. We discussed the cases that we'd have in class, to 
try to understand their importance and their significance. 

Professor [Richard] Jennings used to tell us all the time, 
"This ain't a spoon-fed law school. You got to read those 
cases." [chuckles] And the instructor would go through the 
cases with you, maybe five a day, or something like that. And 
then your job was to try to understand the essence of the cases 
and summarize them into a body of law. But the important thing 
was to process this all through your brain. And that was what 
was different. 

It's not like reading a history book and trying to 
understand what's written on the page, and then you understand 
some history. They use some cases to help you to learn to 
think like a lawyer, in the process you learn some law. And so 
then in the study group, you'd sit down and say, "Now, what is 
it we're supposed to have learned out of these cases?" And you 
try to develop a summary of them and develop a concept of that 
area of the law. 

Morris: That's not too far from the old days when people used to learn 
the law by reading law in an attorney's office. 

Broussard: Yes, that's, I think, still legally possible. But nobody does 

Morris: Were there some people in particular that you felt were really 
helpful in this study-group process? 


Broussard: One of the most consistent members of my study group would be 
Priscilla Rogers. Harold Farrow, F-a-r-r-o-w, was in a couple 
of study groups with me. Bob Barton was in- -no [chuckles], he 
was the class phenomenon. He was not in a study group. He 
would do the briefest briefs of anybody in the classroom. He 
wouldn't mark or underline his books, because his girlfriend-- 
his then-girlfriend whom he later marriedwas a year behind 
him in law school, and he wanted the books untouched for her. 

Morris: Good heavens! So, he held it all in his head? 

Broussard: He developed what we called "Barton briefs". Bob Barton's 

briefs were the briefest briefs, but he was either number two 
or number three in our class. A brilliant guy. Tom Ackermann, 
I had one study group with him. Harry Keaton, who is now dead, 
we did corporations courses together. That's about all I can 

Morris: Were there mostly people that had come in from other schools, 
other states, or were there people that you already had some 
contact with at Cal? In that hundred and six in your class. 

Broussard: About the only people I knew were those whom I had met through 
tenBroek's class and through the debate team. Mostly other 
than Cal, which was a tremendously large university. We had 
students from all over the United States. I mean, Boalt was a 
magnet law school. So I didn't know too many of my classmates 
before we began developing relationships. 

Morris: Did you have time to keep up with some of the things that you 
were doing for the NAACP? 

Broussard: I don't think I did much until after law school. I was active 
in the Berkeley branch with Frankie Jones, as you were saying. 
And Lillian Pitts. But that was after law school as a young 

Morris: Was Walter Gordon around at that point? 

Broussard: No, he wasn't. His family was. Well, I mean his children. I 
guess he was in the Virgin Islands at that time. 



Morris: Let's see. You took the bar exam and then went into the army? 
Is that how it went? 

Broussard: Yes. I was deferred from the draft through law school, and 
took the bar exam in the summer of '53. At that time, it 
wasn't until January that you got your results. The most 
significant single day's mail in my life was when I came back 
from the Rose Bowl. In the same day's mail, I had my notice of 
induction into the army and my notice that I passed the bar 

Morris: Which did you open first? 

Broussard: I think it was the bar results, and then I had my draft notice. 
But I was working for Justice Peters then, as his research 
attorney, and he got my induction deferred a bit so that he 
could select a replacement for me. 

Then I went into the army and spent the two years . I 
applied for a commission in the Judge Advocate General Corps, 
but if you will rememberyou couldn't apply for a commission 
until you had actually been admitted to the bar. So I was 
sworn in on January 28, I think that's right. I applied for a 
JAG commission, but at that time, it took about six months to 
get the three security clearances that they did on you. So I 
was actually drafted before I got any response from my 

I had a very, very unusual military career because I was a 
lawyer. I was sent overseas, I was picked up at the 
replacement depot in Zweibrucken, Germany. And when I say 
"replacement depot"--the mission of our post was to receive all 
of the enlisted men who were shipped to the European theater. 
We were to receive them, house them, feed them, classify them, 
assign them, and ship them, within seventy-two hours. All of 
the enlisted personnel who were going to be in the European 


Morris : 

theater would come through us. Not officers and not the top 
three grades. 

I mean, we had what you call a skeleton battalionjust a 
framework, and then we'd pick up the casual personnel who came 
through to fill up the battalion. I was the fifth enlisted 
lawyer picked up on that post. We had a situation on the post 
where the average level of education among the enlisted 
personnel was three years of college, which is very unusual in 
the service. The post commander was a bird [full] colonel who 
had gotten, 1 think, a battlefield commission. We had a very 
nice post; we referred to it erroneously sometimes as "the 
campus". [chuckles] We had the opportunity to pick up people 
who really were good-looking people, who had good attitudes, 
good educational background. 

When I came through, the big fight was between the 
chaplain and the legal officer. The legal officer was a Black 
captain who wanted me as his assistant because he had had one 
year of law school. The chaplain wanted me as his assistant 
because he was entitled to two assistants and he had two 
requirements: the Protestant chaplain's assistant had to have a 
background in music, and the Catholic chaplain's assistant had 
to have enough brains to manage both the Catholic and the 
Protestant chaplain's funds. And also to assist Catholic G.I.s 
with problems with church or family. I don't mean counsel and 
stuff, but I was probably the only specialist third-class on 
the post who could pick up the phone and call the motor pool 
and say, "I need a jeep to go to Kaiserslautern" or wherever, 
because I had to talk with the Catholic chaplain. Or I would 
have to arrange for the Canadian Air Force chaplain across town 
or a German priest from downtown to say Mass on Sundays and 
stuff like that. So the chaplain wanted me, the legal officer 
wanted me; and the chaplain outranked him, and he got me. So I 
served nineteen months in Germany as the Catholic chaplain's 
assistant on a post where we never had a Catholic chaplain. 

That must have been quite a change. 

And the other thing is that I was Seventh Army, assigned to the 
replacement depot on what we call temporary duty. And the 
skeleton battalion was a headquarters battalion, administrative 
battalion. And the reason that got important was that whenever 
we had an alert or field exercises, the theory was that the 
Seventh Army pec le on temporary duty with the headquarters 
battalion would stay and fight while the headquarters battalion 
moved behind the lines and set up a new operation. 


So when we had an alert at three o'clock in the morning, 
I'd get my carbine and go over to my desk in the chaplain's 
office and go to sleep while the headquarters people had to 
load their field gear onto the trucks and move out and go set 
up tents and stuff like that in this exercise. 

Morris: Heavens! Was there much of this kind of activity in the '50s? 

Broussard: Oh, they pulled surprise alerts on us, of different kinds. 

Some of them were required for all of us. But, in the main, 
that was the way the line broke down. The concept militarily 
was that if there was an outbreak of hostilities, the Seventh 
Army people TDY'd [did temporary duty] with the headquarters, 
and would maintain the post and the operation, until the 
headquarters people moved out and set up a new operation behind 
the lines. See, we were in Zweibrucken, which is that 
traditional buffer zone between Germany and France. 

Morris: It sounds like your military service was kind of an 
interruption in your life plan. 

Broussard: It was. Well, back to what I told you. I ultimately was 
tendered a commission as a first lieutenant in the Judge 
Advocates General Corps. I was already situated in my post in 
Zweibrucken, and I decided that I did not want to accept it; I 
would have to have enlisted for three years and come back here 
and gone to military justice school in West Virginia. But I 
was in the army then, so I had to send my declination of 
commission up through the chain of command. And I'll never 
forget--! got a call from Seventh Army headquarters, Stuttgart, 
from the JAG office, trying to persuade me to accept the 
commission. And I told them, no, I appreciated and enjoyed 
being in Europe. 

Fortunately, I had enough sense that I took advantage of 
my presence there. There were no real hostilities; there was 
no real fighting going on. So I traveled extensively in 
Western Europe, and I had enough sense to do some readingyou 
know, not do just typical G.I. traveling. A lot of the younger 
draftees and enlisted personnel missed a lot of the 
opportunities that existed over there. 

I got tempted when Stuttgart told me that if I would 
accept the commission and go to military justice school, they 
would assure me that I would be stationed in Stuttgart, at 
Seventh Army headquarters. And I had this picture of myself, a 
single--. I'd start off as first lieutenant, and I'd probably 
have time to make captain before I would finish my three years. 
I could see myself being in Europe as a legal officer, but I 


said, "No. This is an interruption in my life, and I want to 
get back." So I declined it. 

Morris: In the Seventh Army and on your base, were there many minority 

Broussard: No, not too many. There were some. We were maybe only about 

five percent of the let's see; this is interesting. We really 
had four categories of people on that post. We had the 
commissioned officers who were regular army people. We had the 
commissioned officers who were ROTC of ficers--college students. 
We had the enlisted men, mostly the top three grades, who were 
the career army people. And then we had the people who were 
drafted or had involuntarily enlisted in the army, over whom we 
had a lot of selection ability. And what was a beautiful 
assignment developing just a little problem, because there was 
a natural affinity between the commissioned officers who were 
ROTC to associate with the enlisted men, who, as I said, had an 
average of three years of college education. And then that 
began to create some resentment on the post with the regular 
army people. 

But it was only in the enlisted personnel that we had any 
sampling of Blacks or minorities. None of the regular army 
people on that post were Black, except one--we had one sergeant 
We had one ROTC lieutenant, first lieutenant. And then we had 
maybe about ten Blacks, and that's about it. And then I made 
one more when I came over. 



Clerking for Justice Ray Peters 

Morris : 





Going back to Justice Peters, 
doing for him? 

What kinds of work were you 

I was his research attorney. He only had one. At the time I 
worked with Peters, he was the Presiding Justice of Division I 
of the First Appellate District. I think that I was the first 
Black research attorney hired by a Justice on the court at that 
time. I was his one research attorney for that fourteen-month 

Are you picked on the basis of your grades in law school? 

That's a big factor, yes. Yes, that's a big factor. The 
judges just do their own selecting. Peters almost always hired 
someone from Boalt. Some of the other judges would probably 
want someone from Stanford. Peters was a great judge, and a 
true liberal. While I did have the Law-Review experience and a 
pretty good class standing, I think that that's one of the 
instances in which he kind of reached out when he learned of my 
availability, and gave me that opportunity. There's his 
portrait over there. [points to portrait in corner of his 

The one with the Santa Claus hat on? 
Santa Claus hat. 

From here it looks like a 

No, no that's a flag. Come over and take a look. That's a 

Oh, oh. Isn't that handsome? 

It's faded a little bit now, but this is a photograph of a 
portrait of Peters that was commissioned by his former law 
clerks on his sixty-ninth birthday. We all thought of him as 


our friend, and we got together at a meeting in The Faculty 
Club on campus. And we knew that Peters would, because of 
retirement laws, be required to retire by age seventy. So we 
got together on his sixty-ninth birthday and we commissioned 
Vincent Reyes to do a portrait of Peters. What we did not know 
was that Peters would die before he reached age seventy. So 
the portrait was finished posthumously. And the original of 
this photograph hangs in the VIP room at Boalt Hall. 

Morris: I must go around and take a look, yes. 

Broussard: And this is a photo that was enlarged and distributed to the 
former law clerks. The person who really put all of this 
together was Tony Kline, Justice Tony Kline, who had worked 
with Peters on the supreme court . 

Working with Justice Peters was a great experience. He 
was a great man, and really helped to shape and develop some of 
my judicial philosophy. 

Morris: What, particularly? What kinds of ideas impressed you most? 

Broussard: Well, he was a brilliant scholar, but he never lost sight of 
the fact that law had to have a touch of humanity in it. And 
he was always mindful of the impact that his decisions might 
have on people. And that gave his work a real human quality. 
I tended generally to share his philosophy and his attitude 
towards life and towards issues. And he taught me how 
important it was to not just coldly and objectively analyze, 
but to think of the impact you were having on people and 
humanity, on society. And, in essence, that law is a social 
tool to be used to achieve appropriate goals. 

Morris: Was this the general trend of the teaching at Boalt? 

Broussard: Boalt didn't teach you much other than how to think like a 

lawyer. We didn't have the kinds of courses that would impact 
or develop your attitude or philosophy about the law. I think 
maybe that exists more in the law schools today. But then, I'd 
say, our teachers were more purists. You really took your 
student course material and didn't indulge that much in 
philosophy of the use of the law. 

Realities of Wages and Race Relations 

Broussard: Law school was an impractical education in some ways, although 
that's not a correct statement. Because I'll never forget 
reading the first chapter of a book called Education for 
Freedom. It was written by Dr. Robert Hutchins, who was then 
the President of the University of Chicago. And the first 
chapter of that book was "The Autobiography of an Uneducated 
Man." And he had, I think, three earned doctorates. 

That first chapter was his own autobiography, in which he 
referred to himself as an uneducated man until he found law 
school. He said it was only then that he really achieved an 
education, because it taught him how to use his mind. And he 
referred to law as the most difficult education in the world to 
waste. So in that sense, it was a very practical education 
that we were getting. But it wasn't practical in terms of, you 
leave law school and you go out and you're ready to practice 
law. That's why, when I graduated from Boalt, the best law 
firms were paying Boalt graduates three hundred dollars a month 
if you were single and three hundred fifty dollars a month if 
you were married. 

Morris: There was a differential if you had a wife to support. 

Broussard: That was exactly the prevailing pay. Three hundred dollars a 
month if you were single, three hundred fifty dollars a month 
if you were married. It was just clear recognition of the fact 
that you were getting sustenance compensation, and if you had a 
wife you needed more money to feed her. [chuckles] 

Morris: It cost more to feed two than one. Was the theory that you 
would actually learn the law by practicing it? 

Broussard: You didn't know how to draft a complaint. You didn't know 
where the courthouse was. We'd have a lecture series at 
lunchtime, and stuff like that. You know, the lawyers would 
come out and tell you, "Well, look. A young, a recent law 
school graduate is nothing more than a long-term potential for 
us. You're almost a liability when you come out of law school, 
because we have to teach you so much." 

Morris: That must be kind of depressing. 

Broussard: They didn't want you to feel too high and mighty. 

Morris: Yes. Did you interview with some of the big law firms? 

Broussard: No, I did not interview with any law firms, except a couple 

minority firms and a couple of minority lawyers. No, I didn't 
even realize that the interviewing process was going on, you 
know, that the law firms were interviewing my classmates. I 
was not into that at all. I didn't get 


Broussard: I mean, it just wasn't done at that time. The law school did 
not refer me to any law firm. Fortunately--! don't know who 
initiated it--I did come to Peters' attention and he employed 
me. But when I graduated from law school, I couldn't join the 
American Bar Association. 

Morris: Unbelievable. 

Broussard: I didn't get any job referrals from my law school until after I 
had worked for Peters, gone into the army, come back, and was 
I was in the process of changing my association from Vaughns, 
Dixon and White, to Wilson, Metoyer and Sweeney, when the law 
school called me and asked me if I was interested in doing 
management-side labor law, because Kaiser was interested in 
having a Black lawyer in their labor management division in 
Fontana, California. And I told them, "No, thank you." 

Morris: Did you talk with other minority students about these things? 

Broussard: We started withthis gets a bit personalwe started with 

three Blacks in my class. It was the first time there had been 
three Blacks in Boalt at one time. The plan had been to admit 
two of us, Jim Goodwin and myself. Jim had gone to Cal and had 
been on the debate team. The other person, Charlie Turner, was 
admitted in an unorthodox manner. He had spent some time over 
the summer working with the chancellor, I think, and was 
admitted in an unorthodox manner. 

Charlie didn't make it through when the first grades came 
out; my grades were exceptionally good, because that was before 
I lost my brief casethat's another story but at the end of 
the first semester I was number six out of one hundred six in 
my class. The other Black person was down a bit in grades. 
The law school encouraged him to stay, and told him that with a 
little adjustment, he'd probably make it through. Well, he 
left at the end of the first semester too. And you know why he 

He said, "Allen, when they admitted the two of us, I 
figured only one of us was going to make it." He said, "And 
obviously, it's going to be you, not me. So I'm going." And 

he went to another law school. And thenlet's seethe class 
behind me, one black. 

Morris: So you're the only Black person who graduated in your class. 

Broussard: Yes. Goodwin didn't stay and Charlie Turner didn't stay. 
Goodwin went on to- -I think he graduated from Golden Gate. 

Morris: And there still wasn't any counselor or advocate on campus that 
you could take any feelings to? 

Broussard: No. The whole concept of special admissions or special support 
programs or special counseling or anything hadn't developed 
yet. I mean, I was admitted competitively and had to perform 
competitively. There was nothing special. I had to operate 
pretty much on my own. 

With the Firm of Vaughns, Dixon & White 

Morris: But you did have friends in the legal profession in Oakland 
that you could go to when you were ready to look for a job? 

Broussard: Well, again, you know, through my NAACP work I knew most of the 
Black lawyers in the area by the time I had graduated from law 
school. I guess the main person that I spoke with, though, was 
Tom Berkley, whom you probably know. But I decided that that 
was not where I should hang my shingle. And I went into 
practice with George Vaughns, Billy Dixon, and Clint [Clinton] 
White. Vaughns, Dixon, and White. Wilmont Sweeney and I were 
the two non-partners in that five- lawyer office. And I stayed 
there from '56 to '59. Sweeney left Vaughns, Dixon, and White; 
well, first he'd associated with Clint White, and then he took 
over the practice of attorney John Henderson. Then in 1959, 
Lionel Wilson, Carl Metoyer and Wilmont Sweeney formed a 
partnership and built that little law office building at 6014 
Market Street in Oakland. 

Morris: I noticed that, and I wondered if they built the building. 

Broussard: Yes. They had that building built, and had offices for five 

lawyers. So I went in as an associate, as did Sidney Noel, N- 
o-e-1. Sidney's now dead. We went into that office in '59. 
In '61, Lionel Wilson went on the muni bench [Oakland Municipal 
Court], and I became a partner. And we brought in another 



Governor Pat Brown's Appointments 

Broussard: Then in '64, Lionel Wilson was elevated to the superior court, 
and I went on at the muni court . 

Morris: It's kind of a fast track you fellows had set up there. 

Broussard: Well, you've got to remember that Lionel was the first 

president of the East Bay Democratic Club, and you know, a very 
experienced lawyer. And he went on soon after Pat Brown 
[Edmund G., Sr.] became governor, and Pat Brown started in '59. 
When Pat Brown was governor, he tended to appoint everyone to 
the muni court first. There were some exceptions; he had some 
people who had been very, very close to him, like Leonard 
Deiden and John Purchio and Monroe Friedman, who went directly 
to the superior court. But, in the main, Pat Brown would 
appoint to the muni court and elevate to the superior court 
almost in rotational order. You know, he'd just--. 

Morris: In the order in which you'd been appointed to the muni court? 

Broussard: Yes. Right. And that became an issue, because when Lionel 
became the senior-most Pat Brown muni judge, it was expected 
that he would go to the superior court when the next opening 
came up. And that was offered to him. But Byron and D.G. and 
Lionel and some others were interested in who was going to 
replace Wilson. 

And Byron said, "We've got the man for you. Broussard." 
Some of our good Democratic friends started saying, "No, no. 
Don't appoint Broussard now. Because we don't want to create a 
Black seat. See, appoint somebody who's not black, and then you 
can consider Broussard later on." The position we took was, 



and Lionel joined in with this, "If Broussard doesn't come onto 
the muni, I don't go to the superior." 

And there was muscle in that, because for Pat Brown not to 
put Lionel Wilson on the superior would have meant he was 
passing over him. And that would not be politically wise. So, 
anyway, Lionel was the first Black muni judge in the [Alameda] 
county, the first Black superior court judge in the county. I 
was the second Black muni judge and then the second Black 
superior court judge. 

But that all came out of the East Bay Democratic Club, as 
did a lot of other things. I mean, Charlie Wilson became 
counsel for the Fair Employment and Practices Commission. Al 
McKee became an inheritance tax appraiser. Evelio Grille was 
appointed to the Metropolitan Study Commission, I forget the 
exact name of it. Don McCullum later became an inheritance tax 
appraiser. Wilmont Sweeney, Berkeley City Council. And, I 
mean, it was all a product of that political base that we were 

Did Pat Brown need much convincing on this subject of 
appointing Black people to the bench? 

The problem wasn't Pat. It was just that as you consult in the 
local community--! mean, .among your Democratic friends about 
who is going to go on the benchthe concern in that issue was 
well- intended, but they said, "We don't mind Lionel going up, 
he's been a fine judge in his term. And we don't mind 
Broussard being considered. But we don't want to create a 
Black seat." When my name went to Pat, he didn't have any 
problem. Byron Rumford and Pat Brown were very close. 

As a matter of fact, there's another little interesting 
story that a lot of people don't know. When Pat Brown was 
elected and was forming his cabinet, he interviewed a lot of 
us. Including me. And including Cecil Poole, who had a 
different relationship with Pat Brown. Cecil Poole had been in 
the D.A.'s office with Pat. 

Morris: In San Francisco. 

Broussard: In San Francisco. Pat Brown wanted Cecil Poole to be his 

extradition and clemency secretary. And Cecil Poole wanted to 
be a superior court judge. This is true. Pat Brown offered 
Cecil the extradition and clemency secretary, and Cecil Poole 
turned it down. Pat Brown interviewed Lionel Wilson, Charlie 
Wilson, Evelio Grille, me, Don McCullum, maybe a couple of 


other people. And he interviewed me with the idea in mind that 
he might appoint me his extradition and clemency secretary if 
he couldn't get Cecil to take the spot. Well, Cecil thought 
about it and it was about a three-day hiatus when Cecil got 
back to Brown and said, "Okay. I'll accept it." So I didn't 
go into the administration then, and I'm not sure that I would 
have, except that I probably would have. 

Morris: If it had been a firm offer? 

Broussard: Yes. But Byron had that kind of relationship with Pat that he 
could say, "Here, we ran the campaign in the district." But, 
I'm not sure even that Cecil was aware of that. I've told him 
about it since. 

Morris: Cecil Poole got to deal with the long, long Caryl Chessman 
clemency discussion. You were spared that. 

Broussard: Indeed, I was. That was an interesting case. 
Morris: This is a good stopping point for this morning. 

Broussard: Well, I wasn't aware of the time. Let's stop now, and you'll 
be back at ten-thirty tomorrow. 

Morris: That would be great. Thank you kindly. 

Community Service; Evelio Grillo's Influence; Hispanic 

[Date of Interview: June 28, 

Broussard: You know, I was interviewed a while ago by someone from the 

university. We talked a lot about D.G. Gibson. I don't recall 
ever seeing a transcript. 

Morris: That may have been done by my colleagues at the Institute of 
Governmental studies as part of their book on Experiment and 
Change in Berkeley. That was a series of essays by different 
people who'd been active in city politics in the sixties. It 
was just about the time that D.G. Gibson died. And people 
wanted to make sure that some discussion of Mr. Gibson's role 
was included in the book. Evelio Grille wrote that chapter. 
It's not technically an oral history. 


Broussard: Yes, I know he was involved. 

Morris: Mr. Grille is a very interesting person. I'd like to ask you 
to tell me a little bit about him. I met him some years ago 
when I was referred to him as someone who was a mentor in the 
Hispanic community. Is it unusual that one person should be 
equally important in both the Black community and Hispanic 

Broussard: Well, he's been very important in both, and he's been important 
in my own life, personally. Again, I met him through the 
Oakland Men of Tomorrow, in about 1956. He was very 
instrumental in helping shape that organization and to direct 
some of its interests and talents and members into what we then 
called our community- service program. We had biannual 
retreats; the early ones were all at Asilomar. The first two 
or three of them were all devoted towards promoting the idea of 
being involved in community- service activities. It really got 
to the point where many of the community service organizations 
in Oakland would contact Men of Tomorrow, asking for 
recommendations for people to serve on their various boards and 
commissions. We really functioned as a clearinghouse for a 
long time, and we were educating and encouraging our members to 
get involved. 

At our Asilomar retreats we would bring people from the 
Alameda County Council of Social Planning. We would get 
resource people who would come to our retreats, talk to us 
about the various organizations that were involved in community 
service, about ways to get involved, about things that needed 
to be done and could be done. So our members were getting 
motivated and interested. We were getting known by the service 
agencies in the community. They'd contact Men of Tomorrow and 
ask for recommendations for someone to serve on a board or a 
commission, something like that. And it just led to a 
tremendous involvement by a lot of our members and others whom 
we knew in that whole area of community service. And Evelio 
shaped that a lot; he has his social welfare background, see. 

Morris: Did he go to the university for social welfare training? 

Broussard: I am not positive. I know that he's trained in social welfare, 
but whether that was at the University of California, Berkeley, 
I'm not sure. 

Morris: He came from Florida? Or the Caribbean? Or both? 


Broussard: I think maybe both. I'm not positive. You know, it's a 

situation where we had a good working relationship. I mean, I 
knew his family and everything, but I don't have a clear handle 
on his background. I think he may have gone to school back 
East. Columbia, or something like that? I'm not sure. 

Morris: Did he bring some Hispanic young men into the Men of Tomorrow, 
too? Was it cross-cultural? 

Broussard: No. No, it was not. We were a Black organization. 

Morris: There was also an organization called Community Services 

Broussard: Yes. The CSO is an Hispanic organization that he also was 
involved with and influential in. 

Morris: Did you do any work with that? 

Broussard: Not directly. It was primarily Hispanic. You know, I'm not 

saying they didn't have any non-Hispanics in their membership, 
but just as Men of Tomorrow was primarily black, with some 
exceptions, CSO was primarily Hispanic, and maybe with some 
exceptions. The unique thing about Evelio was that he had his 
foot in both camps and was very instrumental and had a 
significant influence in each of the two organizations. 

Morris: Do you remember the two organizations getting together on any 

Broussard: Oh, we may have cooperated and coordinated with them on some of 
our community activity, and even to some extent, maybe more in 
the political arena. Because the East Bay Democratic Club did 
have a good contingency of support from the Hispanic community, 
as contrasted to the Men of Tomorrow. Jimmy Delgadillo and a 
whole group of Hispanics worked with us in the East Bay 
Democratic Club, but we all worked together in the East Bay 
Democratic Club. Again, largely Evelio 's influence. 

Morris: How about Asian leadership or interest in politics? 

Broussard: Oh, I would think that came laterwhere there was any real 
coordinated effort reaching out to the Asian community. I 
would say that was considerably later. 

Senator Nick Petris and Assemblyman Byron Rumford Coordinate 

Morris: How about people like Nick Petris? Was he somebody you had 
contact with? He went into the assembly pretty early. 

Broussard: Yes. Nick was in the assembly and then in the senate. He was 
traditionally supported by our club, and even when we got a 
second senator in Alameda County, Nick and Byron coordinated so 
that they would not have to compete against each other. So we 
were in a position where we could support both of them. Nick 
traditionally had the support of the wing of the Democratic 
party that I worked with. 

Morris: Was there a question as to which seat Nick would run for and 
which seat Byron Rumford would run for when they both ran for 
the senate in 1962? 

Broussard: Obviously, you had two seats, one in the short term, and one in 
the long term. And if you had two people interested in running 
for senate, they would have to have some accommodation or some 
competition as to who would run for what seat. And they worked 
it out. If I remember correctly, I think Nick may have run for 
the short term because he did not want to have to run when the 
governor was running. And I think that's the way he worked it 

Morris: He didn't want to run with Pat Brown? 

Broussard: Well, it would leave Nick free to seek a statewide office 
without risking his seat. I think that's the way that was 
worked out. So that initially you would think that whoever was 
running would want the long term. I think Byron ran for the 
long term and Nick ran for the short term because it gave Nick 
the luxury of not having to run for reelection at the same time 
as the governor or other statewide officeholders were running. 

Morris: Was there some serious thought of running Nick for a state-wide 

Broussard: I think Nick has considered the possibility of running for a 

state-wide office generally at various times, and possibly even 
with the thought of running for governor. Where it wasn't 
anticipated that Byron would ever be running for a change; I 
know he wasn't a lawyer. And it wasn't anticipated he'd be 
running for governor. So I'm quite certain that's the way it 
was worked out. 

Morris : 








I remember that that was a disappointing campaign for Byron. 
For Byron it was, yes. 

At the time, was there any thought there could have been 
changes in the way the campaign was run that might have made it 
a clearer victory? So that the result would not have been 
challenged in the courts? 

Well, I don't know so much that it was the way the campaign was 
run. Byron was convinced that there was some chicanery 
involved in the election result. That's why he pursued that 
litigation. And I think Byron remained convinced that there was 
some unfairness in that election and it left him kind of bitter 
there for a while. I think it was more that than it was a 
concern about how the campaign was run. 

The controversy was over a fairly small number of votes. 
Yes. Well, it was close, it was close. 

In your experience working on campaigns , was there much 
evidence that there were election irregularities? Was that 
anything that the Democratic Club was concerned about? 

What year was this? 

Let's see. And Byron filed suit on that--. I'm trying to 
recapture that, because for some reason, I don't think I was as 
intimately involved as some of the other people. We had 
certainly been involved in Byron's campaign. And his opponent 



Lewis Sherman from Berkeley, 
elective office. 

It was Sherman's first try for 

Broussard: Lewis wound up being a fairly moderate Republican and a pretty 
popular guy, and was a surprisingly strong candidate. I can't 
add much more than that Byron undertook personally to explore 
the manner in which the votes were handled. And really 
involved himself in that very, very personally and very, very 
intimately and deeply, almost to exclusion of some of the rest 
of us. So I don't have any real in-depth knowledge or 
understanding of just what went on. 


Thoughts on Justice Thurgood Marshall's Retirement; Race 

Morris: I wondered if you'd like to maybe take a minute out of context 
and tell me if you ever worked with Thurgood Marshall, if your 
paths crossed at all in some of the bench and bar activities, 
since he announced his retirement today. 

Broussard: Well, we never really worked intimately together. I had met 
him at NAACP and other activities, but I would doubt that 
Marshall would know me personally other than his association of 
my name with some of the work that I've done on this court. 
Again now, because of the fact that I went on the bench as 
early as I did, I did not have many occasions to work with him 
personally. I was really saddened by his retirement. 

Morris: I wonder if his decisions on the supreme court had been of 
interest to you, and if they'd been useful to you in your 
thinking . 

Broussard: Oh, I've been very, very delighted by the fact that several 
national publications have sort of compared me to him. They 
called me "the Thurgood Marshall of the West," or something 
like that. No, I think that our views have been essentially 
similar. We have pursued the same goals and objectives in the 
main. Certainly his work is something that I would look to for 
guidance. I have a tremendous respect for him. He made just 
an outstanding contribution over a very long period of time. 
But I'm sure that, in addition to age and health, the sense of 
frustration with the direction in which things are going on the 
supreme court had to have played some part in his decision to 
step down now. 

Morris: The San Francisco Chronicle certainly gave him some fine 
coverage in this morning's paper. 1 I was looking for one 
quote. Oh, Paul Gewirtz, a law professor at Yale University, 
said, "Here's someone who grows up in a society with a 
ruthlessly pervasive racism and who imagines a radically 
different world and then goes about bringing it into being..." 
Would you say that kind of characterizes the way Justice 
Marshall went about things? 

' "Marshall Was Isolated as Court Moved Slowly to the Right," Neil A. 
Lewis, June 28, 1991, A18. 


Broussard: Well, he's the grandson of a slave, and certainly has lived the 
Black experience. And as Marshall himself said--if I can get 
it correctly--he was asked how would he like to be remembered. 
He said, "As someone who did the best with what he had," or, 
"the most with what he had." I think that that's an 
understatement, but a true statement. I mean, here's a man who 
just rose to the very top and made tremendous contributions 
despite having been rejected at the law school of his choice 
and having been reared the grandson of a slave. 

An interesting thing is that, when I think of his life and 
I think of mine, sometimes I wonder why I never grew up to be a 
hater. And I wonder the same thing about him. There were many 
things in my background which could have caused me to hate 
white people. Growing up in Louisiana where everything was 
segregated in law and in fact, I had a lot of personal conflict 
because of my race and my religion. It would have been easy 
for me to hate people who were different from me, but for some 
reason that has not happened. I have race and ethnic pride, 
but I don't have bitterness and animosity. I have tried to work 
effectively for individual fairness and justice and equality. 
But not from a hate base. 

And as someone said--Wilmont Sweeney, I think, on 
television last nightMarshall took the tools that society 
provided, to try to improve the society for people of color. 
And he worked entirely within the system in a most effective 
way. I have a tremendous admiration for that. 

Morris: Do you think it was something maybe in your experiences in the 
Catholic church that gave you an alternative to hating? 

Broussard: That's possible. Yes, that's possible. We did have most of 

our instructors were white. They were nuns. The lay people 
were black. I've never really dwelled on trying to figure what 
prevented me from being a hater. But I can tell you that, in 
looking back on my own life, some of the things that I told you 
yesterday when we were talking- -about having to fight my way 
back to school in the morning and fight way my home for lunch 
at noon, and the one I didn't tell you when you asked me about 
any whites in the neighborhood- -could have made me a hater. 

We lived at the corner of Mill and Shattuck. And Mill 
street was paved, Shattuck was not. Our home was right at the 
end of the pavement. And then for the next two or so blocks 
you had dirt streets with Black families. Then beyond that you 
had a little section that we called "Fisherville" , which had a 
population of relatively poor whites. And when they would come 


with their skates to skate on our sidewalks [chuckles], we'd 
put on our skates and run them back to Fisherville. I told you 
we lived right across from the public high school, and of 
course, we had cement walkways and stuff like on the 
schoolgrounds . So it was an ideal place to come and skate for 
people in the boonies, where you didn't have paved sidewalks or 
anything like that. But there was this whole air of hostility 
--"This is our sidewalk!" 

We had a heck of a battle to try to get them to pave any 
street in the Black community. What they did, they paved it, 
and they paved it at an elevation that was so low, and they put 
inadequate storm gutters, so that any time it rained, we had to 
go to school with hip boots. At least knee-high boots, to walk 
across the street. Mill Street would flood because everything 
drained in the middle of the street; the drains were not 
adequate to clear away the water. 

So it was an environment where there was a lot of 
hostility between one group and the next. As I said to you 
yesterday, some of it was within the Black race, and some of it 
was between Blacks and whites, and then some of it was between 
religious groups, and some of it was between fair-skinned and 
dark-skinned Blacks, and you know--. 

Morris: Did you find the same sense of hostility when you got to the 
Bay Area in any of the communities you had contact with? 

Broussard: No, as I indicated yesterday, you were not coerced into 

separation. But there was a comfort zone. When I went to City 
College, which was the first school that I attended here, I 
found comfort initially with the fact that there the minority 
enrollment, and the Black enrollment especially, was relatively 
new to City College. The school was a growing school because 
of what was happening in the Bay Area, and a lot of the growth 
was caused by Blacks who were relatively new in California. 
And it was easier to develop relationships and friendships, and 
we sort of clung together, and we partied together on weekends 
and stuff like that. 

Morris: Black kids and white kids? 

Broussard: Black kids primarily. Then as I began to get a little active 
in student government and stuff like that, I made other 
contacts, other friendships. You developed some in your 
classroom work. But it was always a little easier to develop a 
personal, friendly relationship with someone else who was 
black. And it was just a comfort zone; it wasn't any legal 


obligation or requirement. We were all in the same school, but 
there's no question that the historical separation made it much 
easier to be comfortable with someone else who was more like 



Attorneys George Vaughns and Thomas Berkley 

Morris: How about when you started to practice law? You mentioned 

something yesterday about it didn't seem appropriate to go to 
work for Tom Berkley, even though he was already established as 
an attorney. 

Broussard: Oh, that was just simply that to me Berkley had an operation 
which I didn't really think I needed. Tom had associates in 
his office. He generally produced the business, and he had 
people in his office who would do the law work. I had the 
roots in the Berkeley community and the East Bay community, 
which I thought would enable me to produce my own work and 
generate business. And that I would be better off somewhere 
else where there was a better opportunity and more of a need 
for me to make-- 

Morris: Make your own name? 

Broussard: --yes, make my own name, generate my own clientele, rather than 
being an associate in Thomas L. Berkley and Associates. So it 
was just simply that. And Tom and I would talk every other 
day. We understood that. But he was such a dynamic person and 
had a whole vision about the law that he was out there 
generating business that no one person could handle. At the 
very beginning, Tom Berkley had Clint White, Terry Francois, 
Joe Kennedy, Hugh [Goodwin?], Charlie Wilson. And others. 

Morris : All those men worked with him? 

Broussard: Yes. Because there were only a couple of places where a Black 
law school graduate could go and have the benefit of an 
established office. One was George Vaughns and his operation, 
the other was Tom Berkley and his operation. But after a 
while, each of those people ventured out into their own 


operation. And I don't say this critically, but Tom's office 
then became more of a place where the associates were people 
who were competent lawyers, but who perhaps did not have the 
same motivation or ability to go out and develop their own 
individual practices, their own clientele. 

By the time I came out of the service, I was looking 
forward to going into private practice. I thought that I would 
be better off going somewhere where I would be expected to know 
my own clientele. 

Morris: How did George Vaughns' vision of the law differ from Tom 

Broussard: George was an older person, and a longer, earlier beginning in 
the law. I like to tell one war story. When I was in the 
office with George Vaughns, if Sweeney or I would complain 
about the financial arrangements or what we were being 
compensated, George says, "You shouldn't complain." He says, 
"When I started out in the practice of the law, I would come 
home from work, and my wife would say, 'Well, how did it go 
today, George?'" And he'd say, "Oh, I had a good day today. I 
had a five-dollar case and two small ones." [chuckles] 

Morris: A five-dollar case and two small ones? Oh, my. 

Broussard: Yes. George had an office in which there was almost always 

another lawyer or two. At one time, Tom Berkley. At one time, 
John Bussey. But Tom was just much more aggressive, much more 
of an outgoing personality. Much more aggressive in his effort 
to build his practice. He really set out, initially, to be a 
large personal-injury operation. And just pursued it 
aggressively, with a very outgoing personality and a lot of 
energy and drive, to develop sources of business. 

Morris: Did he start the Post newspapers? Or were they already in 
existence and he bought them from somebody? 

Broussard: I think he bought the Post newspapers. I think it was 
primarily for the press. I'm not positive. See, the 
California Voice was already in existence. E.A. Daly owned 
that at that time. 1 I believe when Tom Berkley bought the 

'See Daly interview on the Oakland Black community in the 1920s and 
1930s in Perspectives on the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, 
vol. 2, Earl Warren Project, Regional Oral History Office, University of 
California, Berkeley, 1973. Interview recorded by Joyce Henderson in 1971. 


Post, what he bought primarily was the plant. He put out the 
Post and then he started putting out different regional 
editions of it. 

Joining Wilson, Metoyer & Sweeney Firm 

Morris: Did you do much in the way of civil rights or pro bono law 

Broussard: I guess the traditional way for a young Black lawyer to make 
himself--and I say "himself" because there were only a couple 
of women at that time- -known in the community was to get 
involved in what was going on in the community. And very 
largely, that was the NAACP, Urban League, and politically, and 
in the various organizations that serviced the community. 
There were your medical groups, if you got involved with them 
and got known by some of the doctors, that was a source of 
business sometimes. 

But, frankly, the way to develop as a lawyer was to 
involve yourself in whatever was going on in the community and 
in the community outreach. The most effective community 
outreach was generally political, whether it be partisanlike 
in my case, a Democrator nonpartisan in the efforts we were 
engaged in, in both Oakland and in Berkeley to encourage 
greater minority involvement, or whether it would be through 
civil rightsthe NAACP. So I think just about every young 
lawyer took part in something like that. 


Morris: Were you actually pursuing legal matters for the NAACP? Were 
there some cases that were being brought that your firm--? 

Broussard: You remember how the NAACP worked primarily. I mean, you had 
local branches and then you had a West Coast regional office 
and then you had the legal defense part of it; it was the 
NAACP. And any major litigation would be undertaken by the 
national or the regional office and their own group of staff 
attorneys. You might file the legal briefs, or something like 
that, but at the branch level you wouldn't get involved in 
major litigation. You might get involved in protest work and 
stuff like that, but not much else, unless Franklyn Williams 
was out here on the West Coast at that time. So we were 


involved with the NAACP, but not often directly litigating 
cases on behalf of the association. 

Morris : Did you ever think about going to work for the Urban League or 
the NAACP? 

Broussard: No, I was always more intent on doing my own practice. That's 
all my role wasbeing a private practitioneruntil the 
opportunity to go on the bench came along. And that was a 
tough decision for me at the time. I never really pursued any 
job as a lawyer. I didn't work with the NAACP or the Urban 
League, and I told you when my law school did call to inquire 
as to whether or not I was interested in working for Kaiser- - 
Kaiser Steel, I think it was, or Kaiser Aluminum in Fontana--! 
was not interested in being employed as a lawyer. 

Getting Married, 1959 

Morris: When did you feel secure enough as a professional person to get 
married and start a family? You'd done that earlier on. 

Broussard: Well, I was married in 1959. I'll never forget the planning 
sessions that I had with Odessa, because I really was not 
making very much money, and we had to sit down and project our 
incomes and our plans to see whether or not we could afford to 
get married. Fortunately, we thought we could afford it, that 
we wanted to; and we did, and it's been a beautiful 
relationship. But, in 1959 I had just started with Wilson, 
Metoyer, and Sweeney. I had left Vaughns, Dixon, and White. 
And in the office arrangement with Wilson, Metoyer, and 
Sweeney, it was important that I generate money in order to 
make money, and we didn't have a very long history to look at, 
to see how my growth would develop. But I had enough 
confidence in my ability to grow and to develop. For the first 
couple of years or so she continued to work, until we started 
having children. 

Morris: Had you met in college? Or through community work? 

Broussard: We met largely because of the Men of Tomorrow. Odessa's family 
is from Cincinnati; she came here from Cincinnati. She came 
here with experience working in radio. When I met her, she was 
working at a radio station in San Francisco. I met her because 
the station offered the Men of Tomorrow some free air time. A 
committee from the Men of Tomorrow went over to the radio 


Morris : 


Morris : 


station to explore that opportunity with them and to make plans 
as to what segment of time and when and how we would use it. 
Odessa was working--! think that was KSAY. Looking at all those 
station changes, I think it was KSAY. And she was working at 
the station at that time and was what was called a traffic 

I did that job once, 
day's programs. 

You schedule advertisements into the 

Well, it was a strange term to me. I never understood what a 
traffic manager would do at radio stations until she finally 
explained it. 

But that's how I met her, and our relationship just slowly 
developed. We worked together on that committee and everything 
for a while. I learned that she was living in the East Bay, 
and we saw each other a few times, started dating. Our 
relationship just continued to grow. 

She'd come out here because of a job offer? 
with her family and then found a job? 

Or she ' d come out 

Odessa had been married before. She had a son. And I think 
she came out largely because of the overall job situation. She 
had experience in radio at Cincinnati. At that time I guess, 
in the Bay Area you had the phenomenon of one or two radio 
stations catering primarily to the black market, to Blacks as a 
market. And there was an exodus of people from Cincinnati. 
There was a whole bunch of people, many of whom I met but 
didn't know as well as she did, who came to the Bay Area in 
radio or in music and entertainment, many of whom she knew. 
She came out here with her son, and her younger brother joined 
her a little later. She essentially had him living with her 
while he was going through high school and later, after the 

More on Men of Tomorrow 

Morris: If a San Francisco station was offering the Men of Tomorrow 

radio time, it sounds as if there wasn't a similar organization 
for young black professional people in San Francisco. Is that 


Broussard: Well, you know, the Oakland Men of Tomorrow founded a chapter 

in San Francisco. Founded a chapter in Los Angeles. Founded a 
chapter in Sacramento. And that may be it. I think today the 
only chapter that's still functioning is the Oakland chapter. 
We founded a chapter in San Francisco, but for some reason 
there always seemed to be more of a spirit of community and 
cohesiveness in the East Bay than there was in San Francisco. 
The Men of Tomorrow didn't thrive in San Francisco as it did in 
Oakland. It didn't survive in Los Angeles. While it's a 
little different in terms of its goals and its emphasis now, it 
still exists in Oakland. It's primarily attractive to younger 
business persons who still want to network and develop 
relationships and contact and communications with each other 
and with the broader community. 

Morris: Is there any parallel with the Junior Chamber of Commerce and 
the Kiwanis and other service clubs? 




Morris : 

What do I know about the Junior Chamber of Commerce or the 
Kiwanis? I've never belonged to any of them. 

Well, that's kind of what I'm asking, 
young black men in the early '60s? 

They were not open to 

Well, I know the Kiwanis wasn't, and I would doubt that the 
Junior Chamber was. I was just never a member of the junior or 
senior Chamber of Commerce. I was being somewhat facetious, 
but I imagine, yes, in a sense that's almost what the Men of 
Tomorrow was. It's just an opportunity to network, to come 
together, develop rapport, communications, contacts, to know of 
each other's existence and what they're doing in the community. 
And it wasn't much more than that. I mean, we deliberately 
made that organization an umbrella organization, where 
Republicans and Democrats could feel at home. All the real 
estate brokers could come; they weren't competing with each 
other, they were networking. The lawyers were coming and the 
doctors were coming, the independent business persons were 
coming. We were developing relationships and network and 

How many members, roughly? 

Well, most of the time our average weekly attendance would be 
fifty, sixty people. If we had a little more distinguished or 
better-known speaker, we might get closer to seventy- five. I 
don't remember exactly, but, numerically, to have an 
organization that's going to have fifty people at a luncheon 


meeting on a weekly basis, it'll include a couple of hundred in 
membership or something like that. 

Business Clients; Impact of Fair Employment Legislation 

Morris: As the law practice developed, what kind of cases did you find 
that you were particularly interested in or that were coming to 

Broussard: Well, first of all, when we got together in 1959, we had an 

office which had five lawyers in it. Wilmont Sweeney had the 
best background in criminal law. Carl Metoyer had the best 
background in family. I tended to have a general business 
practice. We all did whatever personal-injury work we could 
get; personal injury sort of was the backbone for an office. 
You did not have the kind of client where, when you sat at the 
desk and opened his file you turned the clock on because you 
billed on time, you see. Which is what the big commercial law 
firms were doingthey were billing on timewhile we couldn't 
bill like that. 

Personal injury was a very sought-after type of business. 
You tried to develop an exposure and contact where you could 
get that kind of work. But what we did within the office was 
never call it a specialization, I call it an emphasis. If I 
had access to a fairly heavy criminal case, Sweeney would 
handle it. I did routine criminal stuff, but the heavy stuff 
Sweeney would handle. I did small real estate people, small 
business, trying to develop some small corporate businesses. 

Morris: Helping people organize a business? 

Broussard: Yes, it takes some legal paperwork to start it, you know. Did 
family law stuff. If I had a complicated probate, I would 
either consult with or have Metoyer handle it. Then, within 
the office, we took one of our associates and referred to him 
all of the IAC--Industrial Accident Commissionworkers 
compensation stuff, and all the bankruptcy that we could get. 
So that he became proficient at and knowing in that practice. 
So we just sort of emphasized within our practice. I tended 
not to want to do the very heavy criminal work. I tried a 
couple of Transbay Federal Savings and Loan cases for a couple 
of real estate developers, and would liked to have grown in the 
area of general commercial or business practices, had I 
remained in private practice long. 


Morris: It sounds like that would give you a good view of how business 
was doing in the black community. Was it growing in those 
years that you were practicing law? 

Broussard: I missed your question. 

Morris: The growth of the black business community. 

Broussard: Yes, there was growth, there was growth then. I mean, in 

various areas, real estate especially. I guess I neglected to 
mention we represented some of the professional people in the 
community, toodoctors and dentists and others. Yes, there 
was a period of growth, because you had new professionals and 
newcomers to the community. And there was quite a bit of 
opportunity to grow. 

It's interesting, though; I remember that we used to sue 
Key System all the time. 

Morris: Really? 

Broussard: Oh, sure. They ran the transit system, and you had your slips 
and falls and people getting hurt on the bus, and accidents 
between buses and cars or passengers on the Key System bus or 
train getting hurt one way or the other. We were always suing 
them, but they'd never hire a black lawyer to defend them. 
None of the insurance companies who represented many of the 
people that we were suing, at that time they wouldn't hire 
black lawyers. There was no real place for a black lawyer 
except with other black lawyers , and certainly primarily a 
black clientele. 

Morris: And not, as you say, on both sides of the case. 
Broussard: That's right. 

Morris: Did the passage of the Fair Employment Practices legislation 
[in 1959] make a difference at all? 

Broussard: It made a tremendous difference, but not so much with 

professional employment. That made a difference with white- 
and blue-collar workers and laborers. I mean, the Fair 
Employment Practices Act was a very significant bit of 
legislation, but not because it impacted upon opportunities for 
doctors and lawyers. It impacted upon the work force. 

Morris: Did that new legal framework bring much job-discrimination 
business into your office? 


Broussard: No. Remember, the Fair Employment Practices Commission had its 
own enforcement system. It did not create legal work for us. 
As a matter of fact, they had their own enforcement mechanism, 
their own lawyers. Charlie Wilson of East Bay Democratic Club 
fame became general counsel to the Fair Employment Practices 

By providing an administrative remedy, it tended, if 
anything, to take business away from the courts and put it in 
an administrative setup. Except that, before the enactment of 
the law, you didn't have the same legal remedy available to 
you. It was very hard to sue on job discrimination before the 
Fair Employment Practices Act was enacted. But when it was 
enacted, it had an administrative setup which was designed to 
resolve most of the cases without ever getting into court. 
Although, they could issue a right-to-sue letter, which meant 
that you had exhausted the administrative remedies and then you 
could go to court. So, those cases started coming along after 
the first few years. 

Ford Foundation and Federal Government Grey Areas Programs to 
Develop Oakland's Potential 

Morris: Some of the reading I've done suggests that some people thought 
that Oakland was going to be the next city in which there were 
race riots, like Chicago and Watts in the early "60s. Did Men 
of Tomorrow have any of those concerns, and how did it happen 
that Oakland went through that period relatively peacefully? 

Broussard: It's hard to answer the question the way you put it. There 
were people- -not Men of Tomorrow- -there were a lot of people 
who viewed Oakland as a place where you might have a Watts-type 
experience. But as I was mentioning a minute ago, for some 
reason there was always a cohesiveness in Oakland that just 
prevented that from ever happening. 

It wasn't our concern, as members of the Men of Tomorrow, 
that Oakland was a powder keg and was going to blow. But we do 
think that because of what we and a lot of other people were 
doing in the community it never did blow. There were other 
people saying that Oakland was a powder keg, "Don't buy there, 
don't live there, don't work there, because it's likely to blow 
at any time." 

Morris: "Other people" being any Black people, or mostly white people? 


Broussard: Oh, you'd read it in the newspaper. 

Morris: Right. But, for instance, were the Knowlands and the Oakland 
Tribune among those who could have that kind of attitude? 

Broussard: Well, I can't remember. My impression or recollection was that 
this was more a national kind of image and publicity. I don't 
believe that people in Oakland were running around doom- saying. 

Morris: The reason I ask is that it looks like there have been several 
rescue Oakland campaigns. You know, the Ford Foundation put a 
lot of money into what was called the Grey Areas project to 
improve economic and social conditions in Oakland. And then in 
1964, probably just before you went on the bench, the Economic 
Development Agency put in a huge job development program. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, Oakland was just as often seen as a city that had 

potential; that's the way I viewed it. It's true that the Ford 
Foundation (and again with input from Evelio Grille) put money 
into Oakland. The concept of coordinated community services 
was a new concept at that time, again largely a product of the 
mind of Evelio Grille. Not him alone, but the whole concept of 
having combined community service centers. Ford helped fund 

Then along came the War on Poverty, and Lionel took on the 
mantle of chairing that in the Oakland Economic Development 
Council. [There was] urban renewal and rehabilitation and John 
Williams and all of his work in Oakland. Those are the things 
that it took to develop the potential of a community. And we 
had the phenomenon of so many urban projects where the center 
of the community was getting old and needed to be rejuvenated 
so that you could maintain an economic base. 

There's always been that big conflict about how much money 
you put in the neighborhoods as compared to downtown. But 
really, with the OEDC and with urban renewal and redevelopment, 
the feeling was that you had to preserve the core of the city, 
and rebuild the older housing in the city. And that older 
housing tended to be the housing that was closest to the core 
of the city. Fortunately, in Oakland we had the vision to 
attract some of the programs and to attract some people who 
helped to keep things going reasonably well and helped to keep 
the old powder keg from exploding. 

Morris: As you describe it, it sounds more like the availability of 

funds was seen as an opportunity, and people in the community 
put together committees to go after those funds rather than 

somebody from on high dropping them on Oakland like manna from 

Broussard: Well, yes. 1 wouldn't imagine the Ford Foundation looking down 
from on high saying, "Oakland is a powder keg. We better put 
some money there." You look and you say, "Here is someone who 
has an idea that seems to have potential that would make a 
contribution to his community. If it fits within our 
guidelines, we'll invest in this community," because of some 
concept, some program, something that somebody wants to do. 
And I just think that's the way things get done. 



A Change in Life Style 

Morris: When did you begin to think that you might be asked to go on 
the bench? 

Broussard: Oh, I guess about the time we knew Lionel was likely to be 
elevated. There were several of us who were under 
consideration. I think we anticipated that when Lionel would 
be elevated from the municipal court to the superior court that 
there would be someone from the black legal community who would 
replace him. 

I told you we had that little struggle there for a while. 
I had succeeded Lionel as the president of the East Bay 
Democratic Club when he'd gone on the muni bench, and had 
continued to work in that area. So finally Byron asked me if I 
was interested, and said he'd be willing to suggest my name to 
the governor. 

And, really, I just was beginning to make money in my 
practice. I was thirty-four years old, just had never really 
made money, but was beginning to make money. And if I'd had my 
druthers, I would have wanted to wait ten, fifteen years. But 
that, obviously, was not a realistic option. So, I talked it 
over with my wife, my parents, my family. And with Lionel and 
with Byron and others , and decided that it was an opportunity 
that I shouldn't pass up, and that I should indicate my 
willingness to accept if it was offered. And so the governor 
offered it to me, and I accepted it. I made a commitment to a 
different lifestyle. 

Morris: Was it Pat Brown himself, or was it Cecil Poole [his legal 
affairs aide] who talked to you about it? 

Broussard: No, the governor called me at my office. 


Morris: What kind of questions did you have or did he have? 

Broussard: Nothing! He called me just to advise me that he was offering 
me the appointment. I think that Byron Rumford and whoever 
else the governor looked to for advice had persuaded him that 
he should appoint me. He knew who I was. 

Unlike when I came on the supreme court, it was not a 
matter of sitting down with the governor and having him 
interrogate me and interview me. In 1964, I was alerted that I 
might get a call from the governor, and he called my office and 
offered the appointment. And I accepted. 

Morris: You said it meant a change in your activities. 

Broussard: A total change in lifestyle. I had to drop much of my law 

work, and I had been a very, very busy young man working with 
every organization that I felt I could play a role in. When I 
went on the bench, my days were so much shorter, initially. I 
think that's probably why I began to involve myself in judicial 
organizational activities, because I had that prior experience 
before going on the bench. But many of the things I had done 
as a lawyer I could no longer appropriately do as a judge. 

Morris: Well, you mentioned Lionel Wilson taking on the chairmanship of 
the Economic Development. He was a judge by then. 

Broussard: He got a lot of criticism for it, too. 

Morris: Well, that was what I was going to ask you. And I think that 
Judge John Purchio chaired some committee for the Council of 
Social Planning. 

Broussard: After he was on the bench? 

Morris: It may have been right about the time he went on. 

Broussard: He was on the Metropolitan Planning Committee, or something 
like that, before he went on the bench. But when Lionel did 
that, it was out of a real sense of commitment to Oakland and 
its future. It was rather unprecedented for any sitting judge 
to take on that kind of a responsibility. He was criticized 
for it by a lot of people, but he was determined to do it. So, 
it was a real commitment; he was tremendously involved. I 
mean, he made a real sacrifice to do both jobs, to work as a 
judge and as head of the War on Poverty. But it was not with 
the approval of everyone. 


Morris: He seems to relish that kind of political controversy. 

Broussard: Well, I think Lionel, from an earlier age, really had a sense 
of commitment to Oakland. While he went on the bench, I think 
that he nurtured the idea of being the mayor of Oakland or a 
significant leader in the Oakland community for a long time. 
And I think that-- 


Broussard: And he'd get inspired to do something significant for Oakland, 
and that certainly was a real significant role that he played. 
And so he was willing to do it at some personal sacrifice of 
time, energy and effort, and at the risk of some criticism of 
his involvement while a member of the bench. See, Lionel 
Wilson had a realistic opportunity to be appointed to the Court 
of Appeals. And that may not have ended there. But, he opted 
out to run for mayor. He just had that dedication and 
commitment . 

Morris: The War on Poverty committee put him in a position to really be 
working in an interracial setting. 

Broussard: Oh, yes. Yes, he was involved in virtually everything that was 
going on in the city of Oakland, in the efforts to improve the 
quality of life for all of its citizens, primarily for those 
who were poor or black. 

Morris: I hadn't heard before that there were challenges to his being 
chairman. I was aware that the committee took a lot of heat 
from Sacramento and from the federal Economic Opportunity 
Organization. There seemed to be serious differences of 
opinion as to how the money was spent and what the plans were. 

Broussard: Oh, that's the internal things. I'm not talking about that, 
I'm just simply talking about for Lionel--. Remember, I made 
the statement that when I went on the bench I had to commit to 
a different lifestyle. You mentioned Lionel in that role that 
he played, and I'm just saying that there were those who 
thought it was inappropriate for him to assume that leadership 
role while a member of the bench. But I'm not going into the 
internal politics about where the funding came from and how it 
was used. 


Center for Judicial Education and Research 

Morris : 



Broussard : 

How did you go about preparing yourself to be a judge once you 
were appointed to the municipal court? Is there some kind of 
training or orientation for being a judge? 

In Califor La, we have admittedly the best continuing judicial 
educational program of any state in the country. It was not in 
place in 1964. The short story is that at the time I became a 
judge, and maybe even today, the best route to becoming a judge 
is to try to develop a reputation for being a good lawyer, and 
to have a good relationship with the governor or someone who is 
very close to the governor. I guess that's still the key to 
becoming a judge. As I say, I wouldn't have become a judge if 
Byron Rumford had not recommended me to the governor; at least, 
I wouldn't have become a judge at that time. 

What has happened in California is that we have now 
developed a good judicial educational system. I have been 
involved in that over the years . They have a whole range of 
educational opportunities, starting with a buddy systemwhen a 
new judge comes on, we tie him up with a "buddy" judge who has 
some experience, someone on the same court if it's a multi- 
judge court, but in any case someone close by. We have audio 
tapes on orientation that are available to the new judge. And 
we have a new judges orientation program, which is a one week 
in-residence kind of training. 

All of this now is under the aegis of the Center for 
Judicial Education and Research [CJER] , which is a joint 
venture between the Judicial Council and the California Judges' 
Association. There again, another example somewhat paralleling 
what we were talking about with Oakland: the Center for 
Judicial Education and Research first started out with Ford 
Foundation money. 


Well, they had started out with Ford money, then we got federal 
government money, and then ultimately were able to convince the 
legislature that they should fund our judicial educational 
program through the budget of the Judicial Council, 
administrative office of the court. 

Morris : 

How long did it take to develop? 

That sounds like quite a 


Broussard: Let's see. CJER was organized late in '72. I was president of 
the California Judges' Association '72- '73. The governing 
board of CJER consists of eight people; four of whom are the 
designees of the California Judges Association, four are 
designated by the Chief Justice as chair of the Judicial 
Council. I designated the first four Judges' Association's 
representatives, so that was in early '73. I think we had 
three years of Ford Foundation support. LEAA was what I was 
trying to think of. 

Morris: Oh, right. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. 

Broussard: Yes. I think we had three years of LEAA support. If my memory 
is correct, then we began to get the public financing through 
the legislature. The Judges' Association had started what 
really was a showcase of all judicial educational programs in 
the state then when that was the Trial Judges College. It's a 
two-week residency program where judges are taught by judges. 
And gradually CJER assumed a major role for staffing and 
planning and sponsoring that activity. And then, even beyond 
thatsee that? [points] 

Morris: That marvelous soft sculpture sitting on your window sill? I 
thought that might have a story. 

Broussard: Yes, if you'll look at it, it says, "To Justice Allen 

Broussard, California Supreme Court, Founder of CJS Program." 
CJS is Continuing Judicial Studies Program. After our Trial 
Judges Colleges were established and recognized as doing an 
outstanding jobbut primarily for judges within the first 
year, year and a half of their judicial careerwe started 
trying a plan for what we called "mid-career" judges. 

Morris: This is after people had been on the bench for five or ten 

Broussard: After people had been on the bench for some years, and 

particularly if they were undergoing changes in assignments, 
like from civil to criminal or whatever. And then there was 
another competing interest, too. We all felt that after judges 
were on the bench for a while, they needed an opportunity to 
sit back and look at the forest instead of just individual 
trees . I happened to chair the planning committee that 
developed the plans for our continuing judicial studies 
program. One of the things that we wrestled with was whether 
the graduate program under the continuing judicial studies 
program should be advanced bread and butter courses, or whether 
it ought to be jurisprudence and the humanities. 



There were those who said that counties wouldn't pay for 
judges to go to a school if all they were going to do was talk 
about philosophy and jurisprudence, and there were others who 
said that's what judges needed, and they could get advanced 
training and experience other kinds of ways . We recognized 
that there was a need for those, and what we really did was to 
develop a program that encompassed both. So we have, in the 
same time frame, advanced study in various subject areas, 
running parallel to the jurisprudence and humanities. The 
second thing that we did that has been very significant and has 
impacted upon our other educational programs was that, in the 
main, the teaching techniques which had been employed were 
lecture and small discussion groups. 

Like law school. 

Sort of, yes. We really developed a participatory teaching- 
learning technique where judges were called upon to participate 
in the teaching and learning process, and to do peer review, 
and to do demonstrations, and to have mock proceedings, and to 
use audio-visual aids, to critique each other. We had some 
professional help to help teach judges how to teach, not in a 
lecture series, but in a demonstration participatory teaching- 
learning technique. That program has gotten a lot of 
recognition across the country. 

Conference of California Judges, Leadership and Controversies 

Morris: Did it grow out of your sense that you felt kind of at sea when 
you were first on the municipal court? 

Broussard: No. I got involved in what was already a developing judicial 

educational program. I can't claim that much credit for any of 
this. All that 1 know is that when I came out of practice and 
went on the bench, I found myself in a situation where I was 
not as busy as I had been previously. And so after a little 
while, I got involved in judicial activitiesorganizational 
activities. And we go back a bit in history then. 

You see, it was then the Conference of California Judges, 
which is now the California Judges' Association. It was an 
organization to which 95 or 98 percent of all judges in 
California belonged. I joined and then began activity on one 
committee and then another, and began to get more and more 
interested in and involved in the organization. There were 


some other reasons, too. I developed the realization that in 
many instances, the judges that I would come into contact with 
through the Judges' Association had never had any exposure to a 
black judge before. 

Morris: I was wondering about that, yes. 

Broussard: Yes. And through the association, I was able not only to get 
to know them, but in essence, almost be a role model. 

Morris: For other black judges or for white judges? 

Broussard: Well, to give white judges the experience of working with a 
black judge whom they had to respect, who could achieve a 
leadership role, who could help teach, who could help to 
govern. And so I was elected to the executive board of the 
then Council of California Judges, and then became secretary- 
treasurer, and then became president. At that time, I think 
one of the real big issues that the conference was facing was 
the feeling of municipal court judges that they were being 
treated as second-class judges. 

Morris: Why was that? 

Broussard: Well, because almost all of the leadership of the association, 
almost all of its attention, was devoted to problems that 
affected superior court judges, and to some extent, appellate 
judges. Very few municipal court judges felt that they had a 
real opportunity to be involved, or that their interests were 
really primary. If you'll remember that in '72 or thereabouts, 
the Judicial Council had commissioned the Booz Allen Hamilton 

Trial court unification was very much in the air then, as 
it is now. But it was a very controversial subject, with 
municipal court judges in the main being in favor of unifying 
the trial courts into one court, and with superior court judges 
in the main being opposed to it. And that issue was about to 
divide the Judges' Association. 

A lot of this was during my time both as secretary- 
treasurer and as president. We had to fight hard to keep the 
association together. I was the forty-third president of the 
then-Conference of California Judges, but I was only the third 
municipal court judge ever to be president of the association. 
All of the other presidents had been either superior or 
appellate court judges. 


Morris: Even though there are many times more municipal judges than 
there are-- 

Broussard: Well, there are not many times more. There were a lot of 

reasons for it. A part of it is that, I guess, the superior 
court judges in the main have been on the bench a little 
longer. That's a generalization, too; it's not always true. 
But there was a real unrest among municipal court judges, that 
they were not given a fair shake by the association in its 
organization and its internal politics and its external 
policies, and everything. It was significant that I was the 
first Black and I was the third muni court judge to be 
president. And while I haven't done any exact study on it, I 
think I probably was the youngest judge to be elected 

A lot of my motivationwell, I've always been an 
organizationally-oriented person. I was mindful of the fact 
that in California you had about a half-dozen black judges in 
Los Angeles, two in Alameda County, a little later on one and 
then two in San Francisco. And that was about it. So it was 
pioneering in a lot of ways. I like to think that it was a lot 
easier for a lot of other Blacks not only to become judges, but 
to be accepted and respected as judges, because of some of the 
work that I was able to do. 

Judicial Appointments and Evaluation 

Morris: Is your sense that the existing body of judges in an area have 
a fair amount of input into who else is appointed to the bench 
in that area? Does the collegiality extend that far? 

Broussard: Are you asking me whether or not I think the judges have a lot 
to say about who gets to be judges? 

Morris: Right. Are they part of the process of making recommendations 
and consultation as to who gets appointed to the bench? 

Broussard: No. I've told you, I think it's much more personal and 

political than that. I don't think that the superior court 
bench in Alameda County has a lot to say about who fills a 
vacancy on the bench in Alameda County. I think it's the 
political leaders, who are people who have rapport with the 
governor, who determine who fills a vacancy. 


Morris: Well, I know that various governors have conferred with the bar 

Broussard: Oh, sure, sure. 

Morris: And kind of cleared their nominations through them. 

Broussard: Oh, it's by law now. The governor has to submit any name to 
the Jenny Commission--the Judicial Nominees' Evaluation 
Commission. So by law there is input from the organized bar. 
But the process doesn't depend very largely on any organized 
opinion of the local bench. The names that the governor 
submits to the Jenny Commission--. Of course, so much of this 
has changed now. You know, when I first went on the bench, you 
didn't go through a process of applying. And right now, it's 
just known that with at least the last two or maybe three 
governors, that if you really want to be considered for a 
judgeship, you apply. 

Morris: Including a resume? 

Broussard: Yes. A PDQ--a personal data questionnaire is what you're 

expected to complete and to submit. But then, from among the 
people who apply, those who get favorable attention from the 
governor are generally those who have some political clout 
going for them. 

Is that better than the days when, if you really wanted to be a 
judge, you had to go to your local assemblyman or party 
committee and say--? 

Oh, I think it's still very much the same. I just think that 
the concept of the written application is--it is new, but it is 
just another rink around the system. Now, what I think is 
different is the legal requirement for an evaluation, where at 
all levels, the Jenny Commission has the opportunity to rate a 
candidate a potential nominee. 

Morris: And that's as a committee of the Judicial Conference? 

Broussard: No, it's a clone of the state bar board of governors. The 

membership of the Jenny Commission now, I think, is prescribed 
by law. And the law also requires that the governor submit the 
name of anyone who's being considered as a nominee to a 
judicial position to that commission, and they do a background 
study and evaluation, and report to the governor as to whether 
any person is viewed as not qualified, qualified, well- 
qualified, exceptionally well-qualified. 




Morris: So it's the bar association that does that evaluation. 

Broussard: Yes. Let's see. The genesis of this commission was with the 
state bar. The state bar had been doing this evaluation, and 
it was an imposition on them. Then the state bar created and 
appointed people to the Jenny Commission. But it became almost 
a clone of the state bar at that time. The legislature then 
stepped in and required the existence of the Jenny Commission, 
regulated the composition. I think the legislature makes some 
appointments, the governor makes some appointments, the state 
bar makes some appointments. 

Morris: Technically it is freestanding? 

Broussard: Yes, yes, it is. I was talking to the past Jenny Commission, 

and I should have explored that with them. I'm not 100 percent 
sure of the relationship between the state bar and the Jenny 
Commission now. But it was also intended to build in a time- 
gap in the appointment process, so that we wouldn't get a 
repetition of what happened when Jerry Brown left the state for 
a little while and Mike Curb made an appointment. A big 
question was as to whether or not the lieutenant governor had 
the authority to appoint in the absence of the governor. 
Ultimately, they said that he did, but the governor had the 
authority to withdraw the appointment when he returned to the 
state. And then in order to assure that there would be some 
delay in the process, the legislature ultimately required an 
evaluation by the Jenny Commission. 

That's how the process got formalized. You see, the state 
bar had been doing evaluations before. They had created this 
commission, to which they appointed members. Then when the 
legislature stepped in to formalize the process and to build in 
the delay, they provided for the composition of the commission. 
It's all regulated by statute now, even though I'm not sure of 
the exact details. 

Morris: Have the judicial committees in the assembly and the senate 
been helpful in developing these ideas for judicial 
organizations? Do you have to go and tell them what is needed? 
Or are they up with the issues and making suggestions? 

Broussard: Well, the instance in which Mike Curb made that appointment was 
a cause celebre; it was widely known. And the legislature was 
obviously concerned with whether something could or should be 
done to obviate that kind of a situation in the future. Now, 
the way they operate, I imagine anybody could sponsor a bill 
and go out to various policy committees. And I'm sure it would 


be the judiciary committees in the assembly and the senate; it 
would be the policy committee that would consider any of the 
various proposals that could be directed by that situation. 
But that one just was catapulted to the forefront of 
everybody's attention. 

Spurgeon Avakian and Other Buddy Judges 

Morris: Who did you look to on the municipal court in Oaklandwhen you 
were appointed for some advice and guidance yourself in 
sitting on the bench? 

Broussard: Interestingly enough, I looked more to the superior court. To 
Lionel and to Sparky [Spurgeon] Avakian, who was my buddy judge 
when I went onto the court. I was on the muni court, but 
Sparky was my buddy judge. 

I see. So already when you went on the muni court, you were 
assigned a buddy. 

No, we hadn't developed the program through CJER yet. But I 
sort of adopted Sparky. 

You adopted Sparky? 

Yes, right, right. And let's see. The presiding judge when I 
went on our court was Homer Buckley. The court was in a 
situation where several of its members were [Pat] Brown 
appointees and others were [Governor Earl] Warren appointees, 
and we were learning to work together. 

Morris: Even though some of them had been on the bench quite a while? 

Broussard: Yes. One of the things that happened to the muni court while I 
was there was that traditionally, each judge had an assignment, 
and that judge tended to take care of the court to which he was 
assigned. When some of the newer judges started coming onto 
the muni court, we started working almost like a law firm. If 
I finished my calendar early today, I would check and see if 
the court next door or on the next floor had a long calendar, 
and whether or not I could help. And we just started operating 
a lot differently, with much more of an interchange of work and 
willingness to help each other. It was almost like a law firm. 




Everybody just chipped in to get the day's work done. One 
day I would have a calendar that would blow up, and I'd help 
somebody else. And they'd help me if the next day I had a 
calendar where everybody wanted to go to trial. I started out 
having traffic trials. The next day I'd have a calendar where 
everybody wanted to go to trial, and I would be so thankful 
when someone would phone and say, "Can we help you?" And I'd 
say, "Well, come to traffic trials." 

Morris: Sort of on the spot, on that day? 
Broussard: Sure. 

Morris: Was the decision to move in this more cooperative way because 
there were several new people at the same time? 

Broussard: No, I think we were just generally a younger, more aggressive 
group of people who just did things a little differently. I 
know--. Yes, I'll let it go at that. 

Morris: Was Judge Avakian as interested as you seem to have been in 
finding some more effective ways to do business? 

Broussard: Avakian was one of the most respected judges in this county and 
in the state. He was always a progressive, sound-minded 
person, and he did involve himself in activities both through 
the California Judges' Association and the Judicial Council. 
So he was always interested in improving the bench and the way 
things were done. 

Morris: He had a reputation, before he was appointed to the bench, as 

being very much of a social activist. In Berkeley, he had been 
chairman of a big committee on school integration and things 
like that. 

Broussard: He'd been on the school board. 
Morris: Right. 

Broussard: And had been active in Berkeley community politics, and viewed 
as a liberal. 

Morris: Was that visible in how he handled cases on the bench? 

Broussard: Well, you know, when you're a judge, you have to abide by the 



Morris: I was asking if one could tell that Judge Avakian was a liberal 
by how he handled cases on the bench? 

Broussard: Well, that's just kind of a funny question. Sparky was a 

liberal, but he was an excellent judge. He was respected by 
the prosecution and the defense, and by the plaintiff and 
defense bar and civil society. He was a very respected judge. 
And a progressive judge in terms of his attitude about judicial 
administration and organization. 

Trial Assignments 

Morris: Were there any particular kinds of cases that you found more 
satisfying or more troublesome on the municipal court? 

Broussard: Well, on the muni court, almost everybody is doing either 

traffic or criminal. Except for the time that I was presiding 
judge, I almost always sat in the criminal department or jury 
trial department. You would pick civil juries, civil law and 
jury. I guess the most challenging assignment generally was 
when you were in a felony court, where you have preliminary 
examinations on felony matters and you have the opportunity to 
maybe dispose of some of the cases and to deal in some of the 
more serious cases that the muni court judges are ever exposed 

I liked to sit in the criminal courts. But I liked civil 
law the most when I had the opportunity to do that as a 
presiding judge. I've never been a specialist particularly. I 
would enjoy the muni court because I like people. While 
certainly you might prefer one assignment to anotheralmost 
all of us tried to get out of traffic arraignment as soon as we 
could. I liked the criminal side; I liked the civil side. 
But, as a muni court judge you spend most of your time doing 
the criminal stuff. 

Morris: How did you find the district attorney's office and the police 
department to work with? 

Broussard: I never had any particular problem working with the district 
attorney's office. I think in Alameda County we are blessed. 
Traditionally, we have had an outstanding district attorney's 
office, an outstanding public defender's office too. And I 
have not had any problems working with either one of them. I 
never was a judge who was challenged by either side. 1 think I 


was perceived as being fairly even-handed, with a little twist. 
But, you know, nothing that created any problems for me in 
terms of being able to handle the cases or being challenged by 
either side. The Citizens for Law and Order were more active 
than they are now. I was sometimes a target of some of their 
criticism, but that didn't bother me particularly. 

Morris: They're less active now than they were formerly? 

Broussard: I think so. At least, I'm less aware of their activity now 
than I was then. 

Morris: That's interesting, because in general we read in the papers 

that there has been a growing concern with law and order, more 
firm enforcing of--. 

Broussard: Oh, but I was just talking about whether or not that particular 
organization is as active as it was. Now, at least I don't 
hear about it as much, but it may be that I'm not a sitting 
judge in Alameda County. 

Responsibilities of a Presiding Judge 

Morris: You were presiding judge in '68. Is that a fairly speedy rise 
to presiding judge, or was that normal? 

Broussard: Well, at that time in the municipal court, you became a 

presiding judge in rotating seniority. It just depended upon 
how quickly the seats turned over. That practice has since 
changed. At that time, if you were the seniormost judge and 
you had never been presiding judge, then it was your time. And 
unless there was some reason why you might get rejected by the 
bench, it was expected that you'd be presiding judge. 

And by the time I went to the superior court, we'd really 
switched from that rotational system that they had had, and we 
were actually electing the presiding judge based upon the 
judge's interest in administration and the perception of the 
judge's ability to do a good job. That was an idea that the 
Judicial Council had been pushing; that the presiding judges 
should not rotate, that they should be selected on the basis of 
interest and ability. 

Morris: Does that mean that you would then serve as presiding judge of 
the superior court for more than one year? 


Broussard: You could be reelected, yes, as I was. I served a term and 

then I was reelected for a second term, then I was appointed to 
the supreme court in the middle of that second term. But, yes, 
we've had presiding judges who have served more than one term. 
I don't think anyone goes more than two, but that's because 
there are enough people who are interested in the position. 

Morris: What about people who stay on the superior bench for some time? 
Do a lot of people stay on the superior court until they 

Broussard: Oh, we have people the most senior judge on the Alameda County 
superior court right now is Stanley Golde, who has never wanted 
to be presiding judge. And there are others who serve and who 
just don't have that interest in administration or in being the 
presiding judge of the court. 

Morris: Does that mean that it comes around and some people are 

presiding judge two or three different times during the years 
that they are on that bench? 

Broussard: I don't think we've had anyone who has served for a couple of 

years and then a couple of years later served again. We've had 
people who have served at least two years. I don't think there 
has been anyone who has served three. And I don't believe 
we've ever had a presiding judge who served two separated terms 
as presiding judge. Although that could happen. Normally 
there are enough people who are interested in this that when 
you've served a couple of years, you go on to some other 
assignment and then someone who wants the opportunity to 
preside gets it. 

Morris: I would think it would add a lot to your workload, to be 
presiding judge. Is that true? 

Broussard: Oh, it adds a lot to your workload; it adds a lot to your 
stress level. 

Morris: Are you to some extent sort of mediating between differences of 
opinion or balancing out workloadthings like thatbetween 
your colleagues? 

Broussard: You're trying to see that the court system operates 

efficiently, that everyone is contributing. You have to deal 
with a lot of personalities; you have conflicts and differences 
that you have to try to deal with. In a sense, you're just a 
peer. You don't have any real clout or authority over anyone, 
except they've chosen you to be their presiding judge. It's up 


to you to try to get everybody to chip in and contribute as 
much as possible. 

I usually describe my role as presiding judge as sitting 
at the worktable in my chambers with my law clerk in front of 
me, trying to brief me on the afternoon law-and-motion 
calendar. Then the doorway to the courtroom would open, and my 
courtroom clerk would come in and say, "Judge, there are four 
lawyers out here with TROs [temporary restraining order] who 
want to talk to you." Then the doorway on the other end of the 
chambers would open and the court administrator or the jury 
commissioner would come in and say, "We've got a problem trying 
to set these jury trials, and we have a problem where we need 
your attention." And then the telephone would ring. And then 
the side door would open. The side door was a door that was 
used by virtually no one other than other judges. So, when the 
side door opened, in would come some judge who was mad about 
something. That's the way I pictured a lot of my days as 
presiding judge. 

Morris: As presiding judge, are you also supposed to sit on individual 
cases that need to be heard? 

Broussard: Well, you do more calendar management, where you sit on some 

short causes... All the motions were made in a calendar. You'd 
call the calendar in the mornings. So a lot of your time was 
spent doing administration. You wouldn't take on a two-week 
jury trial or anything like that. 

Morris: The judge who comes through the special judges' door, would 
come in in the middle of hearing a case? 

Broussard: This is when I'm in my chambers. 

Morris: Oh. But while you're in the middle of hearing a case, 
something would come up that he needed? 

Broussard: Well, that could happen. I mean, he'd just come any time he 
thought he wanted to get to you, and you were there. 

Morris: So you have to be accessible as presiding judge. 

Broussard: Well, as presiding judge, a lot of your work is done off the 

bench, in chambers. The job is defined in such a way that you 
spend a lot of your time doing administrative work and 
supervising the calendar, assigning cases out, handling all the 
law-and-motion matters, at least those that relate to 
calendaring. And dealing with temporary restraining orders, 
preliminary injunctions. 



[Date of Interview: January 16, 1992]f# 
Looking to the Supreme Court for Guidance 

Morris: Once you got to the superior court, did you find that the cases 
changed in complexity, or seriousness, or something of that 

Broussard: Oh, well, certainly. Yes. Sure. By definition, the municipal 
court is a court of limited jurisdiction. You're handling 
misdemeanor matters, and you're handling civil matters with a 
cap on what you can recover, presently twenty- five thousand 
dollars. And in a sense, some of the more serious matters that 
you're handling in the court are felonies at the preliminary 
examination stage. But when you go to the superior court, 
you're in a court of general and unlimited jurisdictions. 
You're dealing with death cases, and multimillion-dollar cases, 
and family law cases and juvenile cases. 

It's a whole different ball game from that point of view. 
It's part of the reason I said I liked the muni court because, 
after a little while, much of the law became routine. You were 
dealing with people and on a volume basis. In the superior 
court, you're dealing, generally speaking, with less volume, 
but with longer and more substantial matters, and with at least 
the possibility that more complicated, complex legal issues are 

Morris: At both of those levels, to what extent are you looking to the 
state supreme court in terms of what they may do with your 
case, or what their rulings are that may affect what's coming 
before you? 

Broussard: Well, I'll give you another war story. When I came to the 
supreme court, a lot of people would ask me what was the 
biggest difference, or the biggest adjustment, that I had to 






make. I could tell it two ways. I don't know if you remember 
Abe Woodson, the football player? 

By name, yes. 

Well, Abe Woodson was a great offensive running back with the 
San Francisco '49ers. And as he approached the latter years of 
his career, they switched him from offense to defense. And 
I'll never forget the Green Sheet 1 had a big picture of Abe, 
and someone had asked him a question- -"What was the biggest 
adjustment you had to make in going from offense to defense?" 

And this great running back said, "I had to learn how to 
run backwards." And I tell you that story to tell you this, 
that when you're a judge in the superior court, you look to the 
supreme court and its cases to tell you what to do in a given 
situation. The rulings of the supreme court will tell you 
whether you should sustain an objection, or admit some 
evidence, or how you should rule on a motion. 

So you look to the supreme court for guidance . When you 
get on the supreme court, you're still working with the law, 
but you're working with the law to give guidance. It's the 
same tool, but approached from different perspectives. So as a 
superior court judge deciding a case, it's not that you worry 
about what the supreme court is going to do about your case. 
You worry about whether you are actively doing what the supreme 
court has told you ought to be done in a given situation. And 
up here, when you're deciding a case, you're trying to 
determine how it is going to impact upon all those lower-court 
decisions that are going to be made that affect the lives of 

That's quite a difference. How do you deal with the matter 
that as an individual, you have your own experience and your 
own principles and philosophy, but you're expected to interpret 
the law, which is supposed to be above personal differences? 
As a lay person, one is instructed that the law is clear and 

Who told you that? 

Well, that's what you sense that one gets in school. 
as you observe--. 

But then, 

The San Francisco Chronicle sports section, formerly printed on 
green paper, now reduced to a green stripe on the front page. 


Broussard: That's what we study in philosophy and jurisprudence courses: 
just what is the law? Is it natural law like--? No, I 
understand the question you're asking me. And there are a lot 
of answers to it. One of the answers is that, in California, 
the law is essentially what the supreme court says it is. Now, 
there are principles which are supposed to determine what a 
court says the law is. But we deal with many issues in which 
policy considerations are important. It is impossible either 
through the common law or through legislative enactment to 
resolve all of the conflicts and issues that have to be decided 
by this court . 

By definition, when you are in an area where the law is 
not already clearly established either by statute or by common 
law, you have not only the opportunity, but the necessity, of 
bringing in to bear all of the training, the experience, the 
intellectual and analytical ability that you have to resolve 
the question, "What is the law in this situation?" 

It is in that process that reasonable people can differ. 
That one is going to be influenced in one's analytical and 
evaluative judgmental approaches by one's own background and 
perception. And another person can be operating as 
intellectually honestly, and as analytically as well prepared, 
and yet reach a different result. And this is how you can have 
different opinions arrived at by different people, all of whom 
are well-trained, well-motivated, and doing the job to the very 
best of their ability. Because in reality, there is no one law 
that governs every situation and you just have to try to 
identify it. We are making it as we go along. And that's not 
to say we're legislating, because the parameters of judging are 
different from the parameters of legislating. But it is to say 
that at a court at this level, by necessity you're dealing with 
policy considerations that influence the growth and the 
development of the law. 

Morris: Is one of the purposes of this process of judicial training and 
evaluation you were describing, to arrive at sort of a matrix 
in which judges working in the same environment will tend to 
consider the same factors and ? 

Broussard: It starts in law school. And if you'll remember when we were 
talking about legal education, the primary thing that the law 
schools are trying to do is to teach you how to think like a 
lawyer. And that is to give you some parameters to your 
analysis of legal situations, of facts, situations and 
problems. To recognize the issues, recognize what are the 
basic tenets that should come to bear in resolving the issues. 
Teach you how to think like a lawyer; well, that's a continuing 
process. And then as lawyers mature and develop and grow into 


judges, there are parameters to how judges are supposed to 
function. But when you're dealing with the kinds of questions 
that we tend to deal with at the highest court in the state, we 
can each be operating within the discipline, but arrive at 
different conclusions. 

Morris: Thinking like a lawyer at some level seems to be that a lot of 
lawyers tend to be confrontational, adversarial, because that's 
sort of the nature of what goes on in the courtroom, if I 
understand it correctly. 

Broussard: Yes, but that's role and personality. I mean, one lawyer may 
be soft-spoken, another may be aggressive. But to be 
effective, you've got to deal with the tools of the trade. I 
don't care if you're representing a plaintiff or a defendant. 
If you are trying to win a case in court, you've got to deal 
with the tools of the trade. You've got to know the issues in 
your case; you've got to know how to present the evidence; 
you've got to know how to handle the witness; you've got to 
know when to make objections; you've got to be able to persuade 
the judge that there is merit to your objections. You've got 
to work with the tools regardless of who you're representing 
and regardless of how aggressive or nonaggressive you may be in 
your personality. 

Morris: That's true. But my object as an attorney is to prevail over 
the opposing viewpoint. 

Broussard: Well, yes, we have an adversarial system at the trial of cases, 
but the role of the judge is not an adversarial role; it's a 
judgment role. 

Morris: Right. I'm interested in what happens in the mind of an 

individual who, as an attorney, his aim has been to prevail 
over the opposing viewpoint. But when he becomes a judge, am I 
right that the object is to reconcile the conflicting points of 
view and arrive at some further wisdom? 

Broussard: Well, the role of the judge and the role of the attorney are 
very different. As we said, the attorney is an advocate, and 
the judge's role is to try to judgeto resolve the differences 
that are being advocated. So the judge is supposed to be fair, 
supposed to be knowledgeable, supposed to listen well and 
decide well. 

There is a transition involved in the process of becoming 
a judge that's very easily made by some lawyers and not quite 
as easily made by others. I think any lawyer who becomes a 
judge recognizes that at least his or her role and function is 
different, and they endeavor to discharge that new 


responsibility. Just like some judges find it hard to make 
decisions and other judges can make decisions very easily. 

Some judges may have been advocates for a long period of 
time and have a little more difficulty in relinquishing the 
role of counsel and just being the judge. There are judges who 
tend to inject themselves into the trial of the case more than 
some other judges. There are a lot of those kinds of 
differences. But certainly the function is different, and what 
is expected of a judge is very different than what is expected 
of a lawyer. 

Uniqueness of the Court 

Morris: Did you find it difficult to make that transition? 

Broussard: Personally, I didn't, no. I did not find it very difficult to 
go from the practice of law to the muni court. I didn't find 
it very difficult to go from the muni court to the superior 
court. There was much more of an adjustment in going from the 
superior court to the supreme court. And you'll remember, I 
only served on the court of appeal within two capacities: as a 
research attorney for then-presiding Justice Peters, and then 
on a pro tern appointmenta temporary appointment to the court 
of appeals [in 1977] . 

When I went from the superior court to the supreme court, 
that was a fairly substantial adjustment. It relates to what I 
was talking to you about- -instead of looking to the law for 
answers as to how you decide an issue or an objection, I was 
required to give direction. And that took some adjustment, 
combined with the fact that, when you're working in a collegial 
body with seven people, all of whom are involved in all of the 
decisions that you make, there is a tremendous paper flow. 

It's a very unique place in which to work. The phenomenon 
of having input from seven people in each decision that you 
make, and especially in an environment where you tend to 
communicate very largely by the written word, means that there 
is a tremendous amount of paper flow that emanates from a lot 
of staff work that's done by a lot of very able and experienced 
staff attorneys who work for the various justices on the court. 
And just learning how to organize the paper flow so that you 
can function effectively in the decision-making process is a 
big adjustment. I'll never forgetwe're going to have to end 
it in a minute. 


Morris: Right. I'm keeping an eye on the time today. 

Broussard: I came on the court at about the same time as Justice Otto 

Kaus. 1 Otto Kaus had sixteen-plus years as a court of appeal 
justice, and much of that as a presiding judge in the court of 
appeal. Our chambers were next to each other. In those early 
months, I'm sitting in my chambers envying Otto, because I'm 
trying to figure out how to organize my paper flow, figuring he 
had it all worked out because of his prior experience as a 
court of appeal judge. 

And one day I hear this loud knock on my door, and the 
door was flung open, and Otto walks into my chambers and starts 
pacing back and forth with some paper in one hand and the other 
hand in his pocket. "What's the matter, Otto?" And he says, 
"I don't know! This job is something! I don't even know where 
to put the next piece of paper!" 

So I said, "Well, Otto, I'm having that problem too. But 
for you, it ought to be easy." He said, "Why?" I said, "You 
had all those years on the court of appeal." He said, "There 
is no similarity between the court of appeal and this job!" So 
there was an adjustment in coming to this court, yes. 

Morris: Why don't we stop here, because we're going to run out of time 
before you get to tell me about talking to Jerry Brown about 
coming onto the supreme court. 

Broussard: Yes, I have to think about that and how much should be said and 
how much shouldn't. 

[Interview 3: January 16, 1992]## 
Broussard: Well, what are we going to do today? 

Morris: I thought we'd pick up with the notes I sent you some time ago, 
and carry on with that original outline. 

We had gotten to your going on to the superior court, and 
that was where I wanted to pick up with a couple of questions 
about that, and then move into some of the issues and 
procedures that you were addressing on the supreme court. 

Broussard: You know, we might make some general comments about the supreme 
court, but we don't comment too much on our written opinions. 
That's a fundamental rule. We just let the opinions speak for 

1 Kaus took his seat on July 21, 1981; Broussard on July 22, 1981 


themselves. There are some observations about the process and 
the things about the decision that I can make. 

One of those things is that you do a little and they come 
and go, and you're on to another set of cases. 

Morris: So that part of the process of being on the bench is that you 
see cases come up that pursue the same issues or build on 
previous decisions? 

Broussard: Yes, that's true. On the intermediate court usually what 

happens is that several courts of appeal will write on some 
aspect, some issue and then when it comes to us, if we [on the 
supreme court] do a good job, we should dispose of it in one 

But now on the death penalty area, it's very different. 
We have cases that are coming directly to us involving 
unresolved legal issues, and so we might gradually define 

Anyway, let's go and see what we can do. 



Presiding Judge, Alameda County Superior Court, 1980-1981 

Morris: We haven't really talked very much about your years on the 

superior court. I was wondering if the superior court produced 
some surprises in how the courts proceeded, or if it was pretty 
much a continuum of your work on the municipal court. 

Broussard: I usually like to answer, "Neither of the above." There 

weren't any real surprises, but it was not really a continuum 
of what I had been doing. The superior court was quite a 
different animal from the muni court. The muni court is really 
a volume court; you deal a lot with people, and except for 
occasions in felony arraignment departments and occasionally in 
the civil departments, you rarely deal with significant legal 
issues that you have to resolve at the municipal level. The 
superior court, there is less emphasis on volume and more 
emphasis on the individual cases. The trials are generally 
longer, the legal issues are generally more complex. 

But there weren't any real surprises for me. I went onto 
the superior court, and my first assignment was criminal law 
and motion which is, almost, in fact a continuum of what I had 





been doing in the municipal court, because you're dealing with 
the law of search and seizure and arrests, in the criminal law 
and motion department of the superior court. I did that for a 
while and then went into a criminal trial department, which 
again, is different in terms of seriousness and the length of 
the trial and the matters there are at stake. There's no 
substantial difference from the municipal court. 

When I went from the criminal trial department into the 
presiding judge's department, now that was a big change. I'll 
never forget--Alan Lindsay was the presiding judge before me 
and, traditionally, the presiding judge-elect would be given 
some time to go into Department One as sort of a training 
measure. But Judge Lindsay would send Department One matters 
to me in my criminal trial department, so I never had the 
experience of sitting in Department One as a presiding judge 
until my term began. 

And I'll never forget the feeling, the first Monday 
morning I was taking to the bench, and when I opened the door 
to the courtroom, the courtroom was crowded. They had lawyers 
standing out in the hallway, it was standing room only. That 
was the day we called the civil jury trial calendar. I was 
completely unprepared for that number of people, and I almost 
turned around and went back into my chambers. [laughter] But 
we worked our way through it, and it worked out fine. 

Was this something that you did in rotation, or something that 
your peers chose you to do? 

I was chosen for that. The tradition of rotating into the 
presiding judgeship had been abandoned by the time that I was 
on the superior court, and the presiding judge was elected on 
the basis of perceived ability and interest in judicial 
administration and running and managing the courts and 
providing some leadership for the other judges. I was elected 
in 1980 as presiding judge, and reelected for 1981, and served 
as presiding judge until I was appointed to the supreme court 
in 1981. 

What interested you about judicial administration? You've 
certainly done a lot of it, according to your vita. 

Broussard: Well, that's just the kind of person I am. I'm always trying 
to provide some leadership. I thought I could provide some 
leadership for the court, effectively administer the business 
of the court, motivate some of the judges to maybe be a bit 
more efficient in terms of the way they applied themselves to 
their work. It's just part of the animal in me. I'm always 


pushing to provide some leadership when I get into an 

Law and Order Sentiments 

Morris: Some of the material I read said that while you were on the 

superior court, that your sentencing was too lenient. How did 
you deal with that kind of comment? 

Broussard: Oh, 1 didn't really deal with it. Let me just say this, that 
certainly while I was on the superior court and in a criminal 
assignment, there was a lot of concern one way or the other in 
the community about sentences that were being meted out. But I 
can truthfully say this, that I have never been challenged by 
either the prosecutor or the defense for being unfair, being, 
you know, partisan to one side or the other. 

The major criticism was coming from a group called 
Citizens for Law and Order, which was a real conservative group 
that was doing monitoring of the courts and criticisms of any 
judges who they perceived as being a little "soft on crime". 
Beyond that, I don't think that there was any real criticism of 
my sentencing; I think I was viewed as being a pretty fair and 
reasonable judge. And as I said, while some judges on the court 
were in disfavor either with the D.A.'s office or the public 
defender or the defense bar, I never had any problems along 
those lines at all. So the criticism didn't really concern me, 
because I considered the source of those criticisms, the 
Citizens for Law and Order. 

Morris: Were there any particular people that stood out in that 

Broussard: Yes, but I don't even care to call their names now. 

Morris: Were there any other indications that there was a growing "law 
and order sentiment" that was a change in public attitudes or 

Broussard: I don't know how much public attitudes really changed across 
the board, but this was a group which had a voice and had the 
ability to command some media attention that would be critical 
of anything which they perceived as being a little lenient or 
soft toward criminal defendants. They had a newsletter and 
they would sit in the courtrooms and monitor [what went on.] 
But I guess that's part of the business of being a judge, you 
just have to be able to do what you think is right. 


Morris: Were they just in the Oakland courts? Or were they elsewhere 
around the state? 

Broussard: If I remember, they tried to go beyond Alameda County, but I 
don't think Citizens for Law and Order ever had any real 
presence. They certainly had a publicity presence. I don't 
think they ever really had any organizational presence of any 
consequence beyond Alameda County. There might have been 
comparable groups in other communities. 

Morris: Right. But they weren't part of any kind of statewide 

Broussard: No, I don't think so. I ignored them as much as I could. 

Morris: That's one advantage of being a judge, isn't it? You can rise 
above some of these--. 

Broussard: I think you have to. 

Superior Court Appointments in 1975 

Morris: Once appointed to the superior court, did you have any contact 
with Governor Jerry Brown to keep in touch with what his 
concerns were? 

Broussard: No, no. No, I think the governor advised me by telephone that 
he would appoint me. And certainly we didn't have substantive 
conversation about issues or how I should conduct myself as 

Morris: Had you and he known each other just in general political 

Broussard: Yes, right. When he became governor [in January 1975], I'd 

been a judge for eleven years, so I wasn't active politically. 
I knew him, of course. 

Morris: Was it a surprise to you whenwas it Jerry Brown himself or 
somebody in his of f ice--talked to you about going on the 
supreme court? 

Broussard: I got a call from then- Assemblyman John Miller, telling me that 
the governor would probably call me soon. And the governor 
called within a day or so and appointed me to the superior 
court. It was not really a surprise. I was the first Jerry 
Brown appointee in Alameda County. 


If I can remember this, Lew Sherman was then on the 
Berkeley municipal court, and [it was announced in September 
1974 that he was going to be appointed] to the Alameda County 
Superior Court . But Lew Sherman died before the November 
elections, and before his term was to begin. And there was a 
lot of speculation as to the duration of any appointment which 
the governor- -it was then Reagan- -would make to the Sherman 

Some thought that if the governor made an appointment it 
would only be to the unexpired termthe office that existed 
would be terminated at the end of the year. There was other 
speculation that it would go beyond that, at least to the next 
election, if not for a full six years. And in that context the 
governor appointed Carl Anderson to the superior court, and 
there was a lawsuit. 

Morris: About a judicial appointment? 

Broussard: Mm hmm. Judge [George] Phillips was the presiding judge of the 
Alameda County Superior Court, and after the first of the year 
he refused to assign any legal matters to Carl Anderson because 
of the cloud over whether or not he was validly appointed. And 
that resulted in the case of Anderson v. Phillips, which 
determined the questions of the duration of the appointment 
that Anderson had received. Anderson prevailed, and got work. 
But it had been made relatively clear to me that if that 
vacancy were not properly filled by Anderson, that the governor 
was going to appoint me. But Anderson won, prevailed in the 
supreme court . 

This is your appointment to the superior court. 

Yes. See, I was on muni court. It was a question of whether 
or not as of the first Monday in January of 1975, whether or 
not Carl Anderson was validly appointed as a superior court 
judge, and that was resolved in Anderson v. Phillips, in 
Anderson's favor. But it was made pretty clear to me that had 
there been a different decision, that I probably would have 
gone on the superior court then. But then I didn't go on until 
later in the year, when Don Quayle, Judge Quayle, announced his 

Morris: My goodness, that must have been interesting, watching the 
Anderson and Phillips debate. 

Broussard: Well, it was not really a debate. The issue was so uncertain 
that there were municipal court judges who, had they been 
offered the appointment by the governor, they would have 
declined it, because once you accept the appointment, you've 



given up your municipal court seat. And if you didn't prevail 
in the superior court, you were out. 

Morris: You were off the bench completely. 

Broussard: So there were people who just would not have accepted the 

appointment. But Carl Anderson had been in the Alameda County 
D.A.'s office, and had been representing the D.A. Association 
in Sacramento, so he was in a good position, he could return to 
the D.A.'s office if he did not prevail on the legal issue. He 
could afford to take whatever risk there was. 

Morris: Was this something that people in the district attorney's 
office maybe were interested in challenging, judicial 
appointments in general? Or did they want one of their people 
on it? 

Broussard: Oh, no. I think the motivation might be very different than 
that. First of all, there was a real legal issue, an 
unresolved legal issue as to the duration of that appointment, 
and some motivations really aren't that important. But you're 
operating in a context where you've gone from a Republican 
governor to a Democratic governor, and I suppose that anybody 
who was interested in seeing the vacancy filled would have been 
the Democrats. The D.A.'s office generally would have been 
supportive of Carl Anderson. 

Morris: As one of their own. 
Broussard: Well, yes. 

Morris: And as the new governor, was Jerry Brown generally looking for 
new people to appoint in broadening the kinds of people that 
were on the bench? Looking for minorities and women at that 

Broussard: I think Jerry Brown demonstrated a commitment to appointing a 
more representative group of people to the bench. How early 
it's demonstrated, I can't be sure. But certainly in 
retrospect, he appointed more minorities and more women, 
relatively speaking. 

Morris: But if you were thinking that you were on his top, short list 
for appointment to the bench as soon as he became governor--? 

Broussard: Oh, but that was because I had been on the municipal court 
bench for about eleven and one-half years and had served as 
presiding judge, and I had a good reputation within the 
community. It was not a surprise to me that he would be 
considering me high on his list. I don't want to sound 


egotistical, but I mean, that's just the way it was. I had 
been eleven and one-half years on the muni bench, and had 
served eight years in the Reagan administration. I think it 
was just natural that I would have been considered strongly by 
any Democratic governor that would come into office. 

Morris: While you were on the superior court, did any of the cases 

involving student demonstrators or anti-war demonstrators come 
before you? 

Broussard: That's more a municipal court job. 
Morris: Yes, okay. 

Broussard: The Black Panthers were a superior group at it, but the 

demonstrations and the sit-ins, in front of the Tribune and all 
of that kind of stuff, the demonstrations in front of the 
military recruitment of f ices--that was all municipal court 
misdemeanor matters. 

Morris: Did the Panthers' cases involve anything unusual in managing 

Broussard: Oh, certainly. I never tried any of the major Panther cases, 
and some of them were tried on the superior court before I was 
there. But if you remember, the Panthers created a problem for 
the establishment because when the trials were going on, they 
would stand there with their weapons and everything in front of 
the courthouse door. And had very much of a presence while the 
cases were proceeding in trial. 

Morris: Separate from the issue before the court. 
Broussard: Sure. 

Morris: What do you do about a situation like that, where people come 
to make themselves visible? 

Broussard: If you're a judge, you conduct your trial, and you leave the 

matter of maintaining the peace and control to others. I mean, 
the Panthers never presented a real problem within the 
courtroom. But the idea of seeing a group of Black Panthers 
lined up and with their weapons across the doors to the 
courthouse was something that really shocked, and was a new 
experience to a lot of people. And I'm sure that the Oakland 
police and a lot of others paid that whole matter a lot of 
attention, but as a judge, what do you do? You go in and you 
try your cases and try to do the best job you can and try and 
ignore what's going on outside of the courtroom. 


Morris: It is unusual in America for people who are not police officers 
or military to be carrying weapons. I don't know what the 
legal standing is. 

Broussard: You have the constitutional right to bear arms. And certainly 
you can't carry things like field weapons, but the Panthers 


Morris: --making a visual statement of their concerns rather than 
seeing themselves as any threat to the public order? 

Broussard: I believe that's the way it worked out. There was a lot of 
uncertainty as to what their ultimate motivation was at the 
time, but it now develops that they certainly were expressing 
their concern about the whole judicial system, about the whole 
law enforcement mechanism. They were making a statement, and 
in the main doing it peacefully. Although obviously they did 
have some other contact with the police that was not so 
peaceful, in which even some deaths resulted. 

Morris: So the social issues of the day were happening all around you 
while you were trying to run an orderly court . 

Broussard: Sure. Very much so. 



Justice Wiley Manuel 

Morris: Were you close to Justice [Wiley] Manuel, as a fellow Oakland 
attorney? Had you worked with him before his death? 

Broussard: Yes, I've known Justice Manuel since undergraduate days at Cal, 
as a neighbor and a friend. We had a pretty close 

Morris: His tenure on the court was not very long. Did anybody 
realize that he was ill? 

Broussard: No, I don't think even he realized it very long before his 

death. His death was tragic and somewhat of a surprise to all 
of us. He went on the supreme court in 1977; he'd gone to 
Mexico in 1980, I think late summer or something like that. He 
began to have some problems after his return from Mexico, and I 
think he really just thought it was Montezuma's Revenge. 

Morris: Oh, dear, yes. 

Broussard: He ultimately was hospitalized. But I don't think that early 
on either he or his wife, Eleanor, realized the gravity of his 
situation. He was diagnosed as having cancer of the 

Morris: Good heavens. 

Broussard: I'll never forget, we were at an affair at Goodman Hall, which 
doesn't exist any more. I had just learned of that diagnosis, 
and I spoke with my own personal physician. I just told him 
Wiley Manuel had been diagnosed as having cancer of the 
peritoneum, and I said, "What do you think?" He said, "Oh, 
Allen, that's serious." I said, "Why?" He said, "Well cancer 
of the peritoneum is always secondary cancer. That's serious." 



And Wiley's death came rather rapidly. He died January 5, 
1981. None of us had really expected it. When he went into 
the hospital, we did not think that he was seriously or 
terminally ill. 

What a shock, when you think somebody's got a long career ahead 
of them, and it gets cut short. 

Broussard: Yes. He'd generally been very healthy. 

Appointment to Justice William Clark's Seat 

Morris: How soon did the governor talk to you about filling that 

Broussard: I didn't fill that vacancy. 

Morris: You didn't? It was '81. Did somebody else retire in '81 that 
I missed? 

Broussard: Yes. See, that's a commonly mistaken notion. I did not 
replace Justice Manuel on the bench. If you'll remember, 
Reagan had just- 
Morris: Gone to Washington. 

Broussard: --become president. And Justice William Clark left the state 

supreme court to join the Reagan administration as secretary of 

Morris: Deputy secretary of state, yes. 

Broussard: Yes. And there were really two vacancies that coexisted on the 
supreme court, the Bill Clark vacancy and the Wiley Manuel 
vacancy. And Governor Brown deliberately appointed me to the 
Bill Clark vacancy, and Justice Otto Kaus to the Wiley Manuel 
vacancy. But not for the reason that you're thinking of--I see 
that smile on your face. Not for the reason that you're 
thinking of. The governor knew that both Otto and I, or 
whoever he appointed, would have to run for election in 1982. 
And the governor knew that then-Attorney General [George] 
Deukmejian was already making a political issue of his judicial 

Brown knew that both of us would be on the ballot in '82, 
but that the person who replaced Wiley Manuel would get an 
eight-year term, and would have to run again in eight years, 


Morris : 


Morris : 

Broussard : 
Morris : 
Broussard : 




Morris : 

and that the person who got the Bill Clark term would get a 
full twelve years. He knew Otto Kaus was older than I, and 
would be likely to leave the bench within the eight years, 
where I might very well stay on the bench beyond the eight 
years. And that's the way it worked out; Otto Kaus got Wiley 
Manuel's vacancy and an eight-year term in 1982, and he left 
during that term. I ran and got the twelve-year term in '82, 
went beyond the eight years but left within the twelve years. 


So most people assume that I filled Wiley Manuel's vacancy, and 
I did not. 

My apologies. I should have checked that out. 

No problem. Most people just assume. I've explained it a lot 
of times. 

Right. Well one of the really startling things about the court 
in that period was how much turnover there was. You normally 
think of-- 

No, more later than before. More later than then. 
Right . 

Now, I'm quick to admit that if Wiley Manuel had not died, I 
probably would not have been appointed to the court. 

At that time. 

Yes. I recognize that. It was very unlikely that the governor 
would have appointed me to the supreme court at the same time 
Wiley Manuel was sitting there. But it was not Wiley Manuel's 
vacancy that I was appointed to. 

You don't think that Jerry Brown would have appointed two 
African Americans? 

I don't think I would have been considered for the supreme 
court at that time. No, I'm not saying that he never would 
have done it during his term of office. But Wiley had just 
been appointed in 1977. I just don't think that I would have 
been considered for that position had Wiley lived longer. 

Were there pros and cons in your mind as to whether or not you 
would take the appointment to the supreme court? 


Broussard: No, no. I mean, once you become a judge, I don't think that 
there are many people--! know very, very few people who, for 
example, have been in municipal court and had an opportunity to 
go to superior court and would not take advantage of it. Once 
you're a judge, there are very few people who do not accept an 
appointment from the superior court to the court of appeal or 
to the supreme court. So, no, I had no questions. It's not a 
situation where I had to leave home or have to commute any 
great distance. Ultimately, for me, I didn't even have to 
establish a new residence or a secondary residence; I just 
continued to live in Oakland and commuted to San Francisco. 

The real problem is for those people, for example, who are 
from Southern California and got appointed to the court. They 
have to make a decision since the court is housed in San 
Francisco and the justices are generally expected to be in San 
Francisco during the week. They all have to make decisions as 
to whether they would commute, whether they would move their 
families, whether they would set up a secondary residence, and 
if so, were they going to buy or whatever. And I didn't have 
to do any of that; I was very fortunate. 

Morris: By '81 the state supreme court was considered a "hot seat." 
Did the fact that there were controversial aspects give you 

Broussard: I never run away from controversy. 

The Confirmation Process 

Morris : 


How was the confirmation procedure? 

Was the attorney 

It was very interesting. As you know, the process of 
appointment to the supreme court involves a nomination by the 
governor and evaluation by the state bar. Now we have a Jenny 
CommissionJudicial Nominees' Evaluation Commissionand then 
a confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, 
which is a constitutional body composed of the chief justice, 
the attorney general, and the senior-most presiding justice of 
the court of appeal in the state of California. 

And in my case it was Chief Justice Rose Bird, Attorney 
General George Deukmejian, and Presiding Justice Lester Roth 
from the court of appeal in Los Angeles . On the day of our 
confirmation hearing there were four of us up for confirmation. 


Justice Kaus and myself for the supreme court, Justice Elwood 
Lui and Vincent Dalsimer were for the court of appeal. 

George Deukmejian had already set his sights on the 
governorship, and he began something which many of us 
criticize: he began submitting questionnaires to Governor 
Brown's appellate nominees, asking their views on various 
issues and cases. It put the nominees in a very difficult 
position because, on the one hand, we didn't feel that it was 
appropriate for the questions to be asked and, on the other 
hand, we didn't think it was appropriate to answer them with 
any specificity, particularly considering that the attorney 
general was the most frequent litigator of criminal matters 
before the supreme court and the questions that he was asking 
were on issues that had or would be coming up to the court, 
many of them on death penalty matters . Everyone had a 
difficult time of trying to frame some responses which were 
adequate from his point of view, but not overly specific or 

Morris : 


Could that be considered a conflict of interest? 
who was going to bring a case before--? 

If somebody 

It was not a conflict of interest, it was just probably 
inappropriate conduct. But the attorney general had submitted 
questionnaires to all of us, and we had answered them in 
whatever way we thought was appropriate. Then when we went to 
the hearings, he began asking questions. Justice Otto Kaus was 
first, I was second, and then Elwood Lui and Vince Dalsimer 
would have followed. 

And the attorney general began to ask Justice Kaus some 
questions and Kaus was giving him general answers. [laughter] 
It's true, so I'll say it. Finally the attorney general asked 

Justice Kaus, "Well let me ask you this, 
an activist judge?" 

Are you going to be 

And Justice Kaus said, "General, I assure you, I will be 
as quiet as a mouse." And I just slipped down in my seat, I 
was sitting in the front row of the hearing room, and I said, 
"Oh, no." Well, Kaus was confirmed three to zip. I came up 
next, and the attorney general began to ask me questions and I 
gave him broad answers. So then he asked me the penultimate 
question. "Well, let me ask you this," he said. "Are you 
going to be an activist judge?" 

And I said to the attorney general that I wasn't sure that 
I could answer his question because I wasn't sure that the 
words meant the same to him as it did me. I said something to 
the effect that I frequently think that judicial activism is in 

Morris : 

Broussard ; 




eyes of the beholder. "I don't know whether you would have 
considered it judicial activism when the supreme court decided 
Plessy v. Ferguson or whether you would have considered it 
judicial activism in 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided 
Brown v. Board of Education." 

I don't think he liked that answer, and when the vote was 
taken, he voted against me. So I was confirmed to the supreme 
court by a 2-1 vote, and of course it created a big furor. And 
as I left the hearing room, all the press people came out in 
the hallway and wanted me to comment on the 2-1. The result 
was, I think--! 'm speculating here; I don't know what was going 
on in the attorney general's mind, but I know that Elwood Lui 
came up for confirmation. 

Elwood Lui was Asian American, a very respected superior 
court judge, former deputy attorney general, former president 
of the California Judges' Association, and a Republican, who 
had been nominated by Brown. And Deukmejian voted against him. 
And Vince Dalsimer was a twenty-two or more year veteran of the 
attorney general's office, had gone on the Los Angeles Superior 
Court, compiled a good record, came up next for confirmation 
Deukmejian voted against him. 


So we laughingly referred to ourselves as the 
We're the charter members of the 2 to 1 club. 

'2 to 1" Club. 

Had Deukmejian asked them the same question about activism? 

I wasn't in the hearing room, you see. I was outside. But I 
think what happenedthis is just my own personal opinion--! 
think Deukmejian voted against me because he was a little angry 
and he didn't like my answer. But then I think he realized 
that he couldn't single-shot me because it was too powerful 
politically. So then he not only voted against Elwood Lui and 
Vince Dalsimer, but he proceeded in subsequent hearings to vote 
no on, oh, some seventeen or eighteen Jerry Brown nominees. 

You know, that's useful. That puts it in perspective. What 
survived is that he voted against you. 

He voted against me and then he voted against Elwood and Vince, 
and then he voted no on virtually every nominee of Jerry Brown 
to the appellate court after that. And if my recollection is 
correct, it's about seventeen or eighteen. He was already 
making Governor Brown's judicial appointees an election issue. 
The way it was characterized in the communityderisively, I 


might say--was that Deukmejian was critical of Brown for 
appointing too many Blacks, browns and babes. 

Getting Acquainted; Volume of Work 

Morris: What kind of orientation is there to the supreme court? How 
did Justice Bird introduce you to the group? Is there a 
process by which she made you a part of the team? 

Broussard: Well, I can answer that at two levels. One, I would say, 

baptism by fire. But on the more personal levelfortunately, 
I think, I knew to some extent all of the justices on the 
court. I'd known the chief justice. 

Morris: As an appointee in the Brown administration? 

Broussard: Yes. 

Morris: Before she went on the court? 

Broussard: Right. So it was just a matter of being introduced to the 

court as an institution, and it's a very unique institution. 
There's nothing else like it in the whole country. That's just 
a matter, then, of working with the appellate justices and with 
your staff to begin to learn how the institution functions and 
how it operates. The chief justice and all of my fellow 
justices were very cordial and very open and very willing to 
assist in the transition. I had at least a couple of very 
experienced attorneys on my staff, who really knew how the 
court worked. So on the one hand, it was very new and there 
was no real institutionalized orientation, but on the very 
informal level there was a lot of willingness to assist in 
making the transitions, and it went pretty smoothly. 

The major problem I had was handling the paper flow. 
There's a lot of paper that gets moved on the supreme court, 
and I can remember sitting in my chambers, just fretting over 
how to organize my office internally so that the paper flow 
would go smoothly. And one day I heard this loud, agitated 
knock on my door, and before I could even answer, the door was 
flung open. Otto Raus stormed into my chambers with a few 
pieces of paper in one hand, the other hand deep in his pocket. 
He paced around the floor a little bit. 

He said, "Damn, Allen!" I said, "What's the matter, 
Otto?" "Damn, Allen! I don't even know what to do with the 
next piece of paper!" I said, "Oh, come on, Otto. For you it 

Morris : 


Morris : 



ought to be easy." He said, "What do you mean 'easy?'" I 
said, "Well, you've got more than sixteen years on the court of 
appeal and much of it as a presiding judge. You ought to be 
accustomed to the paper flow." He said, "Oh, come on! There's 
no similarity between the court of appeal and this job." I 
said, "Well Otto, I've been sitting here these past months 
envious of you, because I thought it was easy for you, and I'm 
fretting with the same problem. I just don't know where to put 
the next piece of paper." [laughter] 

How is the California Supreme Court different from the supreme 
court in other states? 

Oh, I just think it's the size of the state, the complexity of 
the issues. The fact that we generally managed to have a 
supreme court that was very much in the forefront of state 
supreme courts and very much on the cutting edge of the law as 
it developed. Also, because not all state supreme courts are 
courts of discretionary jurisdiction. There are many of the 
smaller states where your appeal from the trial court is 
directed to the supreme court. And we are a court of 
discretionary jurisdiction, we have an intermediate appellate 
court that can take the volume of appellate work. And then we 
have the option in most instances as to whether or not the case 
was worthy or deserving of supreme court review. So it's an 
important court because of the size and complexity of the state 
that it serves. 

I came across, in our files, a memo that Justice Frank Newman 
wrote in May of 198 1. 1 I don't know if this was something that 
he was accustomed to doing. He was concerned about the flow of 
work and the volume of work. 

How did you get that? 

We've been doing an interview with Justice Newman, also. 2 He 
provided that to the person who was interviewing him. It's a 
very interesting and lucid summary, rather stuttering with 
indignation about how the case flow has gone up. With each 
chief justice there have been about fifteen hundred, two 
thousand more cases per year that the court has been ruling on. 
This figure here caught my eye. That under Justice Roger 

'Newman, J. to Bird, C.J. and the Associate Justices, "Where ARE we, 
as a Court," copy in supporting documents. 

2 Frank C. Newman, Interview with Frank C. Newman, Professor of Law, 
University of California, Berkeley, 1946-present; Justice, California 
Supreme Court, 1977-1983 Sacramento: California State Archives, 1992. 


Traynor there were about thirty-six hundred cases a year, and 
under Donald Wright forty-six hundred cases a year, and Justice 
Bird sixty-one hundred cases a year. 

Broussard: Those are petitions for review. 
Morris: Right. 

Broussard: Or, at that time we called them petitions for hearing. That 
has more of a correlation to the number of trial courts and 
courts of appeal than it does who is the chief justice. If you 
were to draw a parallel as to the growth in the bar, the growth 
in the number of judges and the growth in the number of courts, 
then you would find more of a parallel between that and the 
growth in the number of petitions for review or a hearing. 
Those are the factors that influence that number. It's not a 
matter of who is the chief justice. Now the chief justice of 
the court has some discretion as to what they will grant review 
in, and that can be influenced by the composition of the court 
and the attitude of the court towards what is deserving of a 
hearing or review and what is not. But the petitions are not 
controlled by the court. 

Morris: That more reflects how the whole legal and judicial machinery 
has grown? 

Broussard: Oh, sure. I don't have the figures at hand, but certainly, if 
you were to just trace the growth of the number of judges, the 
growth of the number of courts, you'd find more of a corollary 
between that and the growth in the number of petitions for 
review on a hearing. I can remember being told that Justice 
Peters, former supreme court Justice Peters (for whom I had 
worked earlier as a clerk when he was presiding judge in the 
court of appeal) expressed great concern when the court got, if 
I'm correct, twenty-five matters on his Wednesday morning 
conference calendar. And, of course, while I was on the court 
we'd gone as high as two hundred forty or fifty matters on the 
Wednesday morning conference calendar. 

Morris: In one morning's conference. 

Broussard: Yes. See, each Wednesday the court sits in conference to 

review the petitions for hearing or petitions for review, and 
decides which it will grant and which it will not. There are a 
number of dispositions that are available, but the most 
important thing is what number of them are granted, because 
then it's heard in full by the court and decided as a cause 
before the court. This is interesting, I'm looking at the 
Newman memorandum. I may have seen this previously, although 


it's dated May 14, 1981, which was just shortly prior to my 
going on the court. 

Morris: Right. But it sounded like, skimming through it, he had issued 
similar memos in previous years. I therefore assumed that it 
was an ongoing concern of his that you would have heard about. 

Broussard: Well, Justice Newman, I'm told, had an ongoing concern about 

the workload on the court, and I think maybe his concern about 
that contributed to his rather early departure. 



1982 Confirmation Elections as Precursor to 1986 

Morris: I was also wondering how soon after you went on the court did 

you become aware that there was an organized campaign beginning 
to actually unseat judges? Was that kind of a disconcerting 
influence on trying to do your business as a justice? 

Broussard: A disconcerting influence- -maybe so. I went on the court in 
the middle of '81 knowing that I would have to run in '82, 
knowing that there was controversy being generated about the 
court, about Governor Brown's appointees, but never fearing 
that I would have any difficulty in being elected. It 
developed that we really had more of a problem than I had 
thought we would. Most people don't realize this, but 1982 was 
really a precursor to 1986. 

In 1982 there were four of us on the ballot, four members 
of the supreme court were on the ballot for election: Justice 
Cruz Reynoso, Justice Otto Kaus, myself, and Justice Frank 
Richardson. And there was organized opposition to Reynoso, 
Kaus, and myself. No organized opposition to Justice 
Richardson. The people that were opposing us did not oppose 
Justice Richardson, and the people that were supporting us did 
not oppose Justice Richardson. Our concept was that we should 
have an independent judiciary. There was an organized 
campaign; the attorney general, who was a candidate for 
governor, openly opposed the retention of the three others. 

There were really two major differences between the '82 
campaign and the '86 campaign. The governor did not devote any 
time, energy, resources, or money in 1982 to our defeat. 



Broussard: --And Chief Justice Rose Bird was not on the ballot in '82. 
Now in 1982, you will remember that Tom Bradley ran a very 
strong campaign [for governor] and could have won it very 
easily. So George Deukmejian had his hands full in 1982. By 
1986 everyone knew that Tom Bradley was a much less formidable 
Morris: Really? Because he had lost in '82? 

Broussard: No, just the whole totality of the circumstances. Tom Bradley 
did not present in '86 the threat to George Deukmejian that he 
did in '82. And Deukmejian was then able to put time, energy, 
resources, and money into the campaign. Rose Bird was then 
personally on the ballot, and she, as you know, became sort of 
the lightning rod. We got the results which everyone knows 
about. But what most people don't realize is that virtually 
every one of the ingredients present in '86 were there, except 
for two that I mentioned. And in 1982 there was a real 
reduction in the retention vote for the three of us who had 

Morris: There was a drop-off in that vote on the ballot? 

Broussard: Yes, there was a drop-off. See in California, I'm told that 

traditionally, ever since we started retention elections, there 
was always about a 25 percent or 27 percent "no" vote. Just on 
general principles, I suppose. The first big deviation from 
that came after the California Supreme Court declared 
Proposition 14, the fair housing issue, 1 unconstitutional under 
the United States Constitution. If you'll remember, and if I 
remember, Assemblyman Rumford had gotten the Rumford Fair 
Housing Law through the legislature, and Governor Pat Brown had 
signed it. 2 Various political interests, I think largely the 
real estate and the chamber of commerce and others, promoted 
Prop. 14, which was an amendment to the California 
constitution, which would have invalidated the Rumford Fair 
Housing Law. 

That measure carried. So we then had a California 
constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment of Rumford 
fair housing legislation. And the California Supreme Court 
declared the California constitutional provision 
unconstitutional under the United States constitution. In the 
ensuing retention election [November 1966], most members of the 
court who were on the ballot received a lower than normal vote 

'November 1964. 

2 A.B. 1240, enacted in 1963. 


for retention. And that included Justice [Roger] Traynor. 
That was a great California court, I think. 

Morris: Was that the first time there was evidence of a--? 

Broussard: That's the first time, I think, that there was a real 

substantial deviation from the norm; the next time was 1982. 
And then in 1986 there were actually the three justices who 
were defeated. 

Morris: So that the next retention vote after the Prop. 14 decision, 
was an indication that there was some kind of an organized 
campaign to--? 

Broussard: No, no, no. They were completely unrelated. I'm simply saying 
that what the court had done was to invalidate a constitutional 
amendment that the people had voted, and that was expressed in 
the next election--dissatisf action with the court. I don't 
think there was any real organizational carryover from that to 
1982. Those were entirely different kinds of issues. In 1982 
the concern already was primarily the death penalty, at least 
that was the articulated concern. There were a lot of other 
agendas at play, but the articulated concern was the death 

Morris: And that combination of articulated and subliminal concerns, is 
that what made Rose Bird a lightning rod as a candidate? 

Broussard: Oh, that's an oversimplification. It was much more complicated 
than that. While I was close to it, I don't pretend to 
understand all of it. But I do know this, that there were a 
lot of people who were not happy with Rose Bird's appointment, 
and not all of them were her enemies. There were people who 
did not approve of the fact that the governor was appointing as 
chief justice of the state someone who had no prior judicial 
experience. I'm sure at that time there were people who didn't 
approve of the appointment because she was a woman, there were 
people who didn't approve of the appointment because she was 
relatively young, there were people who didn't approve of the 
appointment because she was a liberal. So she had a tough row 
to hoe from the beginning. There were people within the 
judiciary and within the bar who were not very approving of her 

Morris: Because her appointment went against the old-boy kind of 

Broussard: That's one way to express it, maybe. I mean, her appointment 
certainly was not a typical kind of selection. There were 
people who advised Jerry Brown not to make her chief justice, 


but he chose to do so, and for a lot of reasons, she just had a 
rougher time being accepted and functioning than a lot of other 
people would have had. 

Morris: It meant some people's hopes were passed over. 

Broussard: Well, yes. I'm sure that was a part of it, just really on a 
personal level, but also on an institutional level. I mean, 
the judiciary and a substantial percentage of the membership of 
the bar were not terribly pleased by the appointment, as I say, 
of someone who had not had any prior judicial experience. 

Morris: They said that about Earl Warren, too, and he was appointed to 
the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Broussard: Yes, right. But ultimately, I mean, there was this concern 
about the death penalty, which was the issue that was really 
pounced upon, publicized and utilized to create a kind of 
climate among the electorate which resulted in the 1986 
election results. Although, in my own opinion, there was a lot 
more at stake than just that. I mean, I think the public issue 
was the death penalty. 

Morris: As, again, a kind of a lightning rod for changes in public 

Broussard: I think there were financial interests in the state that were 
very desirous of seeing a change in the composition of the 
supreme court. I think agribusiness felt that the court was 
more consumer-oriented than it should be. I think a lot of the 
big money that went into the campaign that came from 
agribusiness had some concerns about the death penalty, but 
beyond that, had concerns about the decisions of the court in 
the civil arena. 


And then I think even beyond that there were people who 
were concerned that the California Supreme Court had been a 
significant player in the last two reapportionments, and I 
believe that there was real concern that if, as it did, if the 
current reapportionment plan went before the court, there was a 
desire to see a change in the composition of the court that 
would act upon or be involved in the current reapportionment 
process. And I believe that that was on the agenda of many of 
the political people in this state. 

Those kinds of concerns would indicate a politicizing of how 
various political, influential people viewed the court. That 
the court was something that could be manipulated, which is not 
what one is led to think about the courts in school. Is that a 
fair observation? 

Broussard: You're right. 

Working with Chief Justice Rose Bird 



What was Rose Bird like to work with on the 

Broussard: I was close to Rose Bird on the court; we had no problems 

getting along. And over the period of time that I was on the 
court, I think that some of the difficulties that she had faced 
earlier on the court had dissipated, very largely. 

Morris: They had disappeared? 

Broussard: Dissipated, disappeared, yes. I always found it easy to work 
with her; some others found it not quite as easy. The 
interesting thing, you wouldn't believe this but, in the height 
of the '86 campaign, the court would meet in conference in the 
chief justice's chambers, and Rose Bird would come in with 
little goodies for everybody before we began working. 

You wouldn't know that there was a turmoil and a storm and 
a campaign going on outside of that conference room. We didn't 
discuss the campaign, we didn't discuss the opposition, we 
didn't discuss the publicity. It really had created no 
discernible impact or effect upon the working of the court as 
an institution. I marveled at that. 

Morris: Even though not only Rose Bird but two-- 

Broussard: We had three people on the ballot, and it just was not a part 
of the agenda of the court. There was no discernible evidence 
that it affected or impacted anything that we did. And it 
certainly was not a matter of discussion or anything when we 
came together as a court. 

Morris: That's quite a feat of discipline. 
Broussard: To me it's an amazing phenomenon. 

Morris: Yes. If I remember correctly, at least at the beginning of 

that campaign, the chief justice's stance was that she was not 
going to run a campaign. That justices should be above 
politics. That sounds like what she was trying to do. 

Broussard: I think that that's true, but she wished that everything would 
have just gone away. I don't think she intended to mount any 
real campaign. It became obvious that she had to, and there 
was a lot of advice as to how she should go about it, how it 
should be organized, whether the three justices should campaign 
together or individually, who should run the campaign, how 


should you raise money. What was an appropriate method for 
raising money, what kinds of things you could say or do to 
motivate people to contribute money. I mean, it was virtually 
an unprecedented kind of experience. 

I said there were similarities between "82 and '86. Each 
of us who was on the ballot in '82 raised a little money, but 
it certainly didn't rise to the proportions that the 1986 
campaign ultimately demanded of the justices. And I think that 
Rose Bird was a purist at heart, and really had a distaste for 
the politics and the campaigning, and went into it, I think, 

Morris: Had she had some campaign experience prior to going into Jerry 
Brown's administration as head of the Agriculture and Services 

Broussard: She had never run for elected office. 

Morris: Right. But had she worked on his campaign for governor back in 
the early days? 

Broussard: Oh, before she joined the administration. I think, yes. She 
worked on Jerry Brown's campaign for governor the first time. 

Morris: Right, in '74. 

Broussard: I'm pretty sure she was very active in that. But I don't think 
she'd ever personally been a candidate for any elected office. 

Morris : So that she would have had some contact with some of the 
Democratic party political operatives. 

Broussard: Yes, sure. But that was seen as something remote and 

Broussard 1982 Retention Campaign 

Morris: When you were campaigning in '82, did you tap into some of the 
existing Democratic political talent to raise money for you or 
to do the kind of campaigning you did that year '82? 

Broussard: Not as such. We had a little separate campaign committee that 
raised a little money, some friends would put on small 
fundraisers for us. But we, too, tried to maintain some 
distance from organized Democratic party politics. We were not 
campaigning for a partisan office. 


Morris: Where do you go for technical advice in running a judicial 

Broussard: Well, certainly you talk to a lot of people. And one of the 

things that did happen was that now- [Alameda County] Supervisor 
Don Perata gave us some assistance in terms of organizing and 
fundraising. We had a- -it's funny how that's done. I had a 
little small group called "Friends of Justice Broussard." And 
there was an effort to organize "Californians for an 
Independent Judiciary", I think that's what it was. And that 
was largely the effort of Don Perata to raise some money and 
conduct a campaign in a nonpartisan way, but in a political way 
for the retention of the justices. 

Morris: In the technical sense, yes. 

Broussard: Right. And Don did that without compensation from us. He was 
on the staff of some legislator, maybe Willie Brown at that 
time, I'm not sure. But he was made available to work on our 
behalf and raise some money, and did some campaigning, brought 
some political moxie to it. 

Morris: Yes. And I've heard that people like Senator [Nicholas] Petris 
was also interested in this. 

Broussard: Well, there were people who individually spoke out in support 
of the court, and spoke out very strongly not only for the 
chief justice, but all the justices who were on the ballot for 
confirmation. There were other people who did that, I mean, 
political figures who were going around, speaking in support of 
the court and the chief justice and Justices Grodin and 
Reynoso. But in terms of a tie-in to the organized Democratic 
party and campaign, there was never that. 

Morris Right. But it must be difficult to maintain an independent 

stance when you've got people who also have partisan political 

Broussard: It created an unusual and rare phenomenon, no question about 
that. But I think all of us, in our respective experiences, 
just tried to rise above that, just stay above the 

Reviewing Cases and Preparing Opinions 

Morris: Did I understand correctly that during the time you worked with 
Rose Bird on the court, you saw some development or changes in 
how she managed her job as chief Justice? 

Broussard: No, I was just simply talking about, you know, personal 

relationships. I think I saw an improvement. We always had a 
collegial court. 

Morris: I understand that you came to write a number of the majority 
opinions during Rose Bird's period as chief justice. 1 How did 
you get to be the preferred opinion writer? 

Broussard: Well, let's say that from the time that I went onto the court 
until the results of the 1986 election, I was generally in the 
majority. I don't know that there was any conscious effort to 
assign significant cases to me. The primary consideration of 
the chief justice in assigning cases is some equality of 
workload. The process is kind of complicated, but the 
prevailing mood at that time, the general guideline, was that 
if a particular justice had written the memoranda on the 
petition for review, that justice had one leg up in terms of 
being assigned the case if review was granted. 

But there were other considerations. One is that the 
chief justice and her staff did not write petitions for review. 
So necessarily for her to get any opinion writing 
responsibility, she had to assign to herself some cases where 
someone else had written the memo. Then, secondly, you had to 
give consideration to what was the distribution of the workload 
among the other members of the court. And how much of it was 
luck of the draw and how much of it was discretionary, that the 
chief justice happened, during that period of time, to cause me 
to be assigned to the opinion-writing responsibility in cases 
that turned out to be important, I don't really know. 

I would tend to think it might have been a bit of both: a 
little of the luck and a little of discretion exercised by the 

Morris: And to some extent, maybe, your interest or energy in having 
written some of these initial memos? 

"'Judgement Day for the Supreme Court," Richard Zeiger, California 
Journal, September 1986, 424. 


Broussard: Well, that's what I mean by luck of the draw. You see, those 

memos are really assigned almost on a rotating basis. We would 
get, as I said, the court at that time was getting 
approximately five thousand petitions for review per year. 

Morris: That's in addition to the death penalty cases, which are 
automatically reviewed? 

Broussard: Right. That's in addition to the death penalty cases. The 
criminal petitions at that time would go to the criminal 
central staff. The civil petitions were just divided among the 
six justices and their staffs, and on a rotating basis. I 
mean, there was no effort to assign based upon issues or 
importance or anything at that stage. So each justice and his 
or her staff would be required to write memoranda on their 
share of the petitions for review. 

And it could be the luck of the draw that I happened to 
get a lot of grants. As I said, that would be one factor in 
determining whether or not I would get first of all, it would 
be not the opinion-writing responsibility, it would be the 
bench memoranda-writing responsibilities. Because once a case 
is granted, it's assigned to a justice for the preparation of 
what we called then the calendar memo. Many courts would call 
it a bench memorandum. That would be an analysis of the issues 
in the case and the recommended disposition. That went to all 
of the members of the court prior to oral argument. 

Morris: A recommended deposition being a recommendation as to how the 
court would 

Broussard: How the issue would be decided, yes. 
Morris: That's forward-looking. 

Broussard: Well you've got all the briefs and everything except oral 

argument. So you analyze the issues and, for the benefit of 
your colleagues, you put out a memorandum with an analysis of 
all the issues and some recommended disposition. Do the 
issues have merit? So that would be distributed to all the 
members of the court prior to oral argument. 

This process has changed a bit after the supreme court 
adopted a true ninety-day rule. But at that time, and for much 
of the time that I was on the court, we did not really formally 
submit a matter for decision until the case had been argued and 
the opinion was virtually ready to be filed. That's how we 
really avoided or got around the constitutional requirement 
that no matter remain submitted for more than ninety days. 


After oral argument, the court would then meet and have a 
post-argument conference on each case. And each justice would 
indicate at least tentatively how he or she intended to vote. 
And based upon that indication, the chief justice would make an 
assignment as to who would write the opinion. Again, the basic 
understanding was that if the justice who wrote the calendar 
memo appeared to command a majority of the court, that justice 
would write the opinion. But if it appeared that justice was 
still of the same view and did not command a majority of the 
court, the case would be reassigned to someone else who 
appeared to be in the majority, to write the opinion, and the 
justice who wrote the memo would probably write a dissenting or 
a concurring opinion. 

Morris: That sounds as if in many cases there's not an up or down vote, 
that it's a matter of there is a consensus and--. 

Broussard: There is an up or down vote in the sense that you expect it to 
be prepared to indicate how you think the case should be 
disposed of. But you also should be prepared to consider other 
people's views or whatever else might be written. So we always 
considered it a tentative indication of how one viewed the 
issues. Usually at the time of the post-argument conference, 
all a justice has considered in addition to the briefs is the 
calendar memo and oral arguments. 

Your views might very well be tentative, because someone 
else might write a dissenting opinion which you would read and 
consider for the first time, and it may make some points and 
make sense to you. So in that sense we always considered those 
votes indications of how one viewed the issues at the moment. 

Justices' Work Is Never Done 

Morris: You said earlier on that your first concern was to deal with 
the paper flow. It sounds as if you did devise some ways to 
stay on top of all this paper. How did you come up with them? 

Broussard: Oh, it was a constant struggle. I mean, everybody has to deal 
with the paper flow and some internal organization. I had an 
excellent secretary who really coped with that for me. I had 
the same secretary, Janet Ellenberg, for the ten years that I 
was on the supreme court. I really had an operation that 
revolved around where she was the hub of my whole operation. 

Morris: Trained as an attorney herself? She learned on the job? 


Broussard: No, no. But there's a difference between being a secretary and 
organizing paper flow as being a judge or a lawyer. She was 
just an outstanding secretary, she was not legally trained. 
But my whole operation sort of revolved around Janet; she was 
the hub of it. And when I say my whole operation, ultimately 
on the court I had as many as six full-time student externs and 
five full-time staff attorneys, and a shared secretary. 

We just all made Janet the pivotal point, and she sort of 
kept everything in order, flowing properly. The supreme court 
is a unique entity. Not replicated anywhere else as far as I 
know, as I said, I don't know of any other state supreme court 
that has the size staff that we have, or has the size state 
that we have, or which has to grapple with more complex issues 
of every kind than that court has to do. It makes it, I think, 
if second to anything, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Morris: In terms of--? 

Broussard: In terms of complexity, paper flow, the thoroughness of the 

analysis and treatment of the issues that come before it. And 
--I don't want get out of linebut maybe even in terms of the 
quality of the work. 

Morris: That's certainly the historical reputation. 

Broussard: But the thing is, from the point of view of justices, it is a 

very, very demanding job. It's difficult for two reasons which 
are not apparent to the public. Most of the time when I tell 
people that the supreme court is a very difficult and demanding 
job, they think that I'm referring to the difficulty or 
complexity of the issues, and I'm not. What makes the supreme 
court a difficult and demanding job is that first of all, the 
work is never done. You always have something else that should 
be dealt with, complicated by the fact that-- 


Broussard: --we don't have terms as such. 
Morris: Like the U.S. Supreme Court does. 

Broussard: The California Supreme Court has oral argument ten months of 

the year. No oral argument, normally, in July and August, but 
no term as such. What it means is that for ten years as a 
justice on the supreme court, I was never once able to say, 
"I'm through. I do not have anything else that needs to be 
done . " 


Where, on the trial court, I don't care how difficult the 
case is or how long the case is, or if you're in calendar 
department as distinguished from a trial department--! don't 
care how difficult it isthere comes some point in each 
working day when you're through for the day and you can go home 
and rest up for tomorrow. Now I'm not saying the work isn't 
difficult, but that there's a closure; there's a point at which 
you finish each day. On the supreme court, you have to build 
in closure. At the end of the day you ask yourself, "Should I 
stay here another hour and one-half? Or take an hour and one- 
half's work home with me? Or come in an hour and one-half 
early in the morning? Or all three of the above." 

Now that's one way it's demanding. The other is that the 
work doesn't go away. If you get a little tired and you plan 
to take a vacation, you know, most of us work hard to prepare 
ourselves, to get as current as we can on our work before we go 
on vacation. You take off two weeks, and when you come back, 
about 80% of what you would have done if you had remained on 
the job is waiting for you. That's because we do everything 
collegially; we do everything en bane. 

I'll never forget, I really wanted to take about two weeks 
between the superior court and the supreme court, but that was 
made impossible by Rose Bird's schedule. She scheduled our 
confirmation hearings for July 21, and she scheduled a special 
calendaras 1 indicated to you, the court does not normally 
have oral arguments in August; but the court had been without 
the services of Justices Clark and Manuel for several months, 
and there were cases which the court tried not to schedule for 
oral argument, where it was perceived in advance that the court 
might be divided. You didn't want to have two pro- terns come 
onto the court and join two regular justices in the majority 
when you would have maybe three regular justices in dissent. I 
mean, it's just not good for the stability of the law. 

So when Otto Raus and I came onto the court in July, we 
looked straight into the face of a special oral argument 
calendar that had, I think it was twenty-one cases, most of 
which were known to involve either rehearings or issues on 
which the court would be divided. And that was our initiation, 
a special August calendar with difficult cases. I couldn't 
take two weeks then. I looked ahead and identified two weeks 
in September when I would take off. 

My staff said, "Fine, we'll carry on while you're gone." 
I took the two weeks off and I came back to my chambers . At 
that time I had a huge partner desk- -do you know what a partner 
desk is? 


Morris: Yes. It's got slots on both sides for two people to work at. 

Broussard: Yes. Huge. As a matter of fact, I'll digress for a bit to 

tell you that during the State Capitol Restoration Project, the 
state made a very serious effort to locate and identify 
furniture and other things that had been in the state capital 
historically. And the desk that I had was identified as the 
desk that had been used either by the speaker pro-tern of the 
senate or the speaker of the assembly. And they wanted it. So 
we worked a trade. They got my desk and the furniture that was 
put in my chambers was paid for by the State Capitol 
Restoration Project. That desk now sits in Speaker Willie 
Brown's office. 

Morris : 


Morris : 


Oh, wonderful. How do you suppose it had gotten down the river 
to San Francisco? 

Oh, over the years a lot of things have happened. I mean, yes, 
a lot of furniture had been displaced and was located elsewhere 
in the state. 

But anyhow, that's a double-size desk, in effect. 

Yes. So when I came back after those two weeks, the whole 
perimeter of that desk was lined with boxes. And when I say 
with boxes, at that time on the court, when it was the 
justice's time to act on a case, either side on a majority 
opinion or side on a dissenting opinion, or write if you were 
going to write, when it came your time to participate, the box 
with the record of the opinions and everything came to you. 
The whole perimeter of that desk was lined with boxes. 

One box, one case? 

Yes. Sometimes two or three boxes for one case. But this is 
the stuff that had come to me in the two weeks when I was gone. 
When I moved myself around my desk, I saw two stacks of papers 
in the middle of the desk, and I said, "Well what's this?" 
They said each stack was the three-to-three votes from the two 
Wednesday conferences that I'd missed. 

Three-three votes? 


You were going to be the deciding vote? 

I was the tie-breaker, yes. So in other words, the court had 
met in conference on the two Wednesdays that I was on vacation, 
and the only things that I didn't have to read and vote on were 



the cases where they had four votes on it one way or the other, 
but the difficult ones, where they tied three-three, were 
sitting there waiting for me to participate in them. 

That's all I'm saying: what makes the work of the supreme 
court so demanding is that the workload is ever-present; it's 
never done. You can go away, but the work doesn't go away. 
Because you have to participate in virtually everything that 
your colleagues participate in. 

And a justice does not abstain from voting on a case, a justice 
does render his or her decision for this side or that side or 
reservations? You do express an opinion on every case? 

Broussard: Well, you might have to recuse yourself on a case, where 

there's some reason you shouldn't participate in it. But let's 
make a distinction. When you say case, the term we use is 
cause. If you're participating in a cause, you have to vote 
one way or the other. You have to write in support, you have 
to sign what someone else has written, or you have to write and 
express your own views. 

Now, I distinguish between a petition for a hearing or 
application for extraordinary relief or a writ or something 
like that, those things that we decide on what we call an ASAP 
[as soon as possible] basis. When we get a request for 
extraordinary relief or temporary restraining order and 
injunction, or some extra writ like that, that's circulated 
among the court, and as soon as there are four votes in favor, 
it's disposed of. 

So if I happen to be working at home that day or making a 
speech somewhere and they get four votes, that's not a cause. 
It's just a matter that's come before the court. I don't have 
to participate in it. But if it's a cause, then everyone on 
the court participates in that, unless you are recused. So 
those boxes were cases where I had to participate one way or 
another. And so they just sat on my desk, waiting for me to 
come back. 

The Ninety-Day Decision Rule 

Morris: You mentioned a while ago a time limit in which a cause is 
disposed of--. 

Broussard: Well, in California a judge has to sign an affidavit that no 

cause submitted to him or her has been undecided for more than 


ninety days. Or that there's no matter pending before him or 
her for more than ninety days that has not been decided. We 
call that the pay affidavit. Your compensation depends upon 
your deciding submitted matters within ninety days. 

Morris: Really? 

Broussard: Yes. Now traditionally, the California Supreme Court has 
defined "submitted" differently than most other courts do. 
Usually a matter is considered submitted if it's tried and all 
the evidence is in and the briefing has been done. The matter 
has already been submitted and then you have to make your 
decision within ninety days. In the courts of appeal, 
traditionally a matter has been submitted when oral arguments 
have been either waived or completed if there ' s no further 
briefing to be done. If the court orders further briefing or 
something, the matter is not submitted until the briefing is 

In the supreme court, what traditionally has been done was 
that the matter was not ordered submitted even following oral 
argument. The court would go into the opinion-preparation 
process. And then when the opinion or opinions were virtually 
ready to be filed, a submit order would be filed. In essence, 
that sort of notified the press that an opinion was about to be 
filed in a particular matter. And it gave the press a little 
lead time in preparing whatever story they were going to write, 
preparing to understand the opinion in terms of the issues that 
were involved. 

But all of that changed as of January, 1989 or 1990. My 
memory fails me. And the supreme court now operates on the 
traditional ninety-day rule. What it has done is to require 
the court to do more work before oral argument, towards a 
tentative disposition of the case. In the older system, about 
the only thing that each justice got on a case were the briefs 
and the bench memoranda prepared by a colleague . And then you 
prepared yourself for oral argument, you went into oral 
argument and you put a lot of time in the case afterwards . The 
court put a lot of time into the case after oral argument, 
preparing the opinion or the opinions that were going to be 

Under the present system, more work has to be done prior 
to oral argument. You have to be pretty much up on the issues, 
and have a pretty well-defined tentative view of the 
disposition, so that it can be assured that within ninety days 
of oral argument your opinion or opinions can be prepared and 


Morris: I was thinking of probably a slightly different aspect of it. 
Was it the Tanner decision when there was a question about the 
court withholding an opinion until after election because it 
might have a bearing on--. 

Broussard: Well that involved the Tanner decision and the so-called Tanner 

Morris: Right. Is that the same kind of thing? That when you give out 
the decision, that has to be within that ninety-day period? 
The subtext of that is that was thereyou know, the press rr^de 
a lot about did the court delay an opinion. 

Broussard: No, no, no. Wait a minute. Sometimes it's hard for me to 

understand what you're driving at. At the time of the Tanner 
decision, the court was operating under the old rules, so there 
was no real concern about the ninety-day expiration. The 
charge then was the court had delayed filing the Tanner 
decision until after the election, and that there were 
political motivations for that. That was the charge. 

What I'm talking about when I talk about the ninety-day 
rule is, under the old system, the ninety days really didn't 
begin to run until the opinion was virtually ready to be filed. 
Under the present system, the ninety days run from the date of 
submittal. And the date of submittal now is usually the date 
of oral argument, unless the court asks for or grants 
permission to do some additional briefing or file some 
additional authorities. Then, upon the filing of those 
additional matters, the case would be submitted, and the ninety 
days start running. 

Morris: Okay. Was the change made because of the flap over the Tanner 




No. Actually, several reasons, one of which was a lawsuit 
concerning the constitutionality of the earlier practice. 

Why did the Tanner decision cause such a flap? 
reason that the opinion was delayed? 

Was there any 

I was not on the court then, so I have no information other 
than what was made generally available to the public and during 
the actual hearings themselves, part of which were televised. 
I mean, I was a sitting judge then. 

But the Tanner decision was perceived as one where the 
California Supreme Court was, again, being soft on crime. And 
it was accused of deliberately delaying the decision until 
after the election in November of '78--let's see, I think it 


was the '78 electionbecause of concern that it might affect 
the vote in the election. 1 Then that became a cause celebre 
for accusations and recriminations by members of and people 
outside of the court. You know that whole history. 

Ironies of Death Penalty Measures 

Morris: It seems as if, in ways one doesn't expect, society's concerns 
do indeed impinge on the way the court operates in its 

Broussard: What do you mean? 

Morris : We had a period in which there had been feelings that the death 
penalty should be removed, and then the voters decided that it 
should be reinstated. It seems that the courts are right in 
the middle of society's confusion as to how it wants to treat 
its own members. 

Broussard: That's not a very refined view of how things operate. I mean, 
the court is primarily guided by the law. And certainly there 
is opportunity and need for some interpretation, which gives 
rise to the possibility of different interpretations. But the 
period you're talking about on the death penalty was the period 
after the United States Supreme Court had said that most state 
death-penalty statutes were unconstitutional under the United 
State Constitution. 

And so it's true that the supreme court had declared 
California's death-penalty law unconstitutional, but there was 
a hiatus period in which no state had a valid death-penalty 
law. And most of the states now went about the business of 
trying to draft death-penalty laws that would conform to 
requirements of the U.S. Constitution as announced by the U.S. 
Supreme Court. And California did that. 

There is a real irony in this situation. California had 
enacted a death-penalty law in 1977. That was enacted by the 
legislature and signed by the governor. What's interesting 
about it is that the principal author of the 1977 death-penalty 
law was George Deukmejian, then senator. That 1977 law was 
written with, I think, a sincere effort to comply with all of 

'On Proposition 7, an initiative measure sponsored by Senator John 
Briggs, which expanded the categories in which the death penalty could be 



the requirements of the U.S. Constitution as they were 
understood at that time. 

That law had the benefit of committees, hearings, and 
drafting with care by the author and the legislative counsel's 
office, and it was designed to give California a valid, 
constitutional death-penalty law. Unfortunately, it lasted but 
about a year, because then-senator John Briggs launched his 
effort to become governor by sponsoring a death-penalty 
initiative, which was adopted by the people in 1978. 
California presently operates basically under that 1978 death 
penalty law. 

Now the difference is that Senator Briggs and the people 
who were working with him set out to make the death-penalty law 
as broad and as encompassing as they thought it could be. And 
so, rather than carefully drafting it to be constitutional, 
they were drafting it to be as broad as they thought it could 
be. It did not have the benefit of the legislative process, it 
did not have the benefit of careful committee consideration. 
It was intended to be as broad in scope as they thought it 
could be. And it just presented a tremendous amount of legal 
problems. It imposed upon the supreme court a responsibility 
for resolving a whole lot of legal issues that were complicated 
and difficult, that would not have been present under the '77 
law. They would have been much more easily resolved under the 
1977 law. 

The Briggs initiative imposed upon trial courts and upon 
trial prosecutors and defense attorneys the necessity of 
operating in an area where the law was not clear for a very 
long period of time. You see, it's true that there were many, 
many more reversals, at least in the penalty phase of death- 
penalty cases, in the Rose Bird years than there were later. 
But as sure as I sit here now, if the composition of the court 
had remained the same, there would have been more reversals of 
penalty phases of death penalty cases earlier on than later on. 
Because, under the '78 death-penalty initiative, there were so 
many unresolved issues that courts and prosecutors didn't 
really know how to try the penalty phase of a death- penalty 

Regardless of what their personal or social views might be? 

I don't like to use this, but if the Rose Bird court was still 
sitting, that court would be affirming more cases now than it 
did earlier on. Because lawyers and trial judges have a better 
understanding of what's required. That's because of that whole 
evolution of decisions that came out of the California Supreme 


I'm also saying that if the Malcolm Lucas court were 
determining the propriety of the death penalty under the '78 
law, that there would have been more reversals, relatively 
speaking, than there would be now. So all I'm saying is that 
as the issues presented by the '78 law became resolved by the 
court, then the affirmance rate went up. Now that's not to say 
that there are no attitudinal differences between the earlier 
court and this court, particularly in the area of what is 
perceived as prejudicial error. 

Initiative Ballot Measures 

Morris: Is this lengthy process of interpretation becoming a more 

common occurrence when you get the kind of initiatives that we 
have had in the last fifteen years, the really sweeping 
initiative like Proposition 13 and some of the others which 
have attempted to really redefine how government will operate 
and handle, raise revenues? 

Broussard: Well, of course, number one, I think there is a fundamental 

difference between the legislative process and the initiative 
process. Essentially what I've said, in the legislative 
process you have committees and hearings and they have the 
opportunity to understand what the measure provides and to 
hopefully write it in a way that it's understood and doesn't 
create too many unresolved issues. In the initiative process 
you are dependent upon the ability of the sponsors of the 
initiative, because if it qualifies, it goes on the ballot. 
That's it. 

The initiative process proceeds without the benefit of the 
legislative process. Any initiative sponsor can bring in 
whoever he or she might want to advise and consult, so there's 
a variation. But I'm saying here you don't have the benefit of 
the organized legislative process. You can have input from 
different people, but most of the time it's people who have 
interest and motivation to accomplish certain things. So when 
you get the complicated initiatives, they are more likely to 
present very difficult, unresolved issues than would be 
comparable legislation. 

Morris: Do you have time this morning to talk a little about the 

Malcolm Lucas court? Or should we put that over to another 

Broussard: Oh, it'd probably be better to put it over. There is one thing 
that I would like to add to the discussion that we were having 



is one of the things which concerned me as a member of the 
court. I'll be watching the development. 

One of the greatest protections that the electorate has in 
the initiative process is the requirement that an initiative 
measure should deal with only a single subject. And the courts 
traditionally have defined single-subject as narrower than 
broader. As a matter of fact, there's a similar requirement 
with reference to legislation: each statute should only apply 
to a single subject or deal with a single subject. The 
tradition in California is that a single subject is defined the 
same for the legislative process as for the initiative process. 

My own personal view is that the need for protection for 
the electorate is greater in the initiative process. And there 
are some indications that the court may be reconsidering the 
definition of single subjects with reference to the initiative. 
There are those, for example, who think that Proposition 8 
[June 1982] --you know, the first Victims' Bill of Rightsthat 
Proposition 8 should have been eight propositions. So that 
each of the provisions would have been voted up or down by the 
electorate without having to buy the whole package. I think 
that there is more of an argument to be made for that view when 
you are dealing with the initiative than when you are dealing 
with legislation and the legislative process. But the courts 
haven't taken that view so far. 

Isn't there a review of the initiative before it goes on the 
ballot by the attorney general's office? Is that not one of 
the things the attorney general's office reviews? 

Broussard: No, no. Not for compliance with the single-subjects 
requirement or anything like that, no. 

Morris: Fascinating. More complicated, some of these issues, than you 
thought they would be when you started out? 

Broussard: Well, there are a lot of complex issues in the state, 

especially now. Even if they aren't complex, there's somebody 
trying to make them complex. 

Morris: Why don't we stop there for today. Before we meet again, I'll 
type up my notes on the decisions that I was asking about, so 
they're more legible. 

Broussard: I'd appreciate that. When do we meet again, in one week or 
two ? I hope it ' s two . 



[Date of Interview: January 29, 1992 ]## 

Morris: There was one civic thing I wanted to go back to before we got 
into court matters again. Could I ask you what you recall 
about being on the East Bay Foundation board back in the early 
'70s? It was then still the Alameda County Community 

Broussard: Oh, the East Bay Foundation, yes, right. I represented the bar 
association. The Alameda County Bar Association was entitled 
to nominate two people, I believe, to serve on the board of the 
foundation. I don't even recall who suggested my name or who 
the president was at that time. 1 But it was the kind of thing 
that I guess I've always had a penchant for doing. I had been 
quite involved in community activities in the city of Oakland, 
largely through the Oakland Men of Tomorrow, which we talked 
about. And so when I was asked if I was interested, I agreed. 

It was an interesting period. The East Bay Community 
Foundation, of course, was very small in size as compared to 
the San Francisco Foundation, but yet we were doing some 
creative and innovative things, and we were working primarily-- 
not exclusively but primarily- -with the kind of a new, start-up 
group that had innovative ideas. I learned a lot about what 
was going on in the community. We would go out and actually do 
in-the-field investigation of most if not all of the 
applicants. For instance, try to make a determination as to, 
not only were they working, but whether they were likely to 
succeed. And so I learned a lot about the community, some of 
the activities that were going on, some of the work that was 
being done, and frequently wished we had much more money to 

'Otto Hieb was then chairman of the board of trustees. 




Morris : 

know . ' 

Of course, all of that was pre-Buck trust fund days, you 

Would there have been staff by that time? Or was is still run 
pretty much by the trustees? 

That's one of the questions you gave me that I didn't have a 
chance to go back and refresh my recollection. I think we had 
one staff person. 

Would that have been when Bill Somerville was there? 

Yes, Bill Somerville. 

I think he was there all or part of the 

The reason I ask is because I understand that he was the first 
staff person, and I wondered if there was much discussion about 
the need for staff people and the need to find someone. 

We just simply didn't have the resources at that time to retain 
full-time staff people. Most of our clients were small, and 
they were generally nonrecurring grants, too. We would not 
give a grant for more than three years. It would be nice to 
have staff on a full-time basis; we just weren't large enough 
to afford that at that time. 

'Disposition of a bequest by Marin county resident Beryl Buck led to a 
controversy in the 1980s that significantly affected giving patterns of Bay 
Area charitable foundations. 



Acceptable Bounds for Discussion 

Morris: Going back to some of the questions on the outline: I hope that 
when I typed up my notes on some of the cases I thought you 
might want to talk about, they became more understandable. 

Broussard: Yes, I reflected on that a little bit. I guess there are 

comments that can be made about having worked on a case within 
the acceptable bounds of propriety. Generally, we don't 
comment on the substantive issues in the cases that we decide. 
Let other people comment on them. But, no, I can talk about 

Morris: Good. I picked those because in my reading it seemed like 

those were the ones that were of interest to legal observers. 

Broussard: That's only a few of them. By the way, here is something I had 
done near the time of my retirement. 1 

Morris: Oh, this is wonderful. This is a listing of all your opinions. 

Broussard: Yes, it's as accurate as my then law clerk could make it. It's 
just a listing of the opinions, divided by majority opinions, 
concurring and dissenting opinions. 

Morris : That would be really valuable to include as an appendix to this 
document we're creating, if it would be possible to run this 
through a photocopy machine. 

'California Supreme Court Decisions by Justice Broussard, as of May 
12, 1991, LEXIS compilation. Copy in supporting documents in The Bancroft 


Broussard: Oh, I can get a copy for you. 
Morris: That's a very large body of work. 

Broussard: That's never been published anywhere else. I used that for my 
own purposes and for a couple of speeches that I made. I just 
wanted to have that record before I left. 

Morris: In considering your supreme court decisions, have you arrived 
at some conclusions as to the kinds of issues that were 
particularly significant that came before the court in those 
ten years? Have you commented on this in any speeches, for 

Broussard: Well, 1 probably made a couple of speeches where I referred to 
this. I was talking to a group that I've been a member of for 
a long time, and I was just sort of describing some of my work 
on the court, and it was helpful to be able to give them some 
visual indication of the quantity of work that I'd done. 

Doctrine of Federal Abstention; Mono Lake Decision 

Morris: That's a large single-spaced listing. Maybe we could run down 
this list and see if there were some general issues before the 
court, or procedural matters upon which it might be helpful for 
students to have some thoughts. This list was put together 
chronologically, and the first one was a decision in 1983 
related to Mono Lake. 1 

Broussard: You have a question or do you just want me to comment? 

Morris: Yes. The phrasing in the decision was that rights to use and 

divert water could be modified to protect fish and wildlife and 
aesthetics. So what is that? Property rights versus 
environmental rights? 

Broussard: No, no. Sometimes I do wish you were a lawyer. [laughter] 

Actually, the Mono Lake decisionthat ' s the way we referred to 
it, although it was actually, I think, the National Audubon 
Society versus Los Angeles Water and Power District or 

'National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County; 
Department of Water and Power of City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal. 3d 419 



something like that. That was an interesting case to work on. 
First of all, the case really started in the federal courts. 
Are you familiar with the doctrine which we call federal 
abstention at all? Well, the litigation was in the federal 
court. It was in Sacramento with Judge Carleton, I believe. 
I'm not positive about that. 

During the course of the litigation it became apparent 
that there was a very important unanswered question about 
California water law. Under the doctrine of federal 
abstention, the federal court abstained from deciding the state 
legal issue, because its decision would not be final as to 
California state law. So they allowed the parties to institute 
an action in the state court to resolve the legal question 
which was raised in the federal litigation. I think Mono Lake 
is one of the most important decisions our court ever decided, 
in my judgment. It certainly caught the attention of all of 
the water law people, not only in this state, but in the 

I enjoyed working on it because I can remember, before 
going to law school, I had never dreamed that water was 
something that people litigated over. And I can remember 
Professor Ferrier with his little specs hanging on the end of 
his nose, talking to us about upper riparian and lower riparian 
and the right of proprietorship and appropriation and so forth. 
You know, the concepts were all so new and vague and strange to 
me. I must have learned it well enough to get a passing grade, 
but all of it was just a foreign language to me. And here I 
had the responsibility of working on what I recognized early on 
was one of the more important issues to come before our court. 

I liked the fact that it came to us from the federal 
court, which had kind of posed the question, "Is California 
water law this on the right of proprietorship? Or is it that? 
Is there a public-trust doctrine that the proprietors can rely 
upon?" They gave us an either-or question, and our answer was 

Oh, wonderful. [laughter] 

And frankly, there was a little language. The federal court 
inquired as to the relationship between the public-trust 
doctrine and the California water-rights system, asking us 
whether California water law was one or the other. And we 
said, "Neither." This was a real important sentence in that 
case, that the public-trust doctrine and the appropriative 
water-rights system are parts of an integrated system of law. 


The public-trust doctrine serves the function in that 
integrated system of preserving the continuing sovereign power 
of the state to protect public-trust uses, a power which 
precludes anyone from acquiring a vested right to harm the 
public trust, and imposes a continuing duty on the state to 
take such uses into account in allocating water resources. So 
we said that it was one integrated system, that they coexisted, 
and a person could rely either on the appropriative system or 
on the public-trust system in challenging any water allocation 
or ruling by the court or the Water Resources Board. 

That was a very important decision. What I was really 
pleased about, the federal court had asked us two questions. 
That was the substantive law question, and the second was 
procedural, whether or not the State Water Resources Board had 
exclusive jurisdiction. Well, we were unanimous as a court on 
the substantive law question. Then Justice Richardson didn't 
agree on the procedural issues; we were 6-1 on that. But the 
important issue was the substantive law issue, and we wrote an 
opinion, which I am pleased to have been able to participate 
in, which I think made a real contribution to the development 
of the law in this state. 

Morris: Did it have an effect in other states also? 

Broussard: Oh, I haven't made a specific study of it to follow it, but 

it's one of the widely-read and cited cases. I'm sure it's in 
the textbooks of many law schools and everything else where 
water law is studied in. It was an impact case. 

Morris: Had this integrated system idea been discussed before? 

Broussard: It was a new issue in California. I mean, that was what made 
the case important. [coffee break] 

Morris: Was it a new issue because the environmental consideration had 
not been raised before in terms of water use? 

Broussard: It had certainly never been addressed by the appellate courts 
in this state. So far as I know, this was the first time the 
issue had been presented in any litigation that was going to 
judgment in the state. And that's the reason the federal court 
abstained, because there was no answer in state law on this 
question. So rather than the federal court deciding it, they 
let the state courts decide it, and it ultimately went to the 
California Supreme Court, which then articulated the law for 
this state. 


Morris: And then did it go back to the federal courts? 

Broussard: Yes, it went back to the federal court to complete the trial 
consistent with the law as announced by our opinion. 

Morris: What did the federal courts do with it? Uphold the California 

Broussard: No, no. That's not the way it works at all. I mean, the 

federal court is bound to apply the law. Now, what we just 
said was that it was one integrated water-law system. We 
didn't deal with the allocations that were being challenged 
with the specific rulings of the Water Resources Board as to 
how much the water level could be dropped at Mono Lake. Those 
were issues which were resolved at trial. But they had to be 
resolved consistent with the law as articulated by our court. 

The real question was whether or not the plaintiffs could 
rely upon the public-trust doctrine in challenging the water 
allocations that had been allowed by the water board. Or 
whether they had to rely simply upon the doctrines that exist 
in the appropriative water law system. And so the unique thing 
about our case is we said that there are not two separate water 
law systems; there's one integrated system and the plaintiff 
could rely upon the totality, including both public-trust and 
appropriation concepts, in challenging the allocation of water. 

Morris: I can see where that would have made a great difference in 
future allocations. 

Interpretation of the Death Penalty; Importance of Precedent 

Morris: How about also in the same year, the decision regarding proof 

of intent to kill in cases where there was a sentence of death? 

Broussard: Yes, Carlos was an effort by our court to interpret the 1978 
death-penalty initiative. 1 At an earlier time I told you that 
California had a 1977 death-penalty law that was enacted by the 
legislature and sponsored by then-Senator Deukmejian. That was 
a considered and very deliberate attempt by the legislature to 
draft a death-penalty law that would be consistent with all of 
the constitutional requirements as they understood it, as 

'Carlos v. Superior Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 131 (1983). 



contrasted to the 1978 Briggs initiative, which was an 
initiative and not a legislative measure, and raised a lot of 
very, very difficult interpretation questions. 

The problem we dealt with in Carlos was that under one 
reading of the initiative, it would be possible for an 
unintentional killing, which involved one of the special 
circumstances, to be made first-degree murder because of the 
existence of a special circumstance. One could be made death- 
eligible if you found the special circumstance. And then when 
you started weighing aggravating versus mitigating, the special 
circumstance in some cases could in and of itself be sufficient 
to tilt the scale towards aggravating outweighing mitigating, 
which would mean that an unintentional killing, simply because 
of one special circumstance, could be made first-degree, death- 
eligible, and the death penalty could be imposed. 

We wrote an opinion interpreting the statute to require 
that there be an intent to kill if the defendant was to be 
death-eligible. We did it based upon an interpretation of the 
statute and also based upon what we thought would be the 
requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court for constitutionality. 
Of course, you know that Carlos was short-lived, because that 
was an '83 opinion and after the 1986 election the court 
revisited Carlos. 

That's what I was wondering. 

Yes. When the court revisited Carlos in a case which is called 
Anderson, 1 a couple of things had happened. We had had three 
additional new members appointed to our court by then-Governor 
Deukmejian, and there had been some indications that the United 
States Supreme Court was not going to require intentionality in 
order to uphold the imposition of the death penalty under state 

So our court in Anderson overruled Carlos and said that no 
intent was required, and did so in another 6-1 opinion with 
everybody on the court except me going along. I kind of took a 
pot shot at the court, but I was very disturbed that a very 
recent precedent by our court (which was not a 4-3 opinion; it 
was a 6-1 opinion) was just simply being reversed largely 
because a change in the composition of the court, at least in 
my view. 

'People v. Anderson, A3 Cal. 3d 1104 (1987). 


Morris : 


In my dissenting opinion--! think this is language which 
has been quoted everywhere--! said, "Periodically, when the 
political winds gust in a new direction, it becomes necessary 
to remind all concerned of the virtues of a steady course." As 
lawyers and judges we sometimes deliver our reminder in Latin, 
stare decisis. 1 And I went on to say that we thought that it 
was a disservice to the law to undermine or overrule an opinion 
so recently decided by our court, and quoted from an Illinois 
Supreme Court decision that arose in a very related context. 

I mean, that court had upheld the constitutionality of 
that state's death-penalty law in a 4-3 opinion. And there was 
a change in composition on the court, and a couple of years 
later the same issue came up. One of the Illinois justices who 
had dissented in the earlier opinion wrote an opinion 
indicating why the earlier opinion should not be overruled even 
though there was a 4-3 majority for unconstitutionality. That 
he thought that with the court having made a decision as to 
constitutionality and his having expressed his disagreement 
earlier, he was now bound by that ruling, and he voted to 
uphold the constitutionality. 

Isn't that interesting. 

And we quoted from him. All that he was saying was that the 
decision had been made by the court as an institution, and not 
by seven individuals, and that a change in composition of the 
court did not justify a change in result when nothing else had 
changed. He was not saying that the law is immutable, but that 
a change in composition on the court, with nothing else having 
changed, was no real reason to overrule or reverse an earlier 

Was that viewpoint discussed by the court in California? 

Oh, certainly. I mean, it had to be; I wrote on it. It had 
been discussed. Well, the court was just convinced that Carlos 
had to go. First of all, I think probably many of them began 
to question its reasoning, but one of the underpinnings of 
Carlos, as I said, had been some reading as to the direction 
that the U.S. Supreme Court was going in. We had had problems 
all along, of trying to make the '78 initiative conform to 
federal constitutional requirements as we understood them. 

'Let the decision stand. 


Frankly, many of us were very surprised when the United 
States Supreme Court indicated that it would not require an 
intentional killing for it to turn out to be death-eligible. 
And that indication was apparent; it hadn't been specifically 
decided, but that indication was becoming more apparent at the 
time Anderson came up. And so it sort of removed one of the 
considerations that we had relied upon in interpreting our 
statute to require intentionality. 

Morris: So that it sounds as if it is an important part of the work of 
the state supreme court to keep an eye on what is going on in 
the federal supreme court . 

Broussard: Oh, certainly. We are part of the union. The process is kind 
of intricate. We're deciding California state law, but 
certainly, the question of the death penalty involves both 
state and federal law. We have a state initiative. We want to 
try to interpret it in such a way that it is not 
unconstitutional in the federal constitution, if the language 
permits that. And so whenever the court is faced with a choice 
of interpretations of state law, one of which would be 
constitutional and the other which would unconstitutional under 
the federal constitution, the court would choose the one that's 
constitutional under the federal constitution. But then later 
on, if it becomes apparent that either interpretation would be 
constitutional under the federal constitution, then in this 
instance the court decided to change the interpretation of the 
state law, and eliminate any requirement that a killing be 
intentional before the defendant is death-eligible. 

Balanced Budget Initiative, 1984 

Morris: Then the next decision 1 came across that I recall as being 
especially significant in those years was the court striking 
down the initiative calling for a federal constitutional 
convention for a balanced budget amendment. 1 

Broussard: That was an important case, I guess maybe for two reasons. It 
raised the question as to when, if ever, should a court 
determine the validity of a measure prior to election. That 
was one of the new things about that case. And, of course, the 
other was that there was a movement across the country to 

'AFL-CIO v. March Fong Eu; Lewis K. Uhler, 36 Cal. 3d 687 (1984). 


Morris : 


Morris : 



require the calling of a constitutional convention to amend the 
federal constitution to require a balanced budget. That part I 
don't want to comment upon, because we didn't really delve into 
the merits of that; that's a political question. But we had to 
look at the contents of the California initiative to determine 
what it would require. 

We read the initiative as requiring the California 
legislature to take some action and requiring the people to 
take certain action, and as being an improperly drawn 
initiative substantively under state law and also not 
conforming to federal constitutional requirements for the 
convening of a constitutional convention. In my mind, what was 
very important was that we articulated a concept that courts 
should rarely determine the validity of a constitutional 
measure prior to the election, and should never do so when the 
constitutional question related to the meaning or 
interpretation of the initiative substantively. 

But in this instance, the constitutional question that was 
raised went to the power of the people to adopt that particular 
initiative. The question was, did the people have the power to 
adopt this initiative? And we concludedand I don't want to 
go through all the legal analysisbut we concluded that that 
question could properly be decided before the election. We 
concluded the initiative was such that the people did not have 
the power to enact it, it was not a proper subject for that 
kind of an initiative. Therefore, we could order that it 
remain off the ballot. Without looking at its substantive 
provisions, it was not a proper subject for an initiative, and 
the people had no power to adopt it. 

They had no power to adopt an amendment regarding a balanced 

No, an amendment which would require the state legislature to 
do a certain thing, to adopt a particular resolution under pain 
of sanctions, and would require that the federal constitutional 
convention be called. The federal constitution requires that 
that action be taken by the various state legislatures. 

Not by the citizens, the individuals. 
Not by the people, right. 

What about the aspect that it was an advisory message, not a 


Broussard: The initiative would not have changed California law at all. It 
was not a substantive measure in dealing with California law. 
It would simply have ordered our legislature to take certain 
action towards the calling of a federal constitutional 
convention. We said that it was not a substantive change in 
California law, and therefore not proper to the subject of an 
initiative. The people do have the power to legislate through 
initiative, but this was not really appropriate legislation. 

Concerning Civil Liability 

Morris: And also in "85, a decision allowing tenants to sue landlords 
for injuries caused by unsafe conditions? 


Broussard: Well, it's a little more than that. Although, when we wrote 
Becker, 1 I didn't realize it would create the furor that it 
did. Frankly, I thought it was merely an expression of rather 
established principles, where you had a landlord engaged in the 
business of leasing or renting property who was unaware of a 
dangerous condition at the time he leased it to the plaintiff, 
who likewise was unaware of the dangerous condition at the time 
that he leased it. And then later, the defect causes an injury 
to the plaintiff. 

In my judgment at that time, it was sort of a typical 
application of tort principles, that you impose the burden of 
the harm upon the person who was engaged in the business and 
who had at least the ability to do something about the defect, 
conceded that there was no actual knowledge on the part of the 
lessor nor upon the part of the lessee. Tort principles 
require that the risk of danger, the risk of harm be borne by 
the landlord, and we basically said that it would be the 
landlord's responsibility to be strictly liable for injuries 
incurred by the tenant under those situations. If I remember 
correctly, there was some dissent. I think Justice Lucas 
dissented on that point. 

But the case really created a stir, and if I remember 
correctly, I think there was even an effort to introduce 
legislation that would change its result. I don't believe it 

'Becker v. IRM Corporation, 38 Cal. 3d 454 (1985). 


ever succeeded. But it was viewed as a much more important 
case, I think, in the community and in the field than I thought 
it would be. 

Morris: Than at the judges' level? 

Broussard: On my own personal level, at least. Theoretically, every case 
which our California Supreme Court decides is an important 
case, because we have discretionary jurisdiction. I keep 
saying, "we"--I'm not on the court now any morebut the court 
has discretionary jurisdiction. Generally, when it grants 
review of a case, it should be because there is some 
institutional importance to that case. But even within that 
framework of doing cases that are more important than others, I 
just hadn't viewed this as being as important as the profession 
or the public viewed it after it was decided. I thought it was 
more routine. 

Morris: Not knowing the details, it would seem that if somebody is 

injured in a building owned by somebody else, it would be--. 

Broussard: Basically we say that where the landlord is engaged in the 

business of leasing property, and he leases property with what 
we call a latent and nonapparent defect, with a latent defect 
which exists at a time the premises was leased to the tenant, 
that in order to be sure that the landlord who markets the 
product bears the cost of injury resulting from defects rather 
than the injured tenant, we apply the concept of strict 
liability. As I said, I thought it was a routine application 
of that doctrine. 

Morris: So you were surprised when it created the stir that it did. 
Broussard: Yes, it created a lot of controversy. 
Morris: Amongst court observers. 

Broussard: Yes. And in the field. Of course, when you're dealing with 
property owners and property users, you've got varying 
interests and anything affecting that relationship, I guess, 
will be controversial. But I was a little surprised. 

Morris: There were comments at that time that the court appeared to 
have shifted to the center on questions of civil liability. 

Broussard: Well, you know, we decided the cases, and we let other people 
do the commenting. 


Morris: That's probably a good plan if you figure that whenever you 
make a decision that's choosing between A and B, somebody's 
going to object whichever--. 

Broussard: Sure, and sometimes it's A, B, C, D, and E. 
Morris: That's very true. [laughter] 

Public Employees and Consumer Protections 

Morris: Okay. How about the Long Beach case in 1986 allowing public 
employees to refuse lie detector tests? 1 Public employees 
being a category different from just private citizens? 

Broussard: Again, I'm surprised that case made your list. It was 

important, but it was no great shakes, at least in my judgment. 
I mean, we simply said that a law which allowed employers to 
require--! think it was non-public safety public employees, to 
be required to take a lie-detector test during the course of 
their employment was unconstitutional under people-protection 

The law exempted public sector safety employees, but did 
not exempt non-public safety employees. At the same time, non- 
public employees cannot be required to take lie detector tests. 
We just said that it was an invalid classification under the 
equal protection clause to exempt just this one category of 
public employees. And, secondly, the results of the lie 
detector tests would not be admissible in any court of law, so 
we said there was no compelling state reason to justify the 
classification. And we, again in a rather traditional 
application of equal protections classification concepts, found 
that the statute didn't cut mustard, and invalidated it. 

It was, on a relative scale of importance, not a biggie, 
at least not in my judgement. 

Morris: Are there a few cases or issues that you did feel were 
particularly important or satisfying to you? 

'Long Beach City Employees Association v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal. 
3d 937 (1986). 


Broussard: I didn't go back and try to answer that one for you. [Looks 

through list] There were some that I'm just going to touch on 
briefly because I didn't go back to review them. 

Didn't you have something in here about children's TV? 
That was a case which never got a lot of publicity. That was a 
lawsuit brought to enjoin television advertising beamed to 
children promoting high sugar-content cereal. And it was 
knocked out at the trial level on a demurrer, which means the 
plaintiff couldn't even get to trial on the issue. And we 
ordered that it be overruled, that they had [not] stated a 
cause of action. 1 

I think Consumers Union was involved in the background of 
the litigation. It went on later to trial; I'm not sure of the 
precise result. But I thought it was an interesting and unique 
question about the beaming of television commercials to kids in 
a manner that just caused kids to demand that their parent buy 
a particular product for the kids that was of high sugar 
content . 

And, of course, one that is still very much in the news, 
so I don't want to say a lot about it substantively, but I am a 
little surprised that it's not on your list, involves the 
California insurance industry, Proposition 103. 2 That was 
probably one of the most challenging and interesting cases that 
I worked on. If you'll just recall a little bit about the 
environment within which that case came up--a sixty-five 
million-dollar campaign for and against various insurance 
initiatives which were on the ballot. 

Prop. 103, which would have required some rebate of 
premiums to the California insured, was the one that prevailed 
at election and, of course you know, was substantially 
challenged, and it came up to our court. The case was assigned 
to me. It was a case where we ultimately got a unanimous 
court, but only after a lot of effort. I think the court 
worked harder as a court to resolve the issues that were 
presented by the Prop. 103 case than almost any other case ever 
decided by the court while I was there. 

Morris: Why was that, do you suppose? 

'Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods 
Corporation, 35 Cal. 3d 197 (1983). 

2 0n the June 1990 ballot. 


Broussard: Oh, it just raised some very difficult constitutional issues, 
and some very difficult issues of interpretation. And of 
course we were mindful of the fact that there had been some 
strong competing interests who were trying to determine what 
the appropriate interpretation of the measure was. It was just 
difficult to forge a consensus, which we ultimately succeeded 
in doing. As I said, I don't want to comment substantively on 
it, because the insurance comnission is still wrestling with 
the application of the law as interpreted by our court. We 
know the whole sequel to that. I mean, we have a new insurance 
commissioner now, who's elected. 1 At that time we had an 
appointed insurance commissioner, 2 and there was a lot of 
concern about how she was interpreting and applying the law. 

Morris: And all of that was part of considering the initiative itself? 

Broussard: I don't understand your question. The court decided the 

constitutional validity of the initiative, and interpreted many 
of its provisions. But the application and implementation of 
the law is a matter for the insurance commission. Of course, 
any time the insurance commission is dealing with a new 
statute, even though the supreme court has said it's 
constitutionally valid, there are areas of interpretation and 
there are various choices as to implementation. And there was 
a lot of controversy around insurance commissioner Gillespie. 

A lot of people with consumer-oriented interests were not 
satisfied with her interpretation or the hearings which she 
conducted or the rulings which she made, particularly with 
reference to premium rebate. There were a lot of other issues 
that were raised in that case and decided by our court. But 
basically, we upheld the constitutional validity of the 
initiative measure that had been adopted by the people. 
Highly, highly contested politically in an election. 

Achieving a Unanimous Decision 

Morris: So that there were times when you were comfortable being part 
of a majority with the new people on the court? 

'Former state senator John Garamendi. 
2 Roxanne Gillespie. 


Broussard: This case came about at a time when I was already frequently 
writing dissenting opinions. 

Morris: Writing dissenting opinions? 

Broussard: Yes, writing dissenting opinions. And this was a measure over 
which I think most people thought our court would be divided. 
I tried to persuade the court that the view that we had 
recommended was legitimate, and as I said, we wrestled with the 
legal issues and the analysis and the case precedent and the 
meanings of the drafters of the provisions and of the electors. 
We did a lot of work inside in order to try to accomplish what 
we did. 

Morris: A unanimity. 

Broussard: Yes. I think it was significant. 

Morris: Why does that work? Why is it possible to achieve unanimity on 
one issue and not on another? 

Broussard: Because on one issue it's possible to get people to agree and 
on another, it may not. I mean, we just worked very hard on 
our view of the proper analysis of the measure and overcame 
some differing views and persuaded people to go along and to 
sign on to our opinion. It's a matter of reasoning with 
people; sometimes you can reason together and agree, other 
times you can reason together and not agree. It's a case by 
case matter. 



Malcolm Lucas as Chief Justice; Broussard as Acting Chief 

Morris: We haven't really talked about Malcolm Lucas as chief justice. 
Did you find him very different in the way he administered the 
court in comparison to Rose Bird? 

Broussard: Let's just say the job of chief justice has certain 

responsibilities, and there's got to be commonality. I mean, 
anyone who is chief justice has to accomplish certain things or 
appear a failure. I think both Chief Justice Bird and Chief 
Justice Lucas succeeded, although their styles were somewhat 
different. I had a very pleasant working relationship with 
Rose Bird. But I must say, I think her style was a little less 
open than Malcolm Lucas. 

After Rose Bird left the court, I served as the chief 
justice--! 'm the only member of our court who served as acting 
chief justiceduring a three-plus month period when we had no 
chief justice. We always have an acting chief who acts when 
the chief is out of the state or unavailable or recuses himself 
or herself. One of the members of the court is always 
designated acting chief, but that's acting chief with a chief 
justice in place. 

But for the period from January 4--or whatever it was-- 
1987, until March something when Malcolm Lucas became chief 
justice, I was the acting chief justice of the state of 
California by myself. 

Morris: That must have been a strange experience. 



Well, it was a new and different experience. One of the things 
that was very interesting and challenging for me was that I sat 
on the confirmation hearing for Malcolm Lucas as chief justice. 
The Commission on Judicial Appointments, as we've said, 
consists of the chief justice of the state of California, the 
attorney general, and when the appointment is to the California 
Supreme Court, then the third member of the panel is the 
senior-most presiding justice of the court of appeal in the 
state of California. And that was Lester Roth, John van de 
Kamp, and me. 





Or did the governor 

Were you acting chief justice by rotation? 
name you? 

No, the chief justice named me. 
Rose Bird. 

Yes. Under Malcolm Lucas we had a more rotating acting chief 
justice system. I think each justice on the court had a 
rotating term as acting chief for about three months, I think 
that's the way it was later on. 

Under Rose Bird, she had the power, and she designated me 
as the acting chief. There was some question raised about the 
duration of the validity of designation after she left office, 
but there was no real serious challenge to it, and I continued 
to serve as acting chief until we got a chief justice. An 
interesting thing about that, you'll remember that I told you 
that when I came up for confirmation to the supreme court, 
George Deukmejian, who was then the attorney general, voted 
against me and then proceeded to vote against virtually every 
appellate court nominee of then-governor Jerry Brown, very 
largely on the view that they were judicial activists. 

That's a simplification but, very largely on the notion 
that Jerry Brown was nominating people who were going to be 
judicial activists and Deukmejian wanted nonactivist judges on 
the bench, he was voting against all the Jerry Brown nominees 
on what was, in my view, was an improper basis for voting 
against a judge who was otherwise competent, had integrity, 
character, ability. But because he didn't agree with his or 
her judicial philosophy, voted against him as a member of the 

I was tempted, although I didn't do it, to make some 
comments during the Malcolm Lucas hearing, that if I were to do 
what the then-governor did when I came up for hearing, I would 




Morris : 

vote against Malcolm Lucas, simply because I had a different 
judicial philosophy. And if he went about the business of 
joining majorities in the cases in which he had dissented when 
we were in the majority, he would be a judicial activist. 

Lucas could be defined as a judicial activist? 

Yes. Lucas could be defined as a judicial activist if he 
started joining a new majority to try to overrule the cases on 
which he had dissented when we were in the majority. But I 
mean, I had served with Lucas, and I knew he was a very able 
judge and very well qualified to sit on the court, even though 
we disagreed on the bottom line. But it was sort of a 
temptation to make a speech, just sort of lecturing the 
governor, but I decided not to do it. 

It's a good feeling sometimes to be able to, though. 

It would have been easy to do. If you recall, I guess most 
prominent in the testimony against the chief justice was 
attorney Nat Colley, a very respected Black attorney in the 
state of California, who testified against the chief, largely 
on the basis that he was a conservative and had minimum contact 
and exposure to people of color and to their problems and 
situations and life. Nat Colley took a lot of heat for coming 
forward and testifying against the chief. But I had just 
decided that I would not try to give the governor a lesson in 
civics. He was no longer on that commission, anyway. 

Did Justice Lucas take that in good part? 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think he and Nat Colley went on to 
develop a communication, a rapport, and a respect for each 

Morris : 

Yes, sure. 

Diversity and Discussion on the Court 

Morris: Is it possible that his service on the supreme court has 
broadened his outlook on some issues? 


Broussard: Oh, I think so. In some way I helped to contribute to that. 

That's one of the reasons that a court is well-served by having 
some diversity on its membership, because it's not that you go 
and look at public opinion, but that if you have people on the 
court who have different experiences, backgrounds, and 
attitudes and views, but who have competency and professional 
ability, then you should be able to impact upon each other's 
thinking and analysis and conclusions. That's the reason we 
sit around the table, so that we can all give input to the 
ultimate work product report. Certainly there's room for give 
and take in that process. 

Morris: Yes. It's fascinating to contemplate a discussion between 
seven men and women with your accumulated experience . 

Broussard: Yes, but you see, that's why I put real importance on diversity 
on the court. In my judgment, when you get a monolithic court, 
you sit around the table and you're all inputting the same 
stuff. So there's very little challenge, there's very little 
give and take. If you all readily agree because you have the 
same background, the same experiences, the same attitude, the 
same philosophy, the results are rather predictable, easily 
achieved, and minimally challenged. 

Morris: And the court is not going to expand the concepts--. 
Broussard: Beyond the parameters of those seven people. 
Morris: Right. 

Broussard: One of the things I enjoyed, although dissent became a bit 

frustrating at a certain point, but one of the things that I 
enjoyed was being one of the people on the court who would 
challenge some of the earlier responses to issues. It was a 
delight to say, frequently, "Wait a minute. Let's stop and 
take a look." I will not be specific on this because it would 
be a violation of confidence, but there were some instances in 
which I was able to take a court which was going in one 
direction and turn it around just by the power of analysis and 
persuasion. That's very satisfying. 

The frustrating thing about it is that the public knows 
the cases in which you aren't successful and you write in 
dissent. But the public doesn't know the cases where the court 
would have come out differently but for the fact that somebody 
on the inside [said], "Wait a minute. That's not the way to 


And if you persuade a majority, then that becomes a 
majority opinion, But you don't go around saying, "Aha! I 
persuaded everybody." So there have been some instances in 
which I really just turned the direction of the court around. 
But nobody will ever know it except those who are privy to the 

Morris: You could always write a little memoir of your own. 
Broussard: And leak it. 

Morris: The Bancroft Library is there for posterity, so you can put 
something under seal. And at some future time--. 

Broussard: What is confidential is confidential. 

Morris: But there's the factor of time, you know. What's confidential 
now because the participants are still active may not need to 
be confidential twenty- five years from now. 

Broussard: Oh, that's not quite like the presidential papers, I don't 

Social Context of the Law and Policy Choices 

Morris: Is this is a matter of convincing people on points of law? Or 
more on social outlook? 

Broussard: Those aren't different. The law deals with social problems. 
We don't have the law over here and a social problem over 
there. We have the law dealing with people in relationships 
that generate legal problems, living with social phenomena. 
It's one amalgam, it's not an either/or. It's a little like 
the California water law; it's not either/or. It's one 
composite body of law. In other words, the supreme court is 
charged with the responsibility of shaping development of the 
law in this state. We don't legislate and we don't 
administrate, but we try to interpret the law. 

In order to make the law have meaning and vitality, we 
have to interpret it in a social context . The cases that come 
to the supreme court are important because there is no black- 
letter law saying this is it or that's it. There are 
legitimate requirements in considering or making policy 
choices. That's what makes the court important. We're dealing 


in an arena where we have to make policy choices. We have to 
be governed by the law, and all of the principles and concepts 
that go into what determii 25 the outcome of the case. We have 
to be governed by rules of statutory interpretation, we have to 
be governed by precedent, stare decisis . 

The cases that are important are the cases which, when you 
consider all of those things, there's still a choice to be 
made. That choice is basically considered a policy choice. 
It's an individual decision as to what you think is 
appropriate. In that context, you try to influence each other. 
Sometimes you can succeed in persuading your colleagues to your 
point of view, and other times you aren't successful. So it 
depends on, you know, what the issue is of the day. 



Organizational Obligations 



Morris : 


Morris : 

The law as you describe it is very alive and evolving. What I 
hear is other people saying that there is one interpretation 
and that was set when the constitution was written. 

Oh, sure. Then we could have a computer supreme court, 
the law is a living thing. And it has to be. 


Earlier you made the comment that you're not a hater. Does 
that apply to your work on the court or more your community 

Oh, that was a description of me as an individual. It applies 
wherever I am. I was simply saying that with my upbringing in 
Louisiana, especially when everything was segregated in law and 
in fact , I had a lot of personal conflict on the one hand 
because of my race and on the other hand because of my 
religion. That I was in a situation where it would be easy for 
me to hate people who were different than me, either racially 
or religiously. 

And for some reason that I just can't answer, that did not 
happen. I'm not a bitter person. I have race and ethnic 
pride, but I don't have bitterness and animosity toward people 
who are different than I am. I just rejoice in that fact and 
recognize that it could have been different. 

Is that related to what you've also mentioned about feeling a 
commitment to be visible in community activities and set an 



Broussard: Well, yes and no. I think if I were a hater I would not ever 
have been able to undertake a lot of the involvement in 
activities that I did. But even there I have to make some 
allowances that are a little more intricate than what you've 
just indicated. I was always a person, from City College on, 
who was a joiner, who was always involved in organizational 
activities. I'm repeating myself a bit, but when I graduated 
from high school, my family left Louisiana, and all of a sudden 
I'm in California, which is supposed to be the land of freedom 
and equality. I found it to be a little different than that, 
especially after the war was over. 

Even at City College, which was the first school to which 
I went, City College of San Francisco, I was one of the early 
Blacks to be involved in student government. A man whom I've 
admired all my life and don't see too often any more, although 
I do see him occasionally, was Don Grant. Don Grant was a 
product of San Francisco schools, and was at City College. He 
was one of the first Blacks that I knew of ever to be involved 
in student government on the City College campus. And I 
followed him in a couple of his activities, on the student 
executive council and on the club advisory board. Don, by the 
way, had been a victim of polio, and he had knee supports on 
his legs, but he played interior lineman on the football team. 
He was a phenomenon. 

Morris: Isn't that incredible! 

Broussard: He played line guard or tackle, I forget which. And he was 
strong in his upper body, and he could run ten or fifteen 
yards, but then have to get back down on his knees. And it was 
a marvel to watch him play football with his handicap. He was 
effective. They weren't making exceptions for him, he was an 
exceptional person. He was an inspiration for a lot of us. 
But he inspired me or motivated me because he was active in 
student government, when I did that. 

And then, as I told you before, I was the perennial 
president of the college chapter NAACP, and that really, I 
think, contributed a lot to my development as a person who had 
a sense of obligation, responsibility to the community. That's 
something that has stayed with me all the way through in terms 
of community involvement and organizational involvement. 


Changing Times 

Broussard: The other aspect of it that we talked about a bit, was that, if 
you stop to think about it, things move so slowly but yet they 
move rapidly. To give you a contrast, contemporary contrast- 
look at what just happened over the weekend [January 1992] in 
Oakland and compare it with what the possibilities were when I 
went on the bench in 1964; it'll make my point. 

Last weekend Governor [Pete] Wilson appointed three Blacks 
to the bench in Alameda County. He appointed, or elevated, 
Martin Jenkins from the muni court to the superior court- 
incidentally, to fill a vacancy which was created when Sandra 
Armstrong -Brown, a Black woman, superior court judge, went to 
the federal court. He replaced Martin Jenkins on the municipal 
court with Brenda Harrin-Forte, a Black woman lawyer who had 
just been installed as president of the Alameda County Bar 
Association, becoming the first Black woman president of the 
Alameda County Bar Association. Then he appointed Gail 
Brewster-Hardy to the municipal court. 

She is a dynamic and tremendously respected woman who had 
been engaged in private practice with her husband in Alameda 
County when they were involved in a private plane crash, which 
resulted in permanent disability for her husband, mental and 
physical, as I understand it. Permanent physical disability 
for her, she's confined to a wheelchair, but she has all her 
mental faculties. She was serving as a commissioner for the 
Oakland Municipal Court when the governor appointed her to the 
bench to fill a vacancy that was created when Judge Jim White, 
a Black municipal court judge, was killed in an auto accident. 

When you have three Blacks appointed in Oakland at one 
time- -and all the vacancies that were involved were held by 
Blacks- -now that is some indication of where we are today. 

Morris: Wow! 

Broussard: I must say as an aside that it is my belief, I may be wrong, 
but it is my belief that while the governor did that, and I 
give him credit for it, that he undertook to do it in a way 
that it would not generate maximum publicity in the broader 
community . 

You don't make judicial appointments at five o'clock, at 
five-thirty on Friday or on Saturday unless you want to bury it 
in the press. And it was Tuesday before the Oakland 




Tribune ran a story on the three appointments, so it was page 
four. And one story covering three appointments. So you know, 
it didn't get the play that it might have in the broader 
community . 

It's a little off the point, but Saturday night was the 
installation dinner for the Alameda County Bar Association 
president, for which I was scheduled to emcee. But I was 
fighting the flu and had to cancel out. The plan was that 
Brenda was going to be ceremonially installed as president and 
then just resign. Then Eric Behrens, the president-elect, 
would be installed in office as president. 

The important thing is that this year you have three 
Blacks appointed in Oakland at one time, and all of the 
vacancies that were involved were created by Black judges. If 
you contrast that to 1964, when I went on the bench, there were 
so few Black judges in the state of California, that I was 
aware of the fact that as I got involved organizationally, many 
judges were seeing or working with a Black judge for the first 
and only time in their life. 

I was aware of that. That helped to motivate me to get 
involved in judicial education and in judicial organizational 
activities. I was aware of the fact, and I think today many of 
the lawyers and the judges especially are aware of the fact 
that, over a long period of time I was in essence not only a 
role model for them, but I was setting an example for a lot of 
people who had never had any opportunity to work with, come in 
contact with, get to know, a judge who was Black. There were 
just Lionel Wilson and me in Alameda County, one or two in San 
Francisco, and maybe--oh, I know fewer than a dozen in Los 
Angeles. I didn't take the time to try count them, but 
certainly fewer than a dozen, maybe more like six or seven or 

Is your thought then that a Republican governor, or is it Pete 
Wilson particularly, has made a commitment to diversity in 
appointing people to the bench and other things? 

I don't want to over-generalize because all of this is just--. 
What we know is that he appointed three Blacks on one day, or I 
think maybe one of them got the call on Saturday, but I mean, 
in one weekend. 

And think of the vacancies. In other words, when Martin 
Jenkins, a Black muni court judge, went to the superior court, 
he filled a vacancy that had been created when a Black women 


Morris : 

Morris : 

judge went to the federal court. And when Gail Brewster-Hardy 
went to the muni court, she filled a vacancy that had been 
created when a Black judge died in office. 

So I'm saying not only do we have three Black appointees, 
but the vacancies were created by movement of Black judges. 
And that's a phenomenon that was just not possible a few years 
ago. We didn't have the numbers. The rest of it now is just 
my own personal view that Pete Wilson was willing to do that. 
I think that he recognized that there might be some elements of 
the public or of the party that wouldn't view it with great 
favor, and it's my own humble opinion that it was done in such 
a way that was more or less buried in the press. 

I'm surprised that the Tribune didn't make more--. 

Well, they may do a human interest or feature story on some or 
all of the people later, but you know how newspapers function, 
you get a press release from the governor when something like 
this happens, and you work from that. If you're going to do a 
human interest thing or something, it comes later. That's what 
I'm saying, that five o'clock, five-thirty on Friday is not a 
time to issue a press release. 

Not if you want it on the evening news. 

And Saturday certainly is not a time when you're seeking 
maximum exposure. 

California Association of Black Judges 

Morris: There wasthere still is--a Black judges association. Is that 
something that you helped to start? 

Broussard: National? 

Morris: I'd assumed there was a California branch of it, also. 

Broussard: Well, in California we have a California Association of Black 
Lawyers, and within that organization there is a judicial 
affiliate, a judicial council. Really, what first started was 
the California Association of Black Lawyers, which was an 
umbrella group that most of the other ethnic bar groups 
belonged to. We have a Charles Houston Bar Association, a 
Wiley Manuel Bar Association, then a John Langston Bar 


Association. They were primarily Black bar groups in the Bay 
Area and Los Angeles that then formed the California 
Association of Black Lawyers. 

And the judges came together and said, let's belong to 
CABL, that's the acronym. But we would meet separately and 
just sort of develop an agenda that was more judicially 
oriented than CABL itself was. One of the main things that 
CABL did was to promote and encourage the appointment of Black 
judges, one of the major activities in it. It has an 
educational component and social component, but CABL was very 
involved in encouraging and promoting the appointment of Blacks 
to the bench. 

Morris: More so than the NAACP or the Urban League? Or working 
together with them? 

Broussard: Well, of course, in those efforts you work with whoever is 
willing to work with you. But at the time, let's say 
particularly during Governor Brown's administration, I think 
lawyers had more input into judicial appointments than many of 
the other organizations that were interested. I think it's 
just a group to which the governor looked and to which he 
responded. But it certainly was not the only organization that 
was interested in that cause. 

Morris: How about working with the California Bar Association to get 

them to take an interest not only in African-American attorneys 
but Hispanic and other minority groups? 

Broussard: Yes. But the California bar is an integrated bar. I don't 
mean in a racial sense. I mean every lawyer in the state of 
California is a member of the California state bar. And 
therefore the California state bar has real limitations on what 
it can appropriately do with its money and with its time. And 
so while the state bar could espouse a principle of diversity, 
it was not the effective organism for advocating appointment of 
this Black or other minority to this judgeship; it's a 
different entity. 

Committee on Racism in the Courts 

Morris: I'd also like to hear a little about this committee on racism 
in the California courts. I read that Chief Justice Lucas had 
appointed you to chair it? 


Broussard: I'm tempted to quiz you a little bit, but I won't do it. I'll 
just give it. Let me give you--. 

Morris: [reads] "To investigate racial and economic bias in the 
California courts." 

Broussard: Let me give you a little lesson and a little history. Malcolm 
Lucas is not the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. 
Most people don't know that. He is the Chief Justice of 

Morris: I had heard that, but I didn't understand the distinction. 

Broussard: As Chief Justice of California, he is the chief justice of the 
California Supreme Court, but his power and his title is 
broader than that. He is the chief justice of the state of 
California. One of the most important additional 
responsibilities is that as chief justice of California, he 
chairs the Judicial Council of California, which is a 
constitutional body which has the basic rule-making authority 
for the courts in this state, all the courts of the state. The 
Judicial Council also has the responsibility for developing 
programs to make the courts effective, efficient, responsive. 

Along those lines, under then-Chief Justice Rose Bird, the 
Judicial Council created a Commission on Gender Bias in the 
Courts. And that commission was continued by Chief Justice 
Lucas when he became chief justice. He just enlarged the 
membership some, and continued the gender bias commission, 
which completed its study and submitted a report with 
recommendations to the Judicial Council in the area of 
eliminating gender bias from the courts and from the 

At or about the time that that report was being developed, 
the chief, in response to urgings from some people and also in 
response to a conference that had been held of the various 
states--! think at that time only four states had race or 
ethnic-bias commissions--the chief in his capacity as chair of 
the Judicial Council appointed an Advisory Committee on Race 
and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. That committee was given the 
responsibility of doing a job similar to what the gender bias 
committee had done with reference to gender bias, and that is, 
to study the existence, or the appearance of existence, the 
attitudes of the people about race and ethnic discrimination in 
the courts. 






We're doing studies, we're in the process of developing a 
group of consultants who will do various components of our work 
for us, and we are in the process of conducting public hearings 
in various areas of the state to make a determination on the 
various issues, as to whether or not there is actual prejudice 
or discrimination based on race or ethnic lines, whether 
there's a perception of it, what if anything can be done to 
eliminate it, to improve both the reality and the perception of 
fairness in the courts. 

It's a very major undertaking; the committee will probably 
take three years to complete its assignment and then prepare 
its report. Something comparable to what the gender bias 
committee did. A lot of work went into trying to make an 
advisory committee of fewer than thirty people reflective of 
the vast array of diversity that exists in this state. A 
tremendous amount of work went into developing a pool of people 
from whom the chief justice could make some choices, and have a 
group of people who were interested and able to function on 
that, people who would be as diverse as we could make it within 
the numerical limitations that were involved. 

I must say that we have a good committee; it's co-chaired 
by former justice John Arguelles and myself, and we're not quite 
midpoint in our work yet. There's a lot of work left to do. 

And you've continued on that even though you've retired? 

Yes, I've continued on that, and hope to continue on it. I 
think it's important. 

I should think it would be vital. 

But it's also time-consuming, and it takes weekend meetings and 
time away from home. With the hearings coming up, we've 
decided to try to divide that among the various members of the 
committee. Justice Arguelles and I will divide the 
responsibility of chairing the hearings so that we don't each 
have to be at all of them, because it's just very demanding. 

How many hearings? 

We've only had one, actually, and I chaired that. It was up in 

Was there a good response? What kind of response? 


Broussard: Yes, we had a good response, and some very, very poignant and 

emotional testimony both from the Native-American community and 
from the Black-American community. We also had the involvement 
of two presiding judges from two of the counties up there. We 
learned a lot. We're still in the process of reducing the 
testimony to writing and studying it, but we learned a lot. 
There are some very, very deep feelings in the communities up 
there about the adequacy or inadequacy of police work, 
especially. One thing was that much of the testimony related 
to police-citizen contact more than to the court itself. 

Morris: I noted that. Did you expect that kind of feeling? 

Broussard: I think we're going to get that everywhere, because that's the 
seminal point. I mean, you can't separate police work from 
court work. In the eyes of the average citizen, it all starts 
with the police. And I think that while we want to encourage 
people who have specific experiences relating to the courts 
themselves to come forward and make those experiences known, we 
have to accept the fact that when you have public testimony, 
there will be many people from the public who will want to 
testify from the viewpoint of citizens and their contact with 
the police. 

Morris: That, too, is part of the continuum of the interrelation 
between the courts and society. 

Broussard: Yes. In other words, you will get that. 

Morris: Yes. I'd be interested. Is there a contact point of 
information as to when the hearings are? 

Broussard: Oh, yes. That will be made public. You call Arlene Tyler at 
the administrative office of the court. The phone number is 
396-9128. She can send you a schedule or give you that 
information. We published a schedule, but now what we want to 
do is to increase the publicity tremendously in the area to 
which we will be going for hearings. 

Developing Minority Interests in the Law and the Courts 

Morris: You were also on an American Bar Association Task Force on 

Minority Opportunities in the Law. Were there things that you 
learned from that task force that you didn't expect or that 
have been helpful? 


Broussard: I'll come back to that. That's different, 
[water break] ft 

Broussard: [The task force has been working in several ways on activities 
related to the kind of issues that concern minority judges and 
lawyers. Some of these involve ways to bring more minorities 
in as members of the ABA; others include ways of encouraging 
young Black men and women to come into the legal profession. 
In order to] get more minority judges and lawyers to join in 
the ABA, you have to provide a welcoming environment and 
communicate that to them. 

And the message is going to be a tough sell because the 
audience is already turned off against you. So basically what 
my task force did was to say we've got to go out and create 
some programs that are of interest to minority judges. We have 
to be concerned about minority law students in school, on the 
bar exams, placement, judicial clerkships, clerkships in law 

When we ' re involved in those areas then we can say to the 
minority judges that we want your involvement in the judicial 
administration division [JAD] because we are doing things that 
are important to you. And we welcome you and we will give you 
an opportunity to belong, to participate, to go up the ladders 
to become chairs. You know, we're in the process of selling 
that market, and it's proving to be kind of a tough sell. We 
don't go into a room with twenty-five minority judges and say, 
"The ABA welcomes you," and get twenty memberships. It just 
doesn't happen. It takes a little time to overcome attitudes 
that have been developed. But that's basically what our task 
force is doing. It's future history, but by the time this 
comes out, it will have been achieved, I think. 

We're in the process right now, the JAD task force in 
conjunction with the ABA commission, of planning what we call a 
showcase of minority justices. A minority justices' showcase 
program, to be sponsored here in San Francisco in August of 
this year, when the American Bar Association has its annual 
meeting in San Francisco. When ABA meets, they generally 
attract some twenty thousand lawyers to a community. So it's a 
big meeting. We are planning to bring together all of the 
minority justices from the highest courts of each of the 
states. We had to work long and hard to develop that list, 
nowhere in the world did it exist. 

Morris: Nobody's kept count of minority justices? 


Broussard: No. There was no source to which we could go and say, "Give us 
all of the minority justices who serve on the highest courts of 
the various fifty states." We developed that list; we invited 
all of the justices to come to San Francisco. We want to honor 
them in an ABA setting. We've asked for an ABA presidential 
showcase standing; those are the programs that are highlighted 
during the annual meeting. We want to acknowledge and pay some 
tribute to each of these justices from the highest courts of 
each of the various states, and hopefully make them more aware 
of the ABA and its interest in them, and make the ABA more 
aware of and appreciative of their existence and their 
accomplishments and achievements over their professional 

Morris: Quite an undertaking. 

Broussard: It's never been done. Now we're including all of the states, 
including Alaska and Hawaii, so our list will be more than we 
had originally contemplated. It will be twenty- five or twenty- 

Morris: That's great. Do the state bar associations have the same 

resistance to welcoming minority members that you've found in 
the ABA? 

Broussard: Well, that would vary from state to state. In a state like 

California where you have, as I said, an integrated barit's 
almost an unfortunate word, because we're not talking about 
racial integration. 

Morris: I wondered about that. 

Broussard: No, and I said it before. Just to clarify, the term 

"integrated" in this context means that in order to practice 
law, you have to be a member of the state bar. That's the 
situation in California. 

Morris: It's a matter of state law. 

Broussard: Yes. In California you have to be a member of the state bar in 
order to practice law. That's what we mean by integrated bar. 
So the problems of membership have not existed with the 
California state bar. There are problems of involvement and 
participation and care and concern. The problem in California 
has been more with local bar associations, in which membership 

was not required. That's what I'm trying to say. 
a spotty pattern there. 

There's been 


I'll never forget when one of the partners in the first 
law firm that I worked with in private practice was one of the 
early Blacks admitted to the Alameda County Bar Association. 
His mother was one of the Black pioneers in California, and he 
went home and told his mother that he was a new member of the 
Alameda County Bar Association. She said, "You mean that white 
bar association?" And he said, "Yes." There was a time when 
there were no Blacks in the Alameda County Bar Association. 
And as I told you just a minute ago, recently they had a Black 
woman president for twenty-seven days or something like that. 

Morris: What about the coming generation? Are there people that you 
look upon as really promising proteges? People that have 
clerked for you or that you've worked with? 

Broussard: Oh, I just look at the bench and I see some real potential on 

the bench. I mean, if you're talking about minority judges. I 
don't want to start naming them, but I see some young people 
with real potential who are sitting on the trial courts of the 
state now. One of the unfortunate things in California was 
that under Governor Deukmejian's administration there were 
virtually no appointments to the courts of appeal in this state 
of minority people and of Blacks especially. 

When Governor Deukmejian took office, I believe there were 
five Black court of appeal justices in the state of California. 
Three in Los Angeles, two of whom were presiding justices, and 
two in San Francisco, one of whom was a presiding justice. 
During Deukmejian's term in office, Justice Leon Thompson in 
Los Angeles died, and Justice John Miller in San Francisco 
died. To the best of my knowledge, Deukmejian didn't appoint a 
single Black to the court of appeal until the last few months 
of his administration, when he appointed his legal affairs 
officer to the court of appeal in Sacramento. As a result, we 
haven't had a lot of movement from the trial court to the court 
of appeal. 

That was a factor that was very present when I announced 
my intention to retire from the California Supreme Court. We 
were certainly interested in having the governor [Pete Wilson] 
appoint someone who was African American to the court to 
replace me. And I guess the reality was that there was no 
person of African descent on the court of appeal that the 
governor found politically attractive. He expressed a 
preference for someone who had appellate experience, and there 
just were not--. 

Morris: Even though you had gone from superior--. 


Broussard: I had gone from the trial court to the supreme court, yes. 

Well, he was looking at a broad range of people from whom he 
could choose. It was impossible to persuade him that he should 
elevate a superior court judge to replace me. 

Decision to Retire. 1991; Unfinished Judicial Business 

Morris: Did you think of staying on the bench until a candidate might 
come along who would meet the governor's qualifications? 

Broussard: Oh, sure, I thought of it among a lot of other things. I made 
the conscious decision to stay on the bench past the last 
election [1990], although I was eligible for full retirement 
before. The last gubernatorial election, 1 decided I would 
stay on past that. But if I were to stay on until the next 
election, I myself would have been on the ballot. I considered 
it, and I considered all of the prospects and possibilities, 
and decided that I would step down when I did. 

Morris: Was the thought that if you had stayed and had to go up for 
confirmation you'd have the same kind of struggle that there 
was when--. 

Broussard: No, no. Oh, you mean if I'd stayed and I had to run? 
Morris: Right. 

Broussard: Oh, I don't think so. That didn't bother me particularly. 

We'd had a couple of elections where we didn't have that kind 
of repetition of the 1986 phenomenon, and I had little reason 
to believe that that would be a factor in any race in which I 
ran--it was just simply that I didn't want to sit around until 
it was 1994 and run again. 

Morris: Could we wind up, maybe, with any concluding thoughts you have 
on hazards or opportunities facing the judicial system in the 
'90s? What you see as unfinished business? 

Broussard: Oh, there are so many things, many of them are in the works 
now. We have a lot of problems facing the judiciary in 
California that are general, wide-ranging problems. One of 
them is just inadequate resources. For some reason (and I'll 
limit my comments to California, but I think a lot of this is 
true of other states, too) despite the fact that the judiciary 


Morris : 


is an important institution, it only commands a very, very 
small percentage of the state budget. 

The task of getting greater resources, either in terms of 
the number of judges or any of the other facilities that go 
into the judiciary, is a very difficult one. And we are really 
tapped out at the trial level in this state. The state is 
growing, the complexity of the issues is growing, the volume of 
litigation is growing. A lot of work has gone into increasing 
the efficiency of trial courts and of trial judges, and that's 
all good, but I think it comes to a point when efficiency isn't 
the answer. It's just going to take more and better resources. 
That's a problem that's facing the state. Both Chief Justice 
Bird and Chief Justice Lucas were interested in state funding 
of the trial courts, and that's something which I think will 
materialize on a full scale system in a short period of time. 
But it will only bring certain solutions with it. 

The thing that I'm really more concerned about is what I'm 
working with on the advisory committee. And that is that more 
than any state in this nation, California has racial and ethnic 
diversity, and it is growing and increasing rapidly. It 
presents a major problem of two proportions. One is to really 
assure that the courts are dealing fairly and equally with all 
of the ethnic diversity that comes before the courts, and 
secondly, that assuming fairness, that's there's also the 
appearance of fairness. Because the perceptions of the people 
are as important as the reality. 

We're talking about racial and ethnic diversity, but you 
have to stop for a moment and contemplate the differences that 
various people are coming to California with. I mean, some 
monied, some poor, some with skills, some without, some with 
different religions, different cultural and social backgrounds, 
different languages, different educational backgrounds, 
different family relationships, cultural associations and ties 
that exist in some of the diverse groups and don't exist in 
others. Yet they're all here in California, and we have one 
court system. I think it's a tremendous challenge to maintain 
what we call a system of justice that's equally applied to all 
of the people. 

Do some of the judicial education programs include some 
background on the changing population mix and recent 
immigration into the state? 

There is some effort to teach judges to be aware and sensitive 
and how to deal with diversity, but there's going to have to be 



a lot more of it. We're going to have to understand more about 
the demographics of the state, the people that we're dealing 
with, and how to not only deal with them fairly, but to make 
sure that it's perceived that way. 

How different are the legal systems that people have come from, 
say in South American countries or the Pacific Rim that we have 
so many people coming in from? 

Broussard: It's a major challenge for the courts in this state especially 
because of the size of the state and the size of the ethnic 
population and the diversity in the ethnic population. 

Morris: As a person who has now returned to the private sector, do you 
feel more comfortable talking about some of the issues that 
concern you than you did as a justice? 

Broussard: In certain areas. I mean, there are some things as a justice 
that you would have exercised at least a certain amount of 
discretion in where, who, or what, you know, you were talking 
to or about. I feel some freedom, but on issues like this, I 
spoke out as a judge. 

Morris: Do you see yourself as developing an advocacy role? 

Broussard: Well, no. Not developing. I mean, I'd been involved as a 
judge even, in the matters of governance bearing on equal 
treatment for our diverse population. That rises above legal 
issues per se. 

There are political questions and some legal questions 
that as a judge you don't talk about publicly. And some of 
them, even to this day, I feel a little reluctant to talk 

Morris: Things that you've encountered as a justice yourself. 

Broussard: No, things I was involved with. I'm not talking about 

encounters, that's a different concept from things that I was 
involved with. 

Morris: I do thank you. You've given us some really good information, 
and I apologize for my shortcomings as a non-attorney. 

Broussard: It's not a shortcoming; but you know, when you get into an 

intense interview situation--. It might be an advantage that 
you're not really an attorney, frankly. 


Morris: That was kind of my thought; you'd have to explain it me. 
Broussard: Yes, it might be an advantage. 



[Date of Interview: January 16, 1996 ] 

Travels to China and Japan; Observing Judicial Systems 

Morris : 




We wanted to bring your activities up to date since our last 
interview session in 1992. 

Yes. In preparation for that I got out my desk calendars for 
those years. This is interesting: In 1993, I swore Willie 
Brown in on January 11 as speaker [of the assembly] in 
Sacramento. And I swore Steve Phillips in to the school board 
in San Francisco, and I installed the mayor on January A in 
Oakland. That was Elihu Harris. [pause] Reviewing these last 
two years sure brings back memories. [Reading to himself] I 
went to Maui in February. On a court [conference]--. I'm now 
on the National Judicial College, on their board. [pause] Oh, 
yes, on March 12, Charter Day, I received the [University of 
California] Alumnus of the Year Award for 1992. That for me 
was a real honor. 1 

Was that a surprise? 

Did you know beforehand that that was 

Well, I knew a little beforehand. As a matter of fact, I knew 
I'd been nominated. Yes, because they had taken pictures and 
prepared an announcement, things like that. But it still is a 
real honor. 

'See appendix for the text of this award. 


And I got the Boalt Hall Alumni Award too. 1 That's a 
different award. Here's one of the things I wanted to include 
in this narrative. It won't take long. [reading] To New York 
for a legal defense fund meeting. I went to Russia in May of 

Morris: Was the trip to have a look at some of their judicial 

Broussard: Yes. 

Morris : How are they coming along? 

Broussard: [shakes head] Actually, I had been to China when we talked. 

I went to China in '87. That had an even more deep-rooted 
impression on me. We had a little longer trip and a little 
more exposure in China and saw things like the prisoners' cells 
in the courtroom and thei threethey call them three-judge 
courts, but it's one member of the party and then two 

Of course, they're on the European system, in which there 
is no presumption of innocence, no proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt, meaning really guilt is established by investigation, 
and when you come to court, the statethe whole concept is not 
an individual against the state. There's a paternalism 
involved. The state has ascertained that you have done 
something wrong, and the state wants to know what should be 
done. So the trial, so-called, is like a glorified sentencing 
hearing here, and don't lie, if you're the defendant. Don't 
lie. I mean-- 

Morris: Oh, dear. 

Broussard: You're entitled to an attorney, but your attorney is of more 
assistance to you in the investigatory process than anywhere 

Morris: Before it comes to the court? 

Broussard: Yes. The attorney can be helpful in the investigatory process, 
but once you get in the court, there's very little the attorney 
does. We had attorney number one, attorney number two, two 
defendants in a robbery, and that was the main crowd we saw. 

'University of California Law School Association, 1991. See appendix 
for text. 


We saw other court appearances in other cities in Russia, 


Morris: That must be quite a surprise for someone trained in the 
Western judicial system. 

Broussard: It's discouraging, yes. It's swifter dispositions anyway. But 
I'm surprised China didn't come up when we talked before, 
because China was '87, and that was the most interesting travel 
I've ever done in my life. 

Morris : 


Would you describe it now. 

Russia paled in comparison. I led a delegation of lawyers and 
judges, and this is a people-to-people delegation. People to 
People was the name of the organization sponsoring this trip. 
[President Dwight D.] Eisenhower encouraged the group. The 
first thing they did was to advise me on a mailing that they 
intended to get a delegation of about thirty people, and in 
their experience, there would be about twenty-two professionals 
and the others would be spouses or significant others. We got 
106 deposits, and seventy-two people made the trip. 

Oh, my goodness. 

And People to People had no confidence that the Chinese would 
be able to accommodate us. 

Morris: Well, that was early in Americans being able to travel in 

Broussard: We were among the first Americans to go over as a group. We 
had contingency plans to split the delegation in two. We 
didn't have to do any of that; they handled it all there 
beautifully. It was just a great experience, really great 

Then, in 1993, we went to Russia. The interesting thing 
there was that our tripagain, I was the delegation leader. 
We only had twelve people on that trip. Our trip was sponsored 
by a Russian cultural exchange organization that's 
headquartered in Moscow, but the head of the office was an 
American who lived in Talinn, which is in Estonia. 

While we were in Russia, when it was mealtime, we'd go 
into a restaurant, and the table would be ready. Generally, if 
it was lunchtime, the food would be ordered, and we'd sit down. 
We'd eat and we'd get up and we'd leave. When we got to 
Estonia, we were going into the nicest restaurants in town. We 


had an Estonian woman, blonde, who was our local guide. She'd 
order champagne. Give us the menu; we ordered anything we 
wanted. We vare just treated lavishly. The trip was really 
designed to have us enjoy Estonia more than we did Russia, 
although we saw some interesting things in Russia. 

One of the most interesting things that happened on that 
trip was when we got to St. Petersburg. It was their national 
day of celebration of the liberation from years of domination 
by the Germans, and the main celebration was a gathering at a 
huge cemetery on the outskirts of town, and just masses and 
masses of people, but all very orderly. Anybody who had 
participated in the defense of the city was allowed to 
participate, regardless of their present political affiliation, 
so there was tension between some of the communist groups and 
some noncommunist groups, so there was a lot of tension in the 

We were fortunate enough that our delegation was put into 
contact with the local host organization, and so we got through 
the crowd into a very prominent position, and there was 
resentment about that. But the main event was a series of 
presentations by different groups, usually in their tattered 
uniforms with their flags. There's a big center aisle, and 
these groups would walk down that center aisle up to this big 
statue, then place a wreath and come back. 

We marched with the sponsor group, and when we were about 
halfway down the aisle, a shot rang through the air, this 
cannon shot, and at first some of our group were terrified. I 
mean, you could feel the ground shake and you could feel the 
air, and the sound was almost deafening. It was a ceremonial 
salute, but at first you didn't know. 

We had just arrived that day, and Odessa, my wife, didn't 
feel well, so she stayed home and she watched us on local 
television. But it was a magnificent celebration. What it 
cost us, though, was that we were unable to visit the Hermitage 
museum, because it was closed on the holiday. We only stayed 
there a couple of days . 

Another thing that made an impression was that we left St. 
Petersburg and rode to Talinn on the very train that Stalin 
used. And we had one entire railroad car to ourselves. We 
only had thirteen people in our group, and we had three people 
escorting us, so we had one entire car that was sort of 
separated off from the rest of the train for security purposes. 
But I actually had Stalin's cabinit was huge, had a big 
partner desk in it, a double bed on one side, single bed on the 



Morris : 


Morris : 



other side, and all this red carpeting and paneling and stuff. 
And then right in front of that was the dining room and a bar. 
We had three people who were there to both protect us and serve 
us. We had hors d'oeuvres and snacks in the bar, open all 
night long, if you couldn't sleep or whatever. 

So you got the really VIP treatment. 

Yes, we did. that's how we left Russia and went into Estonia. 
And in Estonia, the most notable thing about their system of 
justice is that, first of all, they're developing all new codes 
of constitutions, and secondly, they have an inadequate number 

of lawyers, 
law schools. 

There's a shortage of both lawyers and judges, and 
They are just developing tremendously. 

They're developing a second law school, they're training 
lawyers, and then lawyers are getting public positions very 
young, very early, because there's a paucity of lawyers and 
judges. Some of the older judges were purged. But they're 
very proud of the fact that they have a new civil code and a 
new evidence code. 

Were the new codes more like what you're familiar with in this 
country? Had they made those kinds of changes? 

Yes. Well, we didn't even get into court there, but we got 
into the offices, like the deputy attorney general, a guy two 
years out of law school. We had more conversation there. 

And, of course, they all tell you that they have a fair 
system. In China, they tell you the state takes a protective 
interest in even the misfeasance in their society, and that if 
a person is not guilty, they won't be punished. But if you 
are, punishment can be pretty rough in China. 

That's what you read in the papers, that if somebody has been 
accused of a crime overseas, that he'd rather get extradited to 
this country or England. 

Yes. Maybe I need to let you put a little structure to these 
recollections. You had some questions for me. 

One question that occurs to me is, if the legal systems are so 
different in other parts of the world, does that make for 
difficulties when you get into international legal questions? 
I don't know if that's a topic that you've gotten involved in 
at all. 


Broussard: Well, not at the professional level, but obviously, when you 
take a trip like that, especially the China trip, there are 
people who are there who are making contact. We spent time 
going to several agencies that were in existence for the 
purpose of promoting international business. And at that time, 
China was going through a real joint-venture phase. They 
wanted foreign investments to come in and joint venture with 
local groups for the development of hotels and plants and 
apartment buildings and stuff like that. 

Many of them really wound up not working out too well; 
some of them did, obviously. One of the sad things in China 
would be to see an old building standing up tall and straight, 
and next to it you'd see a new building going up, more modern- - 
they don't have a whole lot of equipment, but more modern type 
construction. There was one apartment building, for example, 
just a few blocks from where we were staying. And there were 
two things [we noticed] about it. When they are building a 
building, as they finish the lower floors, the building is 
occupied as they go, and they keep going up. 

Morris: Oh, really? [laughs] 

Broussard: But we could see in this building near us that, when they got 
to about the ninth floor, the windows were so out of square 
that you couldn't get windowpanes to fit. I mean, some of the 
joint ventures were just doing schlocky work, trying to make 
money [fast], make a quick buck. 

Morris: Oh, that's too bad. 
Broussard: But that goes back so far. 

Responsibilities as Port of Oakland Board Member 

Morris : One of the things that I wanted to ask you about is your 
service on the board of the Port of Oakland. Was that-- 

Broussard: Yes, there's a lot that we have not covered. There's an 

interesting story there--! had had some conversation with the 
mayor to the effect that after I retired, I would be interested 
in getting back into the civic life of Oakland. I said, "I 
don't want to get into the political arena, but I'd like to be 
involved in the civic life of Oakland, because basically, 
especially when I was on the supreme court, Oakland was 
something I saw from the freeway." 



I retired on a Friday afternoon, and my wife, who does not 
like either motion or water, and therefore had never (we didn't 
even talk about that) --had never been willing to go on a 
cruise; but she knew I wanted to cruise and had told me that 
she had been building up, and she was willing to try a cruise 
on my retirement. So I retired Friday afternoon, and Saturday 
morning we were on a plane going to Miami for our first cruise. 

While we were at sea, the mayor appointed me to the 
Oakland Port Commission. [laughter] 

He sure didn't give you much time to relax. 

When I came back, I heard about it, and I called him. I said, 
"Is this true?" He said, "Yes. I guess I should have asked 
you first, though." [laughter] 

If you'll remember, when Lionel Wilson lost the election 
for mayor [in 1991], he appointed himself to the port 

Morris: Yes, that was surprising. 

Broussard: And there was a legal challenge to that. Lionel served 

approximately a year of the term, and then he lost the case in 
the superior court. Lionel was contemplating appealing, and 
actually when Elihu expressed some interest in appointing me if 
there were a vacancy, then Lionel said, "If you'll appoint 
Broussard, I won't appeal." So I was appointed to the vacancy 
that was created when Lionel lost the lawsuit. 

In other words, he was considering appealing from the 
judgment against him in the trial court, but then he did not 
appeal because he was pleased that I was going to get the 

Morris: So that you were kind of a peacemaker. 

Broussard: Well, I didn't play any active role in it, but it was just that 
I was a friend of both Elihu 's and Lionel's, and had been able 
to maintain good rapport with both of them, partly because I 
was on the bench and I didn't have to take any-- [laughing] 

Morris: Yes, you were removed from the day to day-- 

Broussard: So it was just that they were both interested in seeing me on 

the commission. 

Morris: Has that taken a lot of your time? 


Broussard: Yes, it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of time. But I 
find it very important to the community. I find it very 
interesting. And I think we have a good commission and a good 
staff, and in my own humble judgment, we're doing a good job. 
So it's rewarding, but it takes a lot of time. The port in 
Oakland is quite an operation, because it's like three 

Morris: Three? How is that? 

Broussard: Well, we run maritime and seaport, the airport- 
Morris: Oh, that's right. 

Broussard: --and nineteen miles of shoreline, all of Jack London Square, 

and all that commercial real estate. So it's like being in the 
real estate business, in the aviation business, and in the 
maritime business. 

Morris: And that whole business park out there by the airport is also 
under the jurisdiction of the port commission? 

Broussard: Yes. From the Bay Bridge to the San Leandro line, along the 

waterfront. There are a few little parcels [that are privately 
owned, that have been] sold or otherwise. Otherwise, that's 
basically the jurisdiction of the port, so is the business park 
out by the airport, and the Jack London Square and that area 
there, all of that. It brings with it a myriad of different 
problems. I mean, environment, everything. From union to 
environment to governmental affairs and liaison to employment, 
to contract, to procurement, to development, to leasing and 
selling landall. 

Right now is a very, very--just a vibrant time in the life 
of the port; there's a lot that's going on. We are in labor 
negotiations, we're selling a big parcel of land that will be 
developed residentially. 

Morris : Along the estuary? 

Broussard: On the other side of Jack London Village, there is a big, 

roughly ten- acre parcel that actually, the people who built 
this building [that my office is in in San Francisco] want to 
develop, and they've entered into a contract with us, and we 
have to negotiate that. A lot of different views as to whether 
it ought to be mixed use, commercial, retail, or whatever. We 
have negotiations with the developer who wants to develop a 
Residence Inn by Marriott. I don't know if you know this or 
not, but Marriott is basically a nonunion operation, and 


they've been anathema to the construction unions and the 
laborers. So we are in the middle of a lot of negotiations 
with the developer and laborers for that thing. 

Morris: Does the port commission take a position on something like 

Broussard: Well, you know what? Traditionally no, but the union put us in 
a position where we just about had to, to try to keep peace 
between the two of them, because they were going to picket the 
whole port. So we had to try to [keep that from happening.] 

Morris: And you want to keep the port operating. 

Broussard: We're trying to keep peace between the two, not so much in a 
partisan way, but we're just trying to be helpful in keeping 
them from going to battle with each other. 

Morris: Sometimes, there has been a fairly activist position. I 

remember talking to Charles Patterson about when he was working 
first-- 1 

Broussard: With World Airways? 

Morris: Well, with the port, and later with World Airways. 

Broussard: He came with EDA. 

Morris: Yes, the Economic Development Administration program. He 

described his job as being tothis was back in the sixties- 
push the port and World Airways into hiring minority people, 
and creating programs in which African Americans could be 

Broussard: Yes, well, that was different. But that's true. Chuck 

Patterson came out here working for EDA, and that was an effort 
to do economic development with an emphasis on minority 
involvement, at least at his level. 

Morris: Has the port continued that kind of a policy? 

Broussard: Oh, we have a very strong diversity policy, very diverse 

workforce. Then Chuck went to work for World Airways, and of 
course, World was one of the biggest port customers at that 
time, and was very important to the port. I wasn't on the 

'See Charles Patterson, Working for Civic Unity in Government, 
Business, and Philanthropy, Berkeley: Regional Oral History Office, 1994. 


commission at that time, but I'm sure that he was one who was 
trying to encourage the port to develop the airport... At that 
time, I don't know how aggressively interested the port was in 
terms of outreach and diversity, but I'm sure Chuck would have 
been [urging it.] 

Morris: But am I right that the port, with all those activities you 
mentioned, is one of the larger employers in the Oakland-- 

Broussard: Oh, we're the economic engine of the East Bay, yes. 

Numerically, I don't know who has more employees there--we have 
approximately 600 employees, and that's not huge. 

Morris: That's just the port itself-- 

Broussard: That's port employees. We're down from a high of 625 to about 
600, and we're trying to get slimmer and meaner and more 
efficient. We're doing some- 
Morris: But you are landlord to [a number of companies and the 
airport] -- 


--and the [airport] employs a tremendous number of people. 

So is it a matter of the city telling the port what they want 
the port to do for the city, or the port telling the city what 
the city needs to do so the port can do its-- 

Broussard: Sometimes, I don't know how much you know or understand [about 
these things.] That's a very important and interesting 
question. See, the port is a department of the city of 
Oakland, but by a special charter provision, the port is 
independent. We have to remind the city frequently that we are 
a part of the city, but we are an independent agency, and we're 
supposed to deal with them as equals. So that the relationship 
isn't normally them telling us what to do, but of us trying to 
communicate and cooperate. And sometimes it gets fractious. 
Most of the time, it works well. We have a pretty good rapport 
and understanding with the city council. 

But we have to continuously remind them that we are 
independent, and that we have to exercise our best judgment as 
to what's in the best interests of the port. Where there may 
be some conflict between the city's interests and the port's 
interests, we have a fiduciary duty to the port. 


Morris: It's an interesting question in the whole Bay Area, since the 
different ports on the bay have to deal with the federal 
government, and the water quality and the air quality agencies. 
For the Port of Oaland, I understand, things like dredging have 
been a major issue. 

Broussard: It's been a 

Morris: And that puts you on opposite sides of the table with the Army 
Corps of Engineers. 

Broussard: Well, no, not really. 
Morris: Not really? 

Broussard: No. As a matter of fact, the corps is very instrumental in our 
[development plans]. We have had problems with 
environmentalists and other groups, until finally we really 
came up with the genius of an idea that satisfied the 
environmentalists and the business community and the port and 
the city. Now the dredge material is going to three locations. 
See, we're dredging right now from thirty-eight to forty-two 
feet, and-- 

Morris: That's a lot of muck. 

Broussard: A lot of silt. The problem always has been, what do you do 

with it? It's being classified in three different groupings. 
Some of it is going out to an environmentally approved ocean 
dump. Some of it is going onto Galbreath Golf Course. We had 
a real difficult community-relations problem with a lot of the 
citizens of Oakland, because we were going to close down 
Galbreath for all practical purposes. 

Morris: Is it permanently? 

Broussard: Well, it's going to be about seven years. But the commitment 

is to replace it with a much better golf course. Galbreath, of 
course, was built on a garbage dump, and it really was not a 
top-quality golf course. You could see tires and stuff like 
that coming through the greens. We're going to improve that, 
although there is an inconvenience; but we put in some programs 
to accommodate the people who use Galbreath. 

But the genius was that the third quantity of the silt 
from the dredging is going up to the Sonoma wetlands, and it's 
being used to upgrade, restore, and improve wetlands up there 
and improve the natural habitat of a lot of the animals that 
are indigenous to that area. The environmentalists supported 


that. The president [Bill Clinton] came out here and visited 
the Port of Oakland, and told the EPA [Environmental Protection 
Administration] and the Corps of Engineers and everybody else 
involved, "Let's get on with it, and deepen that channel to 
improve the economic situation in the area." 

Morris: Really? 

Broussard: Then the vice president [Al Gore] came out and said that all 
eyes are on Oakland, because it appears we've set the example 
nationally as to how you can accommodate your business 
interests and the environmental concerns in a way that's a win- 
win. So he was very laudatory and complimentary, and said that 
ports all over the United States were watching Oakland. Not 
every port has a dredging problem; some are natural deep 
harbors, but it is a precedent-setting kind of arrangement. 
[Oakland Congressman] Ron Dellums was very largely involved in 

But we were able then to get labor and the business 
community and the chamber of commerce, the local political 
officials [together]; the president, all of our political 
officials in Washington were involved in the effort; and the 
environmentalists went along, BCDC [Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission] went along. It was just a coming 
together, in an arrangement where everybody had some interests 
that were being served.. 

Morris: Is there some kind of ongoing liaison with all of these 
agencies from the port's point of view? 

Broussard: Communication maybe, not a formal liaison. We do have a Bay 
Area Dredge Coalition. 

Morris: [laughs] Really? 
Broussard: Oh, yes, we have one. 
Morris: Oh, that's wonderful. 

Broussard: We have a dredging coalition. Because you see, look, the day 

we launched the forty-two- foot project, we announced the forty- 
five-foot project, and we're looking to forty-eight feet. And 
we will ultimately probably have to go to fifty. That's 
because of the development of the ships. The capacity of ships 
is just being tremendously increasedwell, at one time, the 
standard was, you couldn't build a ship bigger than could get 
through the Panama Canal. And then they started with what is 
called post-Panamax. Post-Panamax is a ship that, normally, 


you couldn't have gotten through the Panama Canal, but what 
they do is they build the bottom to the maximum width [that 
will go through the canal] and then they go out [above that], 
so they can get more containers on them. 

And we're going into ships now that will carry--! forget 
these numbers, but we use TEUs, twenty-foot-equivalent units. 
That's the way we measure containers, whether they're twenty 
TEUs or forty or whatever. But we're getting ships now that 
are carrying 6,000 TEUs. You line them up end to end, you've 
got fifteen miles. 

Morris: On one vessel. 
Broussard: On one vessel. 

Morris : Good heavens . Does that mean ships that could get under the 
Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay? 

Broussard: Well, it's not a matter of so much height. That hasn't been 
the problem. It's enough water to support the ship. 

Morris: That kind of long-range dredging plan would seem to have a 
bearing not only on what happens in the estuary and on the 
Oakland side of the bay, but wouldn't it affect water movement 
in terms of San Francisco and Richmond and- -doesn't Redwood 
City still have a port? If you're dredging that much silt out 
of the Oakland harbor, wouldn't that affect conditions for 
other ports on the bay?-- 

Broussard: Not particularly. At least, not within my understanding. And 
you see, the other ports in the area are not doing container 
shipping to any extent. Richmond does more bulk, and they 
don't have the real big container vessels calling on them. 
Some oil barges go into Richmond, but Oakland is the only one 
of the ports that has a market geared to worldwide container 

Morris: Did I hear Willie Brown saying that one of the things that he 
thought ought to happen while he was mayor was that all the 
ports on the bay become one unified-- 

Broussard: He has expressed interest in a Bay Area transportation, harbor 
authority, something like that, yes. 

Morris: Is that something that's discussed at all in meetings of port 
people around the bay? 





We discuss it very little, because, actually, San Francisco is 
losing out to Oakland in terms of container shipping. Almost 
every shipping line that called on San Francisco doing 
container shipping has moved to Oakland. So [U.S. Senator] 
Dianne Feinstein had expressed interest in it, and Willie has 
expressed interest, in having a Bay Area Port Commission or 
whatever. Obviously, we are not highly motivated. We say to 
the mayor, "Let's have a transportation commission. You throw 
in your airport, and we'll throw in our airport." 

And what's the response to that? 

Well, it hasn't gotten to that point yet. We haven't even said 
that to the mayor. But except when we were talking about it, 
it's his move. Willie Brown- -Mayor Brown- - 

The San Francisco- 
It would be his move, 
like that. 

Oakland isn't going to initiate anything 

Morris: Well, I guess it's part of the larger question about public 
services: how much regional accommodations or regional 
government is desirable. 

Broussard: There's a lot of opportunity for regional cooperation, for 

regional marketing, for regional planning, even without having 
just one entity. 

Morris: And that's becoming a more comfortable subject for the people 

Broussard: There has not been a lot of conversation about it. Willie 

Brown made a comment during his campaign for mayor, but that is 
not something that's been seriously discussed, to the best of 
my knowledge. 

Morris: Other than that there has been, as you say, BCDC, and there 
have been various studies in Sacramento and proposals for 
varieties of regional government, all of which have foundered. 

Broussard: Oh, I'm speaking more specifically about the port and the 

airport. Oh, certainly. I mean, you have all kinds of efforts 
at regional government. I wasn't speaking that generically. 

Morris: Right. But the port is a public entity, but you don't see it 
as a governmental entity? 


Broussard: Yes, sure. I do. We're part of the City of Oakland, we're a 
governmental entity, and we're a public entity. 

Morris: Do you relate at all to the adjacent property, the army base 
and things like that, and the coast guard? To what extent is 
the port going to be affected by base closings in this area? 

Broussard: Oh, sure, that's very much an issue. We already have--I want 
to go back a little bit to tell you, no question that the port 
is public and that the port is government. The thing that's 
unique about the port, two things: one, its independence by 
charter, and number two, the fact that we are a business. We 
are not tax-supported, we're not tax-based. We generate 
revenue, and we can do public financing, bond financing in the 
way some businesses can't, but we are a public entity engaged 
in business. And that makes it unique. We're profit-driven. 

Morris: It's a whole other kind of entity. 

Broussard: Yes. It's unique. Now, what was your question? 

Morris: Oh, I was asking about the base closing. 

Broussard: Oh, sure, that's very much a part of what's going on now. We 
have had, Port of Oakland has been promised virtually all of 
the Naval Supply Center land, which is now called FISCO, Fleet 
Industrial Supply Center of Oakland. I don't know why they 
changed the name of the Naval Supply Center just as they were 
getting ready to close it, but we've been promised virtually 
all of that land, and it's very much a part of the port's 
planning on our economic development, because it's essential to 
our [ideas for the] terminals, and to the development of some 
additional berths. 

Now, the army base is under BRACT, and we are interested 
in some of the army base land. But the mayor and the city have 
made it clear we have to go through the BRACT process like 
everybody else, so we don't know just how much of that we will 
get. But all of that land is very important to the development 
of the Port of Oakland. 

Morris: Well, it would seem to have a great opportunity fordoes port 
planning include residential and recreation and public access 
as well as 

Broussard: Not the port planning. What we are interested in doing is 

improving our joint intermodal terminal, the rail-truck-ship 
connection, warehousing, places for containers and for trucks, 
and some additional berths, on the water, on the land that is 


appropriately related to the waterfront. Now, what happens 
beyond that on the army base land, we probably won't be 
involved with. That will probably go to someone else, or the 
city will develop it. But from the point of view of the port, 
if land has utility for commerce and shipping, that's what we 
want to do with it. 




What's that, potentially double the territory that the port now 

The actual port territory, yes, it could, 
depends on how the army base goes. 

It could. It 

It sounds as if the decisions on who gets the land will not all 
be made at once. 

Broussard: I don't want to read the tea leaves on the army base. But I 
mean, we have to have contiguous land to make good use of it. 
If it's isolated parcels, you can probably store some 
containers or some trucks on it or something like that, but to 
really do integrated planning and development, you have to have 
a solid parcel. 

Morris: When you said the port generates revenue, does the revenue go 
directly back into the port, or does it go through the City of 

Broussard: Well, it's complicated. We have by law a prioritization of the 
use of our money. We pay the city for general services, we pay 
the city for special services, and then there are other 
programs for paying the city money. We pay the city part of 
the funds for maintaining Lake Merritt, because the title- 
Morris: It's water-oriented? 

Broussard: Under law, we can transfer to the city surplus funds, funds 
that are not required- -this is after we pay what we lawfully 
owe, for any police services and stuff like that. We can pay 
to the city surplus funds. But a port like Oakland is 
constantly trying to develop its infrastructure, its economic 
core. We have a very ambitious development program in place. 
We are a source of money for the city, but we have to be 
careful, because we cannot give away public funds. We can't 
give public funds ; we have to have a lawful reason for 
transferring money to the city. 

Morris: I gather that historically, it's caused woe sometimes in 
relations between the port and the city. 


Broussard: Yes. We're a cash cow in the eyes of the city, and they are 
very creative in coming up with the formulas that require that 
we pay them money for something. But it's all watched by 
several agencies. The airport is carefully watched by FAA 
[Federal Aviation Administration] , the State Lands Commission 
carefully watches the transfer of port or airport money to off- 
airport uses. Los Angeles is in the middle of a big problem 
right now, because when Riordan was running for mayor, he 
promised more policemen on the street, and he was going to get 
the money from the airport. And of course, the Los Angeles 
Airport is a cash cow. 

They transferred $30 or $42 million to the city, and the 
airlinesThey generate those revenues. The airlines were all 
upset with the transfer of funds to a non-airport use. The FAA 
was upset, there's litigation over it, the State Lands 
Commission is upset. They're under an order now to return the 
funds. I don't know the exact status of the situation, but no, 
there's a lot of concern about the transfer of port funds to 
off -port uses. 

But as I say, on the other hand, we legitimately pay for a 
lot of services, and we are sometimes creative in developing 
legitimate opportunities to transfer money to the city. Like 
right now, we are paying the city interest on interest on 
original port bonds. [laughter] 

Morris: Really? That's interesting. Do the commissioners have hands- 
on responsibilities, committees that they work with, or is it 
mostly advisory to the staff? 

Broussard: Well, not advisory to the staff. We don't do the day-to-day 
operation of the port, but we are responsible for policy. We 
are like a board of directors. The commission meets twice a 
month. Each commissioner is on two, three, maybe even four 
committees, all of which meet at least once a month, maybe 
twice. So we are all pretty much informed on the big picture 
of what's going on, and we're involved in policy. But we have 
an excellent staff of people who take care of the operation of 
the port. 

Morris: Am I right that there have been some new directions, new 

executives and things like that since you went on the board? 

Broussard: Yes. Charlie Roberts was the executive director when I went on 
the commission, and he retired. Now Charles Foster, Chuck 
Foster, is the executive director. 

Morris: So you got to help in the selection? 


Broussard: Yes, we selected the executive director. We're in the process 
now of selecting new general counsel, because Stan Hebert was 
general counsel for the port commission, for the port, and he 
retired at the end of the year. And that's where I'll be this 
afternoon. We interviewed yesterday afternoon, and they'll be 
interviewing today for the position of port attorney. So the 
commission selects all of those people at the executive level. 

Morris: The top people. What are you particular areas, in addition to 
selecting top staff? 

Broussard: I am first vice president of the commission. I'm on the 

executive committee, I'm on the audit and finance committee, 
and I chair the maritime committee. 

Morris: Compared with sitting on the bench, is this a more activist 
kind of a responsibility? 

Broussard: Well, it's very different. The benchand I'm not talking 

about one being more important or less important, but when I 
was on the court, you go one place and you do that job. Here, 
we are involved in the business world, you're involved in the 
community, we do traveling. 

When you think about the fact that you can get on an 
airplane and in a few hours be in just about any country in the 
world, if those airports are not coordinated, you're not going 
to land safely. So we have worldwide airport organizations, 
have worldwide conferences, have national conferences- 
Morris: It really puts you into community service in a big way, just 
that one responsibility. 

Broussard: Yes. And then when you're in the shipping business, you've got 
to visit your customers. You want to encourage them to make 
more use of your port and your port facilities, so we 
occasionally travel especially to the Far East to visit some of 

the shipping lines there, 
in Oakland. 

and to let them know what's going on 


So one of the attractions of being on the Port Commission 
is that you have an opportunity to do some traveling, although 
it's business-type travel. Three cities in six days or 
something like that. But it's important to the development and 
operation of the port that some of that be done. On the other 
hand, we serve without compensation, and it's an awful lot of 
work and responsibility. 

And with no expenses or things like that? 


Broussard: Oh, they do pay direct actual expenses, yes. But we are not 

Morris: Now, that's a difference. If you were in the same position 

with the same responsibilities for a transportation corporation 
that had an airline and a shipping line-- 

Broussard: Oh, yes. If we were nongovernmental, if we were on the board 
of directors of Matson Line, we'd be compensated-- 

Morris: Handsomely. 

Broussard: Probably handsomely. But the other comparison is the city 
council is compensated, but we are not. 

Morris: Well, it's really interesting to hear your description of all 
the things the port is involved in. 

Broussard: Well, I say it's like being on the board of directors of three 
corporations . 

Morris: I can see that. 

Broussard: Because we have the three revenue-producing divisions: 

maritime, airport, commercial real estate. But then we have a 
large engineering department, and then we have all the other 
things that businesses would have. We have a human resources 
department, we have an accounting department, chief financial 
officer, and we have a governmental affairs office, and 
everything that goes into the operation of a major business 
operation. So we have labor problems, and governmental affairs 
problems, and-- 

Morris: And your fellow directors are all Oakland residents? 

Broussard: Yes. You have to reside in Oakland to be on the Oakland Port 

Morris: Let's see, it's about eleven-thirty now and you have to go back 
to the East Bay. Maybe we could talk just for a few minutes 
about some of the other things that I thought you might want 
to talk about. If you have time to meet another morning, I 
would really like to hear about some of your thoughts about the 
work of the Committee on Race and Ethnicity. I did get the 
copies of the reports that you had sent, which I think say some 
interesting things about peoples' perceptions of the courts. 

Broussard: Yes. We can certainly set another morning. 


[Date of Interview: January 26, 1996 ]## 
Varieties of Civic and Judicial Responsibilities 

Broussard: I haven't done anything exhaustive or outreaching, but I've at 
least had time to reflect a little bit on the topics you 
suggested in your letter. 

Morris: Good. 

Broussard: And you're getting tougher now. You're not just asking me 
about me; you're asking me about thoughts and feelings and 
issues and contemporaries. 

Morris: Well, I see you've made a few notes. 

Broussard: They're not significant. These are primarily just some of the 
things that I've been involved in, and it is more to help me 
understand why I have more on my plate than I can handle. 

Morris: [laughs] I remember your saying when you were on the bench 
that the work on the supreme court stayed there, if you went 
away to a meeting or something like that, nobody cleaned off 
your desk for you, that the cases waited for you. 

Broussard: Well, that's certainly true of anything that was what we call a 
cause, anything that had been taken as a case before the court. 
But I normally said that about 80 percent of what you would do, 
would have done if you were there, would be waiting for you 
when you come back. They get rid of some of the petitions and 
some of the requests for emergency relief and extraordinary 
writs and stuff like that, where they're not yet a cause, so 
they don't have to be participated in by all of the justices. 
As long as they can get four votes for one disposition, then 
it's disposed of. 

Morris: But you find that today, you've got even more responsibilities? 

Broussard: It's hard to compare. Because I'm just involved in so many 

different things now. On the court, I'd go to work, and you're 
doing essentially the same kind of thing, although even there, 
I used to say a good day was a day when you didn't have to work 
beyond the fourth power. And all that meant was that if you 
went with a plan to do this series of tasks today, you often 
didn't go beyond more than four on that; in other words, with 
an interruption of an interruption of an interruption, that's 
about as much as you can do. Otherwise, it's a bad day. But 


you were basically in the same place, working with the same 
group of people, doing the same thing. 

[Nowadays, I am involved with] --and that's one of the 
reasons I was making this listthe National Judges College, 
the National [NAACP?] Legal Defense Fund board of directors, 
the tenBroek Society, the Judicial Administration Division's 
Task Force on Minority Opportunities, the Port of Oakland and 
all of its myriad meetings and committees and trips and travel, 
and the Lakeview Club board, and the McCullum memorial effort 
(which by the way will be launched on February 1.) We'll be 
dedicating a bust to former Judge Don McCullum in front of the 
federal building [in Oakland] on February 1. 

Morris: Wonderful. 

Broussard: And I'm on the UC Task Force on Reproductive Technology that 
was formed to give the university some assessment and some 
recommendations of how well it is handling its reproductive 
center activities, arisingwe're not looking into the Irvine 
situation as such, but of course, the fact that that could 
occur created some concern, and they created a task force to 
try to look at what is being done and probably should be done 
to try to avoid that kind of situation recurring. So I've been 
on that task force. 

Morris: Was that instituted by people at the university? 
Broussard: Yes. 

Morris: I know that's been an issue for some years, since the 
technology was first available to do these-- 

Broussard: Well, I'm sure that the top level administrators and the 

regents were concerned that something could get as far out of 
hand as it did at Irvine. So our task force has been asked to 
look at what is being done, what controls are in place, and 
what suggestions we could make to try to prevent 

Morris: For the university as a whole? 

Broussard: Yes, universitywide, systemwide. As a matter of fact, the 

composition of the task force is essentially someone from each 
reproductive center in the university system, with a couple of 
people who are not in the California university system. I was 
the only nonmedical person on the task force. 

Morris: So you're the only one representing the legal issues? 


Broussard: Well, no, it's not representing the legal issues. I think they 
just wanted someone from a little different discipline, so that 
it wouldn't be totally loaded in favor of the people who are 
involved in the exact or related disciplines. There are people 
with different medical backgrounds, but all somewhat kind of 
related to that area. And I was the little stranger in the 
crowd. [laughs] 

Morris: That must be a fascinating environment to sit in on. 
Broussard: Yes, it was interesting. 

Morris: Were you able to suggest some things that the medical people 
hadn't thought about that should be considered? 

Broussard: Yes, but unfortunately, I was unable to attend the last meeting 
that we have held, which might be the last meeting to be held, 
I'm not sure. Our hope was to be ready to put together a 
report that would be pretty close to final, and I was unable to 
attend that meeting. But throughout the process, I could bring 
a little different vantage point. Of course, there's a lot of 
technical matters that I was not really well informed on and I 
didn't understand too well. But I still had a different 
perspective on some of the things, that I could share. 

Advisory Committee on Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts 

Morris: Let's go back to the Committee on Race and Ethnic Bias in the 
Courts, which also has a lot of important implications. 

Broussard: Yes. The history briefly is that Chief Justice [Rose] Bird 
created a gender bias commission when she was chief justice. 
That commission was in the middle of its task when Malcolm 
Lucas became chief justice, and he continued the commission, 
expanded the membership some. And then that gender bias 
commission rendered its report, and then Chief Justice Lucas 
created the task force, advisory committee is what it is, on 
race and ethnic bias. So while we have taken some look at 
especially the role of women of color, we have not been 
emphasizing gender as such. That report has been circulated 
and its recommendations are being implemented. 

Morris: Okay. 

Broussard: Our advisory committee on race and ethnic bias is in the 
process now of trying to develop the initial draft of its 


Morris : 


report while we're wrapping up some of the projects that we 
have underway. 1 Basically, the way we operated was that we got 
out and did some public hearings, and had some public meetings, 
and took testimony. Then we developed some projects and hired 
consultants to do work in various areas of our concern and 
interest. We're having a little difficulty getting one project 
completed so that we can get an initial draft of our report. 

But we've made interim reports to the Judicial Council, 
and they have been circulated. I smile, because one of them 
was unintentionally circulated, but they've been circulated. 
We have dealt with issues such as access to the courts, access 
to justice, to issues involving legal representation in the 
courts in the different areas of court activity, family, 
criminal, and others. We've talked about language barriers and 
cultural barriers, and about the availability and 
nonavailability of resources that are necessary to make the 
court accessible to people. We have talked about gender 
issues, but primarily with reference to women of color, not 
across the board. 

I was struck by that in the reports that you sent over to the 
library for me. 2 That women of color in particular perceive 
themselves as being discriminated against. 

Oh, certainly. One of the things that we were made very aware 
of is that if we didn't deal with women of color, they would 
probably fall between the cracks, because there's not a lot of 
special emphasis on women of color in the gender report. And 
if we didn't deal with women of color, and just dealt with race 
and ethnicity, there wouldn't be a focal point dealing with 
women of color. So we are doing that. 

One of the areas we talked about was the treatment of 
defendants in the system, and the prosecutorial discretion, and 
the need for diversity among courts and judicial offices, and 
the employment in the court system. You know, in many 
instances, it's not a very pretty picture. I mean the racial 
and ethnic composition of the court employees. 

'Racial and Ethnic Composition of the California Trial Courts, 
Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the 
Courts, 1993. 

2 1991-92 Public Hearings on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the California 
State Court System, Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and 
Ethnic Bias in the Courts. 


Morris: What struck me was that the statistics look like they improve 
as you go down the ladder. 

Broussard: Well, the numbers improve, yes. In other words, like in a lot 
of other areas of society, on the lower-paying jobs and the 
less-skilled jobs, you tend to have a better percentage ratio 
of racial and ethnic minority employees; but as you go up the 
ladder, it gets thinner and thinner. And there are a lot of 
reasons for that that we understand, but we try to deal with 

One of the areas we're finding it hard to come up with 
definitive conclusions in is the jury system, for a variety of 

Morris: Why is that? 

Broussard: Well, courts are protective of their jurors, of even the 

statistics relating to jury performance, jury instruction, 
access to jurors. There are a multitude of sensitivities that 
makes courts a little reluctant to just open their books to 
anyone who's doing a study, a comparative study or analysis or 
whatever. So we are trying to complete some work in that area 
as we try to develop our first draft report, and we are also 
facing the problem of budget and minimum staff to help to get 
the report out. On the one hand, we have pressure to get it 
out because we've been at it a little longer than some people 
thought we would, but on the other hand, we have minimum staff 
and assistance, and we've got all busy people on the advisory 

Morris: Does the report include some recommendations in these areas? 

Broussard: Oh, we'll be making recommendations. We're formulating those 
now. Our primary goal is to make an assessment and make some 
recommendations to the Judicial Council, which is our parent 
sponsoring agency. So we will have recommendations in the 
various areas that I talked about. 

Morris: Well, it's absolutely fascinating, just the findings, I think, 
about the perceptions that people have about the courts. I was 
struck by the findings to the effect that minorities have 
inadequate education and information about the court system, 
and that most of what they get is from the media. 

Broussard: Yes. And remember, toothis is something else I had to learn; 
I mean, I'm African American, and when you start talking about 
racial and ethnic minorities, I tend primarily, initially, to 
think about African Americans --but we're talking about this 


Morris : 

Broussard : 
Morris : 




whole conglomerate of different ethnic, national backgrounds 
that are present in California, people who are completely 
inexperienced and even uninformed about our court system in 
concept, let alone in practice. We're talking about things 
like how do you get to the courthouse, and when you get there, 
which window do you go to? Who can speak your language, and 
who can help you to understand what's expected of you by a 
system that's already in place? 

So we were looking at it from two points of view: how do 
you make the system more appreciative of the magnitude of 
diversity, and more flexible and responsive to the needs of 
that magnitude of diversity? And at the same time, what can be 
done to help the people who are new and strange to our country, 
our courts, and our culture, to acculturate them to do what's 
expected of them? In a state like California, it's a 
tremendous challenge. 

And does this go all the way down to, like, what happens when 
you get a parking ticket? 

Oh, sure. 


The small things that are what most people experience. 

How do you get to the courthouse, who can speak to you when 
get there. 

Right, and if your child gets called to juvenile authorities, 
who speaks and-- 

Yes. We address all of these as areas that need attention. 
I'm not saying that we're coming up with finite solutions to 
everything, but one of the things that happened was that I 
began to realize that it's not black and white. I mean, there 
are a whole bunch of cultures, a whole bunch of languages. 
There are a whole variety of backgrounds and experiences that 
are funneled into our courts. It makes you realize what a 
massive challenge it is, to try to not only be fair, but to 
appearand to be perceived as beingfair to that diverse 

Did I understand what I was reading correctly, that at the 
judicial level, that most judges think that the system is 
pretty fair as it now stands? 

I would say that the system is rated better by judges than by 
those who are not in the system. And one of the big issues 
that we've had to deal with is how do you measure adequate 



Morris : 

Morris : 


diversity in the judiciary? There are some who feel that you 
look to the eligible pool of judicial candidates, or those 
judicial-eligible, to determine representativeness. And there 
are others who feel that you look to the population that's 
served by the institution to determine whether the judiciary is 
reflective of the population that it serves. That's not 
lawyers; that's population. 

It results in the painting of different pictures. That 
was a very sensitive issue that we've had to deal with. 

Does that speak to how law schools function in society? 

It does, to some extent. What makes it controversial is that 
it speaks to some extent to how judges are selected. You see, 
the selection of judges, either by election or appointment, 
looks better if you measure the judiciary against the eligible 
pool than it does if you measure it against the serviced 
population. It became an issue that we had to try to wrestle 

Well, not only you in the judicial profession, but the rest of 
society as a whole. What impact do current events like what 
seems to be a changing perception of affirmative action, not 
just in California but maybe more noticeably in California, 
because of recent actions by the governor and university 
regentsdoes that change what's likely to happen in the work 
of the committee? 

Not in a direct way, 


If you're looking at how judges are selected and the available 
pool, and part of the public discourse is, Do we need 
affirmative action in order to increase the number of people of 
varied ethnic background who go into the university and then 
presumably go to the law schools--? 

Well, you have to understand, the first thing that we're trying 
to do is to get an understanding of what exists, in terms of 
diversity or representation or lack thereof. Our committee 
developed what I would call a snapshot of the judiciary of 
California at a point in time. Unfortunately, as we go along, 
that point in time is getting more and more removed from today. 
But we developed an accurate snapshot, as accurate as anybody 
has done, of the composition of the judiciary in this state. 

One of the issues then is what do you do with this? Do 
you say that as compared to those eligible to become judges, 
this isn't bad, or it's terrible, or it's great? Or do you say 


as compared to the population which is served by the judiciary, 
it's not bad, it's good, or it's great? And you get different 
pictures depending upon what comparison you use. 

But our primary job was to get an accurate picture of what 
exists, and then on the assumption that we want a diverse 
bench, to try to make some suggestions as to some things that 
might increase the diversity. So, insofar as there are 
changing attitudes about outreach programs, it may make some 
impact; but again, although judges are either appointed or 
they're elected, the great majority of them are appointed, and 
a lot depends upon the attitude of the appointing authority as 
to what kind of judiciary you will have. 

Morris: Right. And then you're faced with what is a political 

appointment, and what is in the best judgment of the appointing 

Broussard: Yes, that's right. But ultimatelyand I respect thiswhen 

you get to be governor, one of your prerogatives is to appoint 
judges. [Different] governors will do it differently. As long 
as they're operating within a set of acceptable norms, I guess 
that's just the way it is. Well, that's probably enough about 

Morris : Are there other things that you would like to say about the 
work of the committee, and what you see happening? 

Broussard: Well, I just personally was impressed by the number of 

different perceptions, the number of different cultures, the 
number of different languages. There is another committee 
that's dealing with the problem of interpreters in the court, 
translators in the court. What would be considered adequate in 
terms of the numbers of languages and the proficiency of the 
interpreter, and the availability of the interpreter. When you 
recognize you can't have a whole potpourri of every language at 
every court all the time. There are a myriad of problems 

Morris: It's like the United Nations. 

Broussard: Yes, certainly. And all of that touches on resource issues, 
but sensitivity issues are important too, as to how do we go 
about making courts and when I say that, I mean courtroom 
personnel, including but not limited to judges, all of those 
people who are operating within the framework of the court how 
do we go about sensitizing them to the fact that while they may 
feel comfortable in the court as a place where they work every 
day, that there are a lot of people for whom it's a very 


Morris : 

stressful experience, where they don't know how they will be 
received, they don't know what is expected of them, and they 
don't know whether they will be able to be told in a way that 
they will understand or to communicate effectively? It can be 
very stressful. And how do you make both parties to that 
interchange more receptive, responsive, aware of what's going 
on and the dynamics of that kind of a situation? It's tough. 

But we try to take a little look at something and say, "I 
don't know how successful we'll be there," but we do 
incorporate or refer to some other studies that have been done 
on sentencing. 

It sounds like the information that you're putting together 
would be of wide interest. 

Broussard: There will be a lot of interest. In addition to the work that 
we're doing, or that we're having done, we're putting together 
a good bibliography of works that have been done and resources 
like that. So hopefully, it will be a useful product when we 
complete it. 

Morris: I should think so. 

Broussard: And hopefully, we'll be able to complete it reasonably soon, so 
I can put that one behind me. 

Professional Ethics and Conduct 

Morris: Well, it seems as if many things have been happening concerning 
the courts in California in the years since you've returned, 
more or less, to civilian life. [laughter] I was thinking of 
publications like the California Journal that talk about 
changes in the judicial discipline system and the concerns 
about judicial ethics just within the judicial population. Is 
this a routine kind of thing that judges are doing anyway, or 
have there been some--? 

Broussard: No, there are changes that are significant and not routine. 

I'm generally familiar with them, but I guess maybe I took the 
luxury of not having to follow all the nuances too completely, 
since I was no longer on. I'm more concerned now about bar 
ethics and conduct than I am about judicial ethics and conduct. 

But there are some significant changes. If you'll 
remember--! only had a short stint on the Commission on 


Morris : 


Judicial Performance, but I was serving on the Commission on 
Judicial Performance when I was appointed to the supreme court. 
So I had some experience and exposure to the discipline 
process. And certainly, it's emerged very differently now. We 
have a unique situation in California where the code of 
judicial conduct was the product of the California Judges 
Association, not of the state supreme court, as in most other 
states. Normally, in most states, judicial ethics and conduct 
is governed by a code which is adopted by the supreme court, 
and traditionally, it has been enforced more or less like a 

In California, since, for historical reasons that I won't 
go into, the supreme court never adopted a code of conduct for 
judges or an ethical code for judges, the California Judges 
Association did, and it was viewed traditionally in California 
as a goal or a standard, and not a code that was to be enforced 
like the criminal code. In its disciplinary opinions, the 
supreme court would make reference to provisions in the code of 
judicial conduct, but more as a guideline or a standard and not 
as, This is the statute; if you violate it, [there will be 
consequences] . 

That's a part of the change that's coming about now. The 
Judges Association I think has voted on abandoning its whole 
code of judicial conduct, and it's going to be replaced by 
something that's adopted by the new reconstituted disciplinary 
system in the supreme court. I'm not a hundred percent sure of 
all the details on it. 

It's going to be a more formal system? 

Yes. And then the other issue that's very much on the scene is 
that, traditionally in California, the Commission on Judicial 
Performance was very aware of the policy of not passing upon 
the judges' judicial decisions. Conduct, yes. But one of the 
issues is that-- 


--the Commission [on Judicial Performance] is going beyond the 
traditional bounds and imposing or threatening to impose 
disciplines or sentencing decisions or other probationary 
decisions or whatever for its actual judicial actions on the 
part of the subject judge. And that's an issue now that I 
think divides the Commission and the California Judges 
Association. So those things are very much in the air right 
now, and I am generally familiar but not intimately familiar 
with all of the details. 


Morris: But you are taking an active role in the Bar Association? 

Broussard: No, no. What I said is that I'm now a lawyer, I'm not a judge. 
I'm more [concerned about rulings concerning lawyers rather 
than judges. ] 

Morris: Oh, right. But you can still be called back for temporary 

Broussard: No, not since I activated my bar membership. 
Morris: I see. 

Broussard: I would be available for service as a judge by appointment of 
the administrative office of the court and the Judicial 
Council, the chief justice, actually, ultimately, if I were 
simply a retired judge, but not a reactivated member of the 
bar. So I'm a full-fledged lawyer again, looking back on a 
full-fledged judicial career. 

Morris: That's interesting. Does being back as a working lawyer, does 
that change at all your view of judicial matters, do you think? 

Broussard: If I understand your question, no, I don't think so. I mean, 
it changes where I fit in the whole system, but I don't think 
it changes basic attitudes or perspectives or anything. 
Lawyers advocate and do a lot of other things, although in my 
case, instead of trying cases, I'm doing a lot of arbitration 
and mediation, alternative dispute resolution stuff, which is 
more nearly like being a judge, but it's out in the private 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Morris: Is that a movement that is taking greater interest within the 

Broussard: Oh, yes. That's the boom area. And especially in California. 
Some other parts of the country, but California is way out 
ahead of the other states in developing alternative dispute 
resolution practices and programs and systems. And certainly, 
you know that, I think; you're just asking the question to get 
me to comment on it . 

Morris: Well, I'm delighted to hear it come up from you, because as I 

say, I did ask the question about the perception about too many 


lawyers, too many lawsuits, and alternative dispute resolution 
seems a way of dealing with that perception. 

Broussard: Yes. Well, again, just a very, very brief history: the 

California courts have long been dealing with overcrowding of 
its calendars. There has always been a priority for criminal 
cases, but there's also a need to get civil cases to trial. 
This is oversimplifying, but just to be roughly accurate about 
it, JAMS [Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services] was 
started when two or three former judges just organized a pool 
of retired judges who would be available to do arbitration, 
mediation, early disposition hearings, settlement conferences, 
all kinds of alternative dispute resolution techniques, at a 
pretty nice little stipend. 

So a judge who retired, and especially, let's say, from 
the superior court, with reasonably good health and a 
reasonably good reputation, could make himself or herself 
available for arbitration and mediation, and supplement their 
judicial retirement very nicely. So this became very popular 
in California, so much so that the Judicial Council took a look 

Morris: That it was being used too much, perhaps? 

Broussard: Well, there were a lot of concerns. One was, were we 

developing two systems of justice in the state, a public system 
that was underfunded and the only thing available to the poor, 
and then a private system that was only available to those who 
could afford it, but where you could get your matter heard more 
quickly and expeditiously than you could in a public system? 
There was concern about whether or not if you went into the 
private system for, let's say, a trial-like disposition or an 
arbitration or something, could you zip then to the public 
system for an appellate procedure? There was a lot of concern 
about the propriety of having these parallel systems for 
dispute resolution, one essentially public, one essentially 

Morris: So the calling back a retired judge to sit on a matter removes 
it from the official court system? 

Broussard: No, you're not following me. I'm not talking about calling 
back a retired judge to sit as a judge in the public system. 
I'm talking about forming a panel of former judges who are in 
the business of resolving disputes. 

Morris: I see, okay. Instead of going through the state court system. 


Broussard: That's right, going into a private system, first popularized by 
JAMS, where they developed a panel of judges, and all a 
litigant had to do was to pick up the phone and call JAMS and 
say, "We have a case, we'd like to have it arbitrated. Can you 
give us a list of judges from whom we can choose, see if we can 
agree upon one? And then we'll set up a hearing in a private 
hearing room," that JAMS would provide for the parties. And 
instead of going to trial in a courthouse, they'd go to 
arbitration, mediation, or whatever alternative dispute 
resolution technique or methodology they wanted, in a private 
system such as JAMS. Then you've got a lot of othersthe 
American Arbitration Association has long been involved in that 
business, but its program has been tremendously impacted and 
affected by the growth of the JAMS-type concept, the retired 
judges doing the private alternative dispute resolution work. 

Now, in my own humble opinion, when the Judicial Council 
first became concerned and started taking a look at the 
systems, I think that they were anticipating that they would 
frown on them, and if not get legislation prohibiting them, at 
least tremendously circumscribe and limit them. But the 
realities of the time were such that the need was so great, the 
public needed it, the court systems needed it, because the 
public has just never really provided adequate public 
facilities for resolving disputes. We don't have enough courts 
and judges. 

So the posture became one of trying to make sure that 
there were some parameters around private judging, just 

Morris: And that everybody was working more or less to the same kind of 

Broussard: So that there were not abuses of the process. But we have a 
thriving cottage industry in California now, and there was 
concern that good judges were being induced to retire early, 
because let's face it, [they could] make some money. 

Judicial Retirement Considerations 


Right. A variety of double -dipping. 

Broussard: Well, double -dipping usually refers to like two sources of 
public income. 


Morris: Two governmental jobs, yes. 

Broussard: Two kinds of retirement. But you had some judges who were 

double -dipping and private judging. But there's no question but 
that it gave judges in California who either had retired or 
were eligible to retire a very attractive kind of thing to do 
when they left the bench, and there's also no question in my 
mind that some good judges who left the bench might have stayed 
on the bench longer had there not been a very attractive 
opportunity sitting out there waiting for them. 

Morris: That's really interesting when you consider that it wasn't so 
long ago there was a major concern that some judges were 
staying on the bench much longer than their health and 
perceptions were-- 

Broussard: Very good insight. You see, what we did in California, which 
fed right into this phenomenon, we developed and maintained a 
very regressive retirement system for judges. They said, "We 
are going to penalize you if you stay on the bench past 
seventy, by reducing your retirement benefits." So we didn't 
say you were forced to retire, but there was a penalty put in 
place that induced most judges to retire by age seventy, 
assuming they had ten years of service or something like that. 

But then it got to the point, as you began to appoint 
younger and younger lawyers to the bench, you began to get 
judges who, like myself, I was thirty- four when I was appointed 
to the bench, and when I became fifty-five, I had the twenty 
years of service, which is the minimum number of years to get 
maximum retirement benefits, but I had to serve until minimum 
age sixty and pay into the retirement plan without getting any 
additional benefits. And for most of that time, the judges' 
contribution was 8 percent of salary off the top. 

So the way I put it, it's not really completely accurate, 
but when people asked, "Why did you leave the bench?", I'd say, 
"Have you ever tried working for seventeen cents on the 
dollar?" They said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Well, I 
could retire. The maximum benefit is 75 percent of salary. So 
I could retire and get 75 percent. I work, I get the other 25 
percent, less 8 percent off the top. That leaves me 17 percent 
for working." And then I say, "I look out and [see that] I can 
go and do a lot of other things that would greatly enhance my 
income-earning ability, and it makes you [think]--" 

Of course, in my case, and in the case of a lot of the 
people who've left the supreme court, you add to it the fact 







that the workload there was just so tremendously heavy that a 
lot of people were just simply weary of carrying that workload. 

And in this morning's announcement about the new appointment to 
the supreme court- 
Ling Ching. 

Yes. The comment is that the average term on that court is 
like only a little over six years. 

Yes. That's true. There are some reasons for it, though, but 
in this century, the tenure of supreme court justices hasn't 
been that great, nine or ten years maybe, or something like 
that. I've not really studied it. You had a few [Chief 
Justice] Phil Gibsons who were on twenty- five or more, and of 
course, [supreme court Justice] Stanley Mosk is a wonder unto 
himself. But some of the things that happened that shortened 
the tenure have been the shortened service of Bill Clark by 
resignation [when he went to] serve the Reagan administration 
[in Washington], or Wiley Manuel by death; Rose Bird, Cruz 
Reynoso, and Joe Grodin by election, and then- 
Lack of election. 

Or lack of election. [laughs] And of course, the governor 
didn't consult with me, I'm just surmising, but when Governor 
Deukmejian was replacing those three positions that had been 
not confirmed at the election, I think he wanted to be very 
careful that he had experienced, seasoned people filling those 
spots, so he appointed three very experienced judges to the 
supreme court. 

A little sidelight, by the way: they were all appointed 
at about the same time, and so they were trying to determine 
seniority by pulling straws. You're familiar with the acronym 
used in real estate, AEK? 

Oh, all-electric kitchen? 

Yes. Well, we were having a reception for the three new 
justices at the court, and they drew their straws, and Justice 
[John] Arguelles got the most seniority, and Justice [David] 
Eagleson the second, and Justice [Marcus] Kaufman was third. 
And then I referred to them as the all-electric kitchen. 


Oh, that's wonderful. 


Broussard: But none of those three served much more than two years on the 
court, for one reason or another. I respect their decision to 
leave, but I mean, they all had relatively short tenures. And 
you combine that with Justice [Frank] Newman, who for his own 
personal reasons didn't serve very long either, that brought 
that average down, you see. So in that mixture, I served just 
over ten years and that looked like a long time. 

Morris: So you're saying that that average is misleading? 

Broussard: No, I'm not saying it's misleading. I'm just saying that we 

had a set of phenomena that caused a lot of people not to stay 
too long. 

Morris: And Stanley Mosk, is he somehow exempt from the requirement 
that you retire-- 

Broussard: There is no requirement that you retire. 
Morris: There is not on the supreme court? 

Broussard: There is not in the state of California. You missed me. What 
we did was to put in a regressive retirement system to induce 
some [people to retire]. Now, I don't want to talk about 
Stanley's business, but the biggest penalty that you pay if you 
stay on the bench past seventy is your surviving spouse loses 
substantial benefits. But your new spouse doesn't gain 
benefits unless you've been married for--I think at that time 
it was at least two years prior to retirement. And Justice 
Mosk was in a position with the death of his first wife and the 
duration of his marriage to his second wife that he couldn't 
benefit by leaving the bench by age seventy. So he served 
beyond seventy, and continues to serve. 

There were other justiceslike you can look at my wall 
and you see Justice Peters, for whom I worked as research 
attorney. That picture you're looking at was given to him by 
all of his former research attorneys on his sixty-ninth 
birthday. We had a party for him at the Faculty Club on 
campus, and we commissioned this artist to do this portrait of 
Justice Peters with the intent of giving it to him on his 
seventieth birthday, because we knew Peters would not serve 
beyond seventy. He was not a man of great wealth, and he'd had 
a long and illustrious judicial career, and we knew that he 
would not serve beyond seventy. We didn't know that he would 
die before he reached seventy, though, so that portrait was 
finished posthumously, and it hangs in the VIP room at Boalt 
Hall now. 



But for the average judge, the hit that you take if you 
serve past seventy isespecially if you're married- 
significant enough that it induces you to leave the bench. 
Now, there have been some changes in that. There are ways now 
that you can get certified to serve beyond age seventy, but you 
have to go through a process of getting certified [in order to] 
avoid the hit. But that basic policy played into the 
developing alternative dispute resolution system. 

But other things did, too. You asked about too many 
lawyers and too many lawsuits. Well, we still have the problem 
in California that, with priority being given to criminal 
cases, and with for a long time the problem with the number of 
death penalty cases that take so long to try, I'm talking about 
at the trial level, and now more currently with the fact that 
Three Strikes 1 is forcing more criminal cases to go to trial. 
It's still very difficult to get civil cases to trial, and that 
almost forces more litigants to opt out of the public court 
system and go into arbitration or go into mediation or 
something, in an effort to get a resolution to their dispute. 
So there's a real demand for and a continuing growth in 
alternative dispute resolution systems in the state. 

I think that in many instances, alternative dispute 
resolution has an appeal and an attraction all of its own, 
independent of any concern about getting your case heard in the 
public system. What's happening now is that whole industries-- 
I mean, your health maintenance contracts, your relations with 
your bank, all have in them provisions that require arbitration 
of many disputes that will arise between the customer and the 
company or the bank or whatever. So that by contract now, much 
more so than before, people are putting themselves into 
business relationships that require by contract that 
disagreements be resolved by arbitration or mediation, at least 
as a first step, either binding or nonbinding or whatever. 

So in effect, that is having an impact on the judicial 
organization's consideration? 

Broussard: On the public dispute resolution system, yes. 

'Proposition 184, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 
November 1994, that requires perpetrators of a third felony to be put in 
jail for twenty-five years to life. Popularly referred to as "three 
strikes and you're out." 


Capital Punishment Revisited; Supreme Court Stature in the 

Morris: Oh, that's fascinating. I have a couple of questions from my 
general reading. One is, to what extent has the state supreme 
court taken new directions since you retired? The business of 
capital punishment cases is one that focuses public concern, I 
think. It seems as if, in recent years, the court has upheld 
the majority of capital punishment cases in its review, but 
there have been few, if any, executions. Does this have 
anything to say about the status of capital punishment in 

Broussard: Well, it has a lot to say about it. I don't have your letter 
in front of me, but you talked about [articles that spoke 
about] restoring balance to the court or losing preeminence or 
something like that. There are so many approaches to this 
question, and I think earlier on, I gave you a short history of 
death penalty legislation in California. I think I did. And 
this can be deleted if I've covered it previously, but I think 
that not many people realize what happened in California, that 
like all of the states, we went without a death penalty law for 
a long time, because there was a substantial question whether 
under the United States Constitution we could have a death 
penalty law. And then finally, the U.S. Supreme Court said 
yes, a death penalty law is constitutional, or can be 
constitutional if it meets certain standards and comport with 
certain requirements and stuff. 

But what happened in California was that in 1977, the 
California legislature almost ironically under the leadership 
of then-Senator George Deukmejian, set out to draft a 
California death penalty statute which was intended to conform 
to and to comply with all of the perceived requirements of the 
United States Supreme Court for a constitutional death penalty 
statute. And of course, this was a statute, so it went through 
the regular legislative process, with committee input, and with 
legislative counsel input, staff from all the various 
legislators and everything. 

And we came out with the 1977 death penalty statute, 1 
which from one point of view or several points of view 
unfortunately only survived for about a year, because in 1978, 
John Briggs primarily, with the assistance of some other 

'S.B. 155, 1977-78 Reg. Sess., Cal. Stat. ch. 316 (1977). 


people, drafted the 1978 death-penalty initiative. 1 And as you 
well know, the initiative process is one that can be instituted 
by any elector, any voting citizen. You can draft whatever you 
want, and if you can qualify it for the constitution, the 
people vote on it. You don't have the processes that you have 
for refining in the legislative process. 

And, the motivation of the '78 initiative drafters was 
different than the legislature's motivation had been. The 
legislature was trying very carefully to do a death penalty law 
that would be constitutional, would comport with all the 
requirements as they saw it. The '78 drafters were trying to 
get a death penalty law that would be as broad in scope and 
reach [as broadly] as they thought it [should?] might be, so 
they were willing to go up to the edges and run the risk that 
maybe they'd go over the edge in some areas, to make the law 
broader in scope and make it include more potential death- 
eligible defendants. 

That presented the supreme court with a real challenge. 
The '78 initiative created a whole body of law that trial 
judges were not familiar with. People talking about the 
California Supreme Court reversing death penalty cases, but 
death penalty cases run in phases. You have a guilt phase, 
special circumstance phase, and a penalty phase. Judges were 
accustomed to trying guilt phase issues, special circumstance 
issues. What was new was the penalty phase, and while there 
were some clear-cut reversals across the board, almost all of 
the reversals of the early death penalty cases were reversals 
of the penalty phase trial only, that the convictions normally 
were affirmed, and the finding of special circumstances 
normally were affirmed, although there were a couple of special 
circumstances in the Briggs initiative that were declared 
unconstitutional by the court. But it was the guilt-phase 
issues that were new and troubling to judges, and it led to a 
high number of cases in which the penalty was reversed. 

But every time the court did that, it spoke to judges 
about how you conducted a penalty-phase trial. I'm not denying 
that there were philosophical or attitudinal differences 
towards the death penalty by, to put it roughly, the Bird court 
and the Lucas court. But what I'm saying is that, had the Bird 
court remained intact, the number of affirmances would have 
gone up, because judges then knew how to try a death penalty 

'Proposition 7, Nov. 1978. 



The major difference would have been, and this is one of 
the things that the Lucas court has come under some criticism 
for from some sources, is not in determining whether or not 
there has been error in a trial, [but in] determining whether 
or not that error is prejudicial so that it justifies a 
reversal. Prejudicial error has been the thing that's been 
perceived differently, and depending upon your own attitude or 
approach or philosophy, there are those who say that the Lucas 
court is right on, and there are others who say that the Lucas 
court wouldn't know prejudicial error if it hit them in the 
face. Because they'll identify an error and declare it to be 
an error, but then say it's not prejudicial and therefore we 

Now, on the other hand, you talk about restoring balance 
and stuff. There's no question but that after the '86 
election, you no longer had a court that was being whipsawed in 
the press about death penalty cases. The court was enjoying 
relative quiet instead of constant newspaper and political 
discussion and debate about what it was doing. So in that 
sense, the court maybe got a semblance of balance or quietude 
anyway, or whatever. 

But on the preeminence issue, in my own opinion, and I'm 
overgeneralizing, but the California court tended to become a 
court that followed other courts, instead of being in the 
vanguard of the making of the law and the forging of the law. 
The California Supreme Court historically has given guidance to 
the U.S. Supreme Court in issues like Wheeler and jury 
selection and several other things. Miranda. But the court 
has assumed and maintained more of a posture of, Well, this is 
what the majority of the courts are doing, or this is what the 
U.S. Supreme Court has done, and we'll follow in line. 

So I'm not saying that it's not a sound court, but it's 
not a premier, preeminent court, in the main. 

Are there other state supreme courts that have been exhibiting 
leadership, or has it just been generally, everybody looking to 
each other to try and do what everybody else is doing? 

Broussard: New Jersey was a state supreme-- 

Broussard: But I think on balance, that's the way it's--. Now, the court 
is not in the crosswind of public discussion and controversy 
that it once was, but I don't think that among the scholars and 



Morris : 






those in the profession, that it has the eminence that it once 
had. So there is maybe a trade-off there. 

Is that necessarily a detrimental situation? 

It's a matter of waiting, because there's some good and some 
not so good that come through. It's a matter of waiting. But 
every time a [Justice Roger] Traynor or [Justice Matthew] 
Tobriner would forge a new step in the law, you've got a little 
controversy about it, but generally speaking, in a few years 
the law caught up with them, and they said, "Gee, that 
California court was ahead of all of us." Well, you don't get 
a lot of that out of the California Supreme Court now. 

You do seem to get a fair number of legal scholars who express 
their opinions quite vividly on the work of the courts. Is 
that a help or a hindrance? 

Oh, that's just going to be--I don't think it helps or hinders. 
I read with interest what some of the people I'm sure you're 
referring to have to say, but it wouldn't influence how I 
decided a case when I was on the court, and I don't think it 
influences how any of the current justices decide a case. But 
there's a whole group of scholarly court observers who publicly 
write and comment on their evaluation of the performance of the 

court, of the individual justices, and everything, 
fine and appropriate. 

That's all 

Would commentators like that and the media in general be 
avenues for wider discussion of some of the recommendations and 
concerns of the Committee on Race and Ethnicity? 

We will report to the Judicial Council, and I'm sure the 
Judicial Council will invite public input and comment, but that 
will be the Judicial Council, it won't be our committee. 

Going back to where we started this morning with some of the 
concerns expressed in the committee report about fairness in 
the courts, and the perceptions of discrimination, are they 
appropriate for general public discussion?. 

Those original issues I was talking about are certainly very 
important, very current, very vital, and I think there ought to 
be a lot of attention given to them, there ought to be an 
opportunity for a lot of input from all levels of our society, 
from people who are directly affected to people who are 
studying it and supposedly knowledgeable and scholarly about 
these matters. They're important public issues that deserve 


the widest range of consideration and discussion that they can 

Concluding Thoughts; Visions 2000 

Morris : 



That's pretty much all my questions about your work since you 
retired from the court. You spoke about the court in general, 
the supreme court, in terms of how it is viewed. Is there 
anything you would like to comment about Malcolm Lucas as 
chief justice, now that he's getting ready to retire? 

Well, we've talked generally about the Lucas court. I think 
that first of all, on a personal level, I've always had an 
excellent relationship with Justice Lucas. We've frequently 
disagreed on the bottom line, but we never had any acrimony or 
anything in our relationship. I thought he was a fine 
administrator. He did get in that little personal flap, you 
know, about a couple of issues involving travel primarily, and 
I don't want to get into that. 

But overall, I think he's been a much better administrator 
than I thought he would be. I think he has a vision of what 
some of the issues are that face the court, and he's created 
committees like mine and like the Committee on Access and 
Fairness and a Committee on Court Reporters, and he's developed 
several entities that are taking the longer-range view of where 
the court system ought to be going, I'm talking about the 
Vision 2000, et cetera. 

So overall, I think that he's done a fine job. As I said, 
when I was on the court with him, we had a fine relationship, 
even though we frequently were deciding the issues differently. 
But he's made his contributions. 

You speak of Vision 2000. 

Are there some specifics to that 

Broussard: Well, what I'm saying is that he has in place a couple of 

entities that are taking the long-range view. Of course, 2000 
isn't so long-range any more. But he has been aware of the 
need to look beyond next year and has created--! 'm trying to 
remember the exact names of the commissions, I should have 
refreshed my recollectionbut he has a couple of Judicial 
Council committees that are taking the longer-range view of 
courts and where we ought to be going, and where they should be 


Morris: How about yourself? Having been on the bench, and now being 

back, as you say, as a practicing attorney again. Do you have 
some specifics as to what you think are the long-range 
directions or needs for the judicial system? 

Broussard: Well, other than the work that I'm doing with the Advisory 
Committee on Race and Ethnic Bias, I haven't put a lot of 
thought or energy into what specifically I think the court 
ought to be doing. I mean, there are a lot of issues that are 
around, but there are also entities in place to deal with them. 
I think there's a lot of planning going on with reference to 
the courts in the long and short term. And except as I've just 
described, I am not intimately involved in it, don't need to 
get involved in it. 

Morris: Are there other things in your own agenda, organizations you're 
working with or things of that sort, that you'd like to include 
in this record? 

Broussard: Well, no. I gave you kind of a listing or a run-down when we 
started out. 

Morris: Yes. 

Broussard: I don't intend to go into each of them with any depth. As I 
said to you, though, I am finally coming to the realization 
that I've probably approached, if not exceeded, the limits of 
what I can do. One of my concerns now is that if I can't 
reduce my involvement a bit, it's hard for me to perform up to 
my own expectations in some of the commitments that I have. 
Fortunately, I am really quite healthy, but I'm not as 
energetic as I was, and I'm facing the fact that I'm on the 
other side of the hill now. I'm not still climbing to the top; 
I'm sliding down. And it's just something you have to come to 
realize at some point. 

Morris: So that you don't need to take everything on, you need to make 
some choices as to what's most important? 

Broussard: Everybody who hears you retired assumes you've got all the time 
in the world for them, and if you don't learn when to say no, 
and that you do have to say no--in fairness, to them and to 
yourself, because as I said, I think I came very close to 
getting to the point where I would say yes, and then just 
couldn't get around to doing the kind of job that I think was 
expected of me or that I would expect of myself, just simply 
because I was overly committed, overly occupied. 


Morris: The other side of that, and maybe you could say a few words 
about that, is have you found people in the next generation 
that you think share your ideals and that you can pass things 
along to? 

Broussard: Oh, sure. Yes, but you do it in a more subtle kind of way. 

There are people who look to me and say, "You're a role model." 
It's not that I look at somebody and say, "I'm selecting you to 
carry on." But someone will say, "I've watched your career, 
and you really have been a role model for me, you have 
motivated me, you've instilled me, you've inspired me to try to 
make a contribution to--" whatever it is they're interested in. 
That happens, sure. And that's one of the rewards when someone 
comes to you and says that, "You've been a positive influence 
on me and my thinking, and you've made me aspire to want to be 
a greater contributor to the profession, to society, to the 
community." It's one of the rewards for having done something 

But on the other hand, I'm not walking around trying to 
say to one or two or three people, "I've selected you to carry 
on. " 

Morris: [laughter] I wasn't thinking of that so much as thinking, 

There is a promising young man or woman, I'm not going to take 
this job on, but I'm going to recommend that he or she be the 
chairman of that committee, and then I don't have to worry 
about it, I can continue with this that particularly interests 
me, or I can, like Norvel Smith, take up the cello, and satisfy 
some other personal goal. 

Broussard: Well, certainly some of that goes on, but you usually find that 
an organization has a program, and if they ask you to carry a 
share of the load and you tell them you can't, they have 
somebody else who can do it. They may ask you if you have a 
suggestion, and if you do, you make it, and if you don't, 
they'll come up with somebody. 

Morris: That's true. Well, thank you very much for sharing your 
experiences with us. 

Broussard: I want to thank you too. 

Transcribed by Rita Bashaw and Shannon Page 
Final Typed by Carolyn Rice 


TAPE GUIDE--Allen E. Broussard 

Interview 1: June 27, 1991 
Tape 1, Side A 
Tape 1, Side B 
Tape 2, Side A 
Tape 2, Side B 
Tape 3, Side A 

Interview 2: June 28, 1991 
Tape 3, Side B 
Tape 4, Side A 
Tape 4, Side B 
Tape 5, Side A 
Tape 5, Side B not recorded 

Interview 3: January 16, 1992 
Tape 6, Side A 
Tape 6, Side B 
Tape 7, Side A 
Tape 7, Side B 

Interview 4: January 29, 1992 
Tape 8, Side A 
Tape 8, Side B 
Tape 9, Side A 
Tape 9, Side B 

Interview 5: January 16, 1996 
Tape 10, Side A 
Tape 10, Side B 

Interview 6: January 26, 1996 
Tape 11, Side A 
Tape 11, Side B 
Tape 12, Side A 
Tape 12, Side B not recorded 









APPENDICES--Allen E. Broussard 

A. "In Memoriam," Eulogy for Wiley Manuel, Allen Broussard, 

Hastings Law Journal, vol. 32, March 1981 208 

B. "Retention Elections," Symposium remarks, Allen Broussard, 

Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 28, spring 1988 210 

C. Citation honoring Allen Broussard, Boalt Hall Alumni 
Association, 1991 215 

D. "From Segregation to Role Model: Justice Broussard continues 
the fight for equal opportunities for all minorities," 

California Lawyer, May 1991 216 

E. "California Supreme Court Opinions by Broussard, J.," LEXIS 
compilation, as of May 12, 1991 219 

F. Citation, Alumnus of the Year, California Alumni Association, 

1992 247 

G. "California Q&A: Allen Broussard," William Rodarmor, 

California Monthly, vol. 103, no. 4, February 1993 248 

The following volumes donated by Justice Broussard to The Bancroft Library 
have been deposited for scholarly use in the University Library Documents 
Department : 

"1992 Public Hearings on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the California State 
Court System," Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic 
Bias in the Courts, 1993. 

"Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, Attorneys 
and Court Personnel," California Judicial Council Advisory Committee on 
Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, 1994. 

"Racial and Ethnic Composition of the California Courts," Judicial Council 
Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, 1995. 


Appendix A: "In Memoriam," Eulogy for Wiley Manuel, Allen Broussard, 
Hastings Law Journal, vol. 32, March 1981. 


Wiley Manuel was my friend. 

For some 33 years, we shared a friendship which extended to many 
activities, organizations and events. 

We were students together at Cal. 

We were contemporaries in law school 

Wiley was at Hastings, 

I was at Boalt. 

We shared a love for our common profession the law. 
We worked together in NAACP, Boy Scouts, 

Charles Houston Bar Association, 

California Association of Black Lawyers 

and the National Bar Association's Judicial Council: 
We were brothers in Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. 
We served together as judges on the Superior Court of Ala- 
meda County. 

We shared the fellowship and community of St. Paschal 
Church though I must regretfully admit that my devotion 
never ran as deep as his. 

Our families enjoyed regular and friendly contacts. 
And we shared, over the years and today, many common 
friendships and acquaintances. 

Yes, Wiley was my friend and that is how I will remember 
But Wiley was more than that; he was a man of all the people:^ 

He was at once a truly gentle man and yet, at the same time, 

he was a truly great man. 

To know him was to like him. 

To know him well was to respect him. 

All who knew him admired his outstanding human qualities: 

His devotion to his beloved wife, Eleanor, to his fine family 

and to his many, many relatives and friends; 

His unmatched capacity to love, to care and to serve; 

His deep and profound ability to understand, to reason and 

to resolve; 

His great intellect and his keen wit; and above all, 

His genuine humility. 


March 1981] IN MEMORIAM 739 

He was admired too, for 

His unconquerable determination to overcome all obstacles, 

and continuously to improve himself and to achieve. 

Wiley was a man of many outstanding accomplishments. Those ac 
complishments have been widely and frequently chronicled in 
other places and publications. They need not be repeated here. 

Wiley refused to allow himself to be victimized by race, poverty or 
any other adversity, and he persistently refused to tolerate or to 
participate in victimization of any other person for any reason. 

As an Associate Justice on our State Supreme Court, Wiley was a 

of wisdom and vision; 
of prudence and reason; 
of fairness and justice. 

His opinions showed knowledge of the law, understanding of 
human events, and a passion for justice, fairness, freedom and 
equality under law. 

His passing is a great loss to all of us. 

On an occasion such as this, the hearts of those who are left behind 
are usually filled with sadness. And if this is true today that we, 
the friends, the people of Wiley Manuel have hearts filled with 
sadness, then I ask each of you to try with me to realize and to 
remember that Wiley Manuel's life was a great gift to all of us. We 
were fortunate to have had him among us for so long a time. We 
were fortunate to have known him, and to have shared in some 
part of his life. 

That realization should help to fill our hearts with some feeling of 
appreciation and gratitude. 

That is how I want to remember Wiley Manuel for the goodness 
that he brought to all of us. 

And, after so full and good a life, it is my profound belief and my 
fervent hope and prayer that he is now in his rightful place at 
rest and at peace with his Maker. 

Allen E. Broussard* 

* Presiding Judge, Alamed* County Superior Court. 


Appendix B: "Retention Elections," Symposium remarks, Allen Broussard, 
Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 28, spring 1988. 

b. Justice Allen E. Broussard* 

I want to express my appreciation to Dean Uelmen for the very 
fine paper that he has put out. I want to compliment him on his 
response to the question as to whether or not 1986 was aberrational. 
I must say that I have been among those who have believed, and 
who have wanted to believe, that 1986 was an aberrational year and 
that we had never faced before with the possible exception of 1982, 
and would never face again a similar phenomenon in California. I 
believed that would not happen again despite the fact that I place 
more importance on the 1982 election than apparently Dean Uelmen 
did in his paper or in his presentation today. I think that 1982 is a 
clear precursor to 1986, that the only differences were that it was 
magnified by ten-fold largely because of the personal appearance of 
Rose Bird on the ballot, and the great involvement of Governor 
Deukmejian in the whole election process. And because of those 
things, the whole process was complicated and multiplied many-fold. 
But beyond that, I think that he has made an excellent point that the 
phenomenon of today is that politicized retention elections are proba 
bly a part of our future, that we are in a situation where any power 
ful politician or any divisive issue might subject any particular jus 
tice's career to at least the prospect of a hotly contested election. 

Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court ( 1981-presem). 



I agree with Dean Uclmen that however desirable life tenure 
might be in the abstract, today is not the day to talk about it. As a 
matter of fact, while he persuades me that maybe 1986 was not ab 
errational, and we can look forward to having tremendous political 
input into retention elections in the future; I am not as completely 
persuaded that this is the time when something can be done about it. 
Maybe Bill Lockyer can help us to understand what the political 
mood of the People may be, but in any event, I'd like to move to 
some consideration of the modest, and those are his terms, modest 
suggestions that have been made in the paper and by Dean Uelmen 
here today, to determine whether or not, in my judgment they have 
any validity. 

I do believe that society is served best by a judiciary that has 
relative independence from popular opinion and the whims of politi 
cal tides. Now that docs not mean that there should be no accounta 
bility for judges. In my own judgment, I have always felt that the 
problem was not in the retention election system, but I felt that there 
had been some abuse of that system by some who were powerful and 
who had great motivation to use the system to their own political 
ends and interests. If that's true, and if there can be some modest 
adjustment to the system to make it a little more immune to political 
manipulation, then perhaps those kinds of changes ought to be seri 
ously considered. And with that in mind, I would just say that I 
personally have no problems with the first two of Dean Uelmen's 

I think that there is no beneficial purpose served by having an 
appointee of the supreme court not run until the next gubernatorial 
election. That means that they're in office for up to four years before 
they may have to run. His proposal would require the election 
within two years and it might have what I view as a salutary effect 
of causing the election to be more prospective rather than retrospec 
tive in terms of evaluating and confirming the justice. Likewise, I 
personally don't see any benefit served today from the retention of 
the fixed twelve year terms. That's the only justification for having 
the justice when he or she does run for election, to be confirmed only 
for the unexpired portion of the term rather than for a new complete 
twelve year term. That's what makes possible the phenomenon of 
Cruz Renozo and Ed Panelli. Cruz Renozo was appointed in 1981 
and within approximately a year he had to run. He ran in 1982 and 
he received the four year unexpired portion of the term to which he 
had been appointed. Then he ran in 1986 and you know the results 
of that election. Ed Panelli is another illustration of a justice who 



within a very short period of time after having been appointed, ran 
in a confirmation election in 1986, was confirmed and received a 
four year term and will have to run again in 1990. I see nothing 
beneficial in that, and would wholeheartedly support the concept of a 
justice once confirmed at an election, receiving the full twelve year 
term. But as to the third suggestion, that involving reappointment by 
the Governor, I have some serious reservations. But before I mention 
those, I would like to make one other comment about the paper gen 
erally, and about the presentation today. I thought that it was inter 
esting that there was no mention of our Commission on Judicial Ap 
pointments. It is a pan of our process of appointing and conceivably 
of retaining supreme court justices, yet apparently it has deserved no 
mention or consideration. I think that it is a pan of the process 
which should be considered, which is deserving of attention now, 
particularly because of what appears to be less than a unanimous 
view as to the role that the Commission ought to play in the appoint 
ment process. I think it would be worthwhile spending a little time 
comparing and contrasting our Commission on Judicial Appoint 
ments procedures to those, for example, of the Senate in the confir 
mation of Judge Bork. It is interesting, as Dean Uelmen indicated, 
that two of the major players in terms of the California retention 
election were involved in the confirmation process at the federal 

Let me just give you a little personal illustration. I want to 
mention two things which I have done only once in my life. One is 
that only once in my life have I stood before the Commission on 
Judicial Appointments seeking confirmation of my appointment as a 
justice of the California Supreme Court. That was in 1981 and most 
of you may not remember that occasion. But it was then that I be 
came the charter member of the two-to-one club. Most of you may 
not know what the two-to-one club is, but you might remember that 
now Governor, and then Attorney General Deukmejian had just be 
gun the process of sending written questions to the appellate ap 
pointments on nominees of then Governor Jerry Brown and then 
following that up with rather active questioning at the hearing. The 
questions he asked me was whether or not if confirmed I would be 
an activist judge. But at any rate, the result of that confirmation 
hearing was that I became the first of some seventeen or eighteen 
appellate justices who received a negative vote of then Attorney Gen 
eral George Deukmejian. 

The second thing that I have done only once in my life, was to 
sit as Chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments when it 



was considering, of ail things, the appointment by now Governor 
George Deukmejian of Malcolm Lucas to be Chief Justice of Cali 
fornia. So in a very real and personal way I have to ask and answer 
for myself what is the appropriate role to be played, not only by the 
Commission, but by me as a Commissioner. In all candor, it was my 
considered judgment that political and philosophical considerations 
have gone into the votes of the then Attorney General in deciding for 
whom he would vote and whom he would oppose, and that if I were 
to be guided by those same things, I might be presented with a sub 
stantial question as to whether or not the appointment of Justice 
Malcolm Lucas should have been confirmed. I subscribe now as I 
did then to the fact that in our system, as contrasted with the federal, 
the appropriate role of the Commission has been that which in the 
past it traditionally played. I had disagreed with the role of the Gov 
ernor when he voted against me, and I would disagree with that role 
at this time. But I do think it's a subject for discussion. 

Back to proposal number three. I quite agree that it would be 
unfortunate if we forced, and I may find some opposition from Joe 
Grodin here, but if we forced justices on the supreme court to serve 
but one term, I think that we would have the potential and the very 
real potential of losing greatness for no reason other than the fixa 
tion of that term. However, if we are to allow justices to serve be 
yond the twelve year term, I don't believe that judicial appointment 
is the way to obtain a second term. Judicial appointment followed, 
and all he says in his paper is by confirmation, which I believe must 
be the confirmation election and not the appointment confirmation 
process. Not the commission appointment process. Judicial selection 
by gubernatorial appointment for a second term does nothing other 
than to substitute the process of a sitting justice looking in the eye, 
not only the electorate, but the Governor. And I would fear that for 
political considerations the Governor might be reluctant to reappoint 
a Traynor, a Gibson or a Mosk to a second twelve year term because 
there would be other political considerations which would strongly 
motivate him to appoint someone who may have the potential for 
greatness but for whom he had more political alliance, or more polit 
ical indebtedness. 

So there's no assurance that greatness we achieve through lon 
gevity would be achieved in a system involving gubernatorial ap 
pointments to a second twelve year term. And if you are to have 
gubernatorial appointment and then follow it with an election confir 
mation process, you do not avoid any of the pitfalls that we hereto 
fore have had in confirmation elections except that the prospect that 



the present Governor would not be opposing the candidate on the 
nominee, but perhaps the opposing candidate for Governor who's 
opposing him might. In essence, I don't see any beneficial reason to 
allow for, or to provide for gubernatorial appointments for a second 
twelve year term although I do see advantages in having that possi 
bility exist. 

I think that the justice who is sitting and who would anticipate 
any substantial opposition from an election would probablv in just 
about every case opt not to run after having served twelve years, and 
therefore those great justices who would not face any substantial op 
position from the electorate would be those who would choose :o run 
for another term that should be rather uneventfully confirmed and 
we could continue with the greatness of this court as enjoyed in pre 
vious years. 

I go back to the question. It is not that I'm one who subscribes 
to the philosophy that generally we should not just do something but 
stand there, but I remain to be convinced that this is the time when 
something can be done. If it can I think that at least the first two and 
then the modified third part of Jerry's proposals would be good 
things to endeavor to accomplish. Thank you. 


Appendix C: Citation honoring Allen Broussard, Boalt Hall Alumni 
Association, 1991 


" ' Practitioner, teacher, jurist and leader 
in the fight for opportunities for minorities in the judicial 
system. You have served your community and your state for 27 
years as judge and justice in California from the Municipal 
Court to the Supreme Court. Your judicial excellence has 
been recognized by awards from lawyers' associations; your 
personal qualities brought you the Eleanor D. Roosevelt 
Humanitarian Award. These tributes to you as a wise judge 
and a caring human being make us, your fellow alumni/ae, 
proud of your accomplishments and the distinction they 
have brought to your profession and to your law school. 

Allen Broussard, in honoring you, we honor ourselves, 
and we award you this citation of the Boalt Hall Alumni 

Given at Berkeley, California, this first day of November, 


Is! Theodore Lee 


Appendix D: "From Segregation to Role 
Model: Justice Broussard continues the 

fight for equal opportunities for all 



minorities," California Lawyer, May 1991 


Prepared by line Slale oar of Califoriniia 

From Segregation to Role Model: 

Justice Broussard continues the fight 
for equal opportunities for all minorities 

When California Supreme Court Justice Allen 
E. Broussard was growing up in south 
western Louisiana, he started each day pre 
pared to defend himself. Early in the 
morning, he and four friends mounted their bicyles, rode 
past their high school, through the white residential neigh 
borhood and into downtown, where each worked at a differ 
ent department store. There, they swept floors and washed 
windows before heading to school. 

As they rode back through the white neighborhood, the 
residents threw rocks at the black youngsters and ordered 
their dogs to attack. Broussard and his friends sometimes 
had to use the broom handles and billy clubs they carried 
with them. 

"It was a small, segregated community, both legally and 
factually," the justice remembers about Lake Charles, La. 

From there to a seat on the highest court in California 
was a long road, but one that Broussard travelled with a firm 
purpose to make some changes. As he prepares to step 
down from the Supreme Court, where he assumed the "only 
black man" role that has often been thrust upon him, Brous 
sard looks back on a career which afforded him the oppor 
tunity to practice both law and activism. "I've had a 
tremendously satisfying career," he says. "I've had the 
opportunity to make a contribution." 

His spacious maroon-carpeted office in San Francisco's 
new Marathon Plaza is lined with bookshelves which hold 
impressive pieces of African art. Memorabilia on the walls 
range from a photograph of the 1972 board members of the 
California Judges Association to plaques of appreciation. 
It's a long way from Lake Charles. 

In his last year at segregated Sacred Heart High School, 
where his class consisted of Broussard, his cousin and 12 
girls, the future judge learned his family planned to move to 


Supreme Court 

Justice Allen Broussard 
in his San Francisco 

California. His older brother had been drafted into the Army 
and was stationed on the West Coast, where he found a 
better life. Broussard's father, a longshoreman, was per 
suaded to find work in San Francisco in 1944, and within a 
year his family joined him. 

Before he graduated, Broussard said, he was certain of 
two things: he wanted to continue his education, and he did 
not want to be a priest or a doctor. "I went to my favorite 
high school instructor, Mr. Palmer, the one male teacher in 
the school, and told him of the move," Broussard said. 
"'You have a very fine mind, Allen,' he said, 'I think you'd 
make a fine lawyer.'" 

Broussard enrolled in San Francisco City College, where 
he spent two years, and completed his junior and senior 
years at the University of California at Berkeley. He fi 
nanced his education by working in a shoe store, a ware 
house and a cannery. 

During World War II, there was a large influx of blacks 
into San Francisco, and the city had difficulty absorbing this 
new population, whose employment and housing needs 


Justice Broussard and his wite Odessa, with sons Craig (left) and Keith 

were often unmet. Broussard became interested in the problems faced by 
blacks and served as chairman of his college chapter of the NAACP. "I 
was thinking about law all along," he says. "I thought the law would give 
me an opportunity to make a change. I was concerned about my own life 
and about society. I wanted to serve people individually and do some 
group and organizational work." 

He was accepted at Boalt Hall, which he considered both the best and 
the least expensive law school he could attend. Despite the difficult 
curriculum and an "absolutely maddening" first semester, Broussard 
placed in the top ten percent of the class and remained there. He was one 
of three blacks in his class and the only one to graduate. Twelve black 
students had graduated before him. 

"I thought the law would give me 

an opportunity to make a change. 

I was concerned about my own life 

and about society." 

For 14 months, Broussard was a research attorney for Justice Ray 
mond Peters, who became his model and mentor. "He helped develop 
my research, writing and analytical skills," says Broussard. "He gave me 
a better perception on the role of the law and the courts in society. He 
told me it was important to strive to maintain quality in my practice. He 
instilled in me a determination to be a good lawyer." 

Peters also warned Broussard that even if he carried a dozen good 
cases at a time, he wouldn't make any money in his first year of practice. 
He was right. In 1956, accepting only fee cases, Broussard earned a draw 
of $300 or half the fees he generated. "It was tough," he said of his 
Oakland community-based practice with other black attorneys. "There 
were no opportunities for blacks to develop an interracial practice or a 
group of corporate clients." Still, he managed to develop a good practice 
and remain active in civic and community organizations. 

By the end of the decade, Broussard was active in the Democratic 
leadership in his Assembly and Congressional districts. He and future 
Oakland Mayor Lionel Wilson had built a new building in Oakland and 
hung out their shingle. In 1961, Wilson was named to the Oakland 
Municipal bench, and in 1964 Broussard succeeded him, beginning his 

. - . . 


^ Minority Access 
Group Moves Ahead 
to Increase Diversity 

One year ago, the State Bar 
Board of Governors approved 
the mission of its Commission 
on Minority Access to the 
Legal Profession: "To seek to improve and 
expand the opportunities for minorities to 
enter and succeed in the legal profession in 
California..." Little by little, says com 
mittee chair Frank A. Iwama, the group is 
making progress. 

"We came to the conclusion right away 
that you can't solve everybody's problems 
with one small commis 
sion," says Iwama, who 
practices in Sacramento 
and also serves on the 
Board of Governors. 
"So we're trying to 
address a few specific 
issues. We hope to 
come up with two or 
three model programs that can be used by 
local bar associations and ethnic attorney 
groups and that can help a lot of people." 

The ten-member commission held three 
meetings in 1990 and is working on three 
programs: a bar exam preparation program 
for minority students, a pre-law program 
for minority undergraduate students, and a 
project to encourage minority students to 
become "Lawyers for the 21st Century." In 
addition, a Workshop on Minority Em 
ployment Programs is tentatively 
scheduled for May in Southern California 
for local bar association leaders in the area. 
"It's very difficult." Iwama ac- 
knowedges. "There are so many issues and 
you can't resolve every issue at once." 

Frank A. Iwama 

State Bar Report 

Christy Carpenter, Editor-in-Chief 
Anne Charles, Managing Editor 

Dean Kinley, Senior Editor 
Nancy McCarthy, Senior Writer 

State Bar of California 

555 Franklin Street 

San Francisco 94102-4498 



27-year career as a jurist. In 1972, he was elected the first 
black president of the California Judges Association. In the 
intervening years, he married Odessa, and they had two 
sons, Craig and Keith. His civic activities continued, and he 
served on the Board of Directors of numerous professional 

Asked if he has often felt isolated or alone as "the only 
black man" in many of his activities, Broussard said he grew 
accustomed to that role. "I was aware in many instances that 
judges had no exposure to 
other black judges. Many 
judges motivated me to 
seek leadership posi 
tions," he said. "I also got 
involved in judicial edu 
cation because I thought it 
was an excellent opportu 
nity to impress favorably 
and to improve the cli 
mate for others coming 

Through his years as a 

municipal and superior court judge, and finally on the Su 
preme Court bench, Broussard has remained devoted to 
creating opportunities for minority attorneys, focusing par 
ticularly on law students and judges. In 1988 he accepted 
the chairmanship of the ABA's Judicial Administration 
Division's Task Force on Minority Opportunities, even 
though for years he refused to join the once restrictive 
association. He also is involved with a state-wide advisory 
group called "Children Now," and was recently appointed 

by Supreme Court Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas as co-chair 
man of a special committee to investigate racial and ethnic 
bias in California's court system. When he leaves the bench, 
Broussard says he hopes to "be in a better position to 
continue some of these activities." 

Although Broussard believes that minority attorneys 
have achieved tremendous progress, he also feels they have 
a long way to go. "Both men and women still face an uneven 
playing field," he says. "The opportunity to gain employ 
ment is not equal. The op 
portunity to get business 
is not equal. They still 
have problems surviving 
through partnership." He 
thinks minorities who 

"I was aware in many instances that 

judges had no exposure to other black judges. 

Many judges motivated me to seek 

leadership positions." 

some lose their enthusi 
asm for the big firm cul 
ture, and many firms do 
not provide "an overly 
welcoming environ 
ment." Unless two or three partners take a personal interest, 
Broussard believes minorities are not likely to succeed at a 
large firm. 

He also thinks the skills of minority attorneys are needed 
on all levels: big firms, civil rights, government and pro 
bono work. Whatever a minority chooses, he or she "ought 
to have the opportunity to develop the skills," Broussard 
says. "The opportunities are not at all equal. There's still a 
lot to be done." 

Third Statewide Minority Attorneys' Conference 
on June 8 in San Francisco 

The 1991 Statewide Minority At 
torneys' Conference, organized 
by the State Bar Ethnic Minority Re 
lations Committee, will be held on 
Saturday, June 8, at the Hyatt Regency 
San Francisco Airport. "Looking 
toward the '90s" and "Building 
Bridges" are the central themes of this 
third annual conference, which is co- 
sponsored by law firms, corporations 
and bar associations. 

Discussion topics will include: 
the impact of the economy on the 
legal field, perceptions of minority 
attorneys, lawyering for social 
change, and recent developments in 
civil rights law. The Ethnic Minority 

Relations Committee will utilize 
recommendations from the confer 
ence to implement solutions to the 
institutional problems which con 
tinue to impede the full participation 
of minorities in the legal profession. 

Among the panelists are Ray Rey 
nolds, editor and publisher of the San 
Francisco Daily Journal, former Su 
preme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, 
Judge Candacc Cooper, former presi 
dent of the California Judges Asso 
ciation, and Judge Lillian K. Sing, 
San Francisco Municipal Court 

The registration fee of $45 in 
cludes the conference, a luncheon 
and a reception. 

Preceding the conference, a rec 
ognition dinner for retiring Supreme 
Court Justice Allen Broussard will 
be held Friday evening t New Asia 
Restaurant, 772 Pacific^Avenue, San 
Francisco. Tickets are $50 per per 
son. Individuals who pre-register for 
the conference and dinner will re 
ceive the discounted price of $75 for 
both events. 

To register for the conference, 
contact: Robin Wu, Program 
Developer, Office of Bar Relations, 
State Bar of California, 555 Fran 
klin Street, San Francisco, CA 

94102-4498, 4151561-8815. 



Appendix E. California Supreme Court Opinions by Broussard, J., LEXIS 
Compilation, as of May 12, 1991. Majority Opinions. 


As of May 12, 1991 

220 PAGE 1 


1. DAVID SCHWAB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RONDEL HOMES, INC., et 
al., Defendants and Respondents, No. 5012426, Supreme Court of California, 2BO 
Cal. Rptr. 83; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1330, April 15, 1991, Filed, THE LEXIS 

DISTRICT et al., Defend ts and Respondents., No. SOI 1900., Supreme Court of 
California, 32 Cal. 3d 266; 801 P.2d 1072; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3495; 276 Cal. Rptr. 

3. In re STEVIE LAMAR FIELDS on Habeas Corpus, No. S009491, Supreme Court of 
California, 31 Cal. 3d 1063; 800 P.2d 862; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3231; 273 Cal. Rptr. 
petition for rehearing DENIED January 24, 1991, Reported at 1991 Cal. LEXIS 351. 
MosK, J. and Broussard, J., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

5010251., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 924; 800 P.2d 343; 1990 Cal. 
LEXIS 3226; 273 Cal. Rptr. 187, November 26, 1990., THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF 

Respondents, v. PETER RANK, as Director, etc., et al., Defendants <?nd 
Respondents; CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION et al., Movants and Appellants., 
No. S002524., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 1; 793 P.2d 2; 1990 Cal. 
LEXIS 2462; 270 Cal. Rptr. 796, June 25, 1990., As Modified September 20, 
1990; Appellant's petition for Rehearing Denied September 20, 1990, Reported at 
1990 Cal. LEXIS 4383. 

6. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD RAYMOND RAMIREZ, Defendant 
and Appellant, No. S004698, Crim. No. 24738, Supreme Court of California, 50 
Cal. 3d 1158; 791 P.2d 965; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 2453; 270 Cal. Rptr. 286, June 14, 
1990, Reharing Denied August 28, 1990., The judgment is affirmed in all 

COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. 8004037, Supreme Court of 
California, 30 Cal. 3d 1116; 791 P.2d 387; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 2119; 270 Cal. Rptr. 
1, June 7, 1990, Since it is not alleged that Bear Stearns 's conduct has nade 
PG&E's enjoyment of the benefits of its contract more expensive and burdensome, 
apart from forcing PG&E to defend a costly lawsuit, and since it is not alleged 
that the lawsuit was brought without probable cause and that it terminated in 
plaintiff's favor, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for intentional 
interference with contractual relations or prospective economic advantage. It 
is evident from the face of the complaint that plaintiff cannot allege 
termination of the prior action in its favor since that action is still pending. 
Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. The cause is 
remanded to the Court of Appeal with directions to affirm the .jdgment of the 
trial court dismissing the action. 


COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent, No. 3006168, Supreme Court of California, 
30 Cal. 3d 31; 784 P.2d 1373; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 147; 263 Cal. Rptr. 801, January 
29, 1990, The commission's decision requiring Southern California Gas Company to 
either produce documents prepared by its attorneys related to its buyout of the 
Getty contract or withdraw its CAM application is vacated. 

9. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACKSON CHAMBERS DANIELS, JR., 
Defendant and Appellant., No. SO04611, Crim. No. 233619., Supreme Court of 
California, 32 Cal. 3d 813; 802 P.2d 906j 277 Cal. Rptr. 122f 1991 Cal. LEXIS 2, 

10. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE SIBMOND BITTAKER, 
Defendant and Appellant., No. S004339, Crim. No. 21942., Supreme Court of 
California, 48 Cal. 3d 1046; 774 P.2d 639; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1462; 239 Cal. Rptr. 
630, June 22, 1989; Modification of Opinion August 24, 1989; Rehearing denied 
August 24, 1989. 

Governor, etc., et al., Respondents; ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION et al., Real 
Parties in Interest; THE AMERICA'N COUNCIL OF LIFE INSURANCE et !., Interveners. 
No. S007838., Supreme Court of California, 48 Cal. 3d 803; 771 P.2d 1247; 1989 
Cal. LEXIS 1292; 238 Cal. Rptr. 161, May 4, 1989. 

12. VIKING POOLS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK MALONEY, as Registrar 
of Contractors, etc., Defendant and Respondent., No. S0043B7., Supreme Court of 
California, 48 Cal. 3d 602; 770 P.2d 732; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1133| 237 Cal. Rptr. 
320, April 17, 1989. 

13. EDDIE KELLER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE STATE BAR OF 
CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents, S.F. No. 23030, Supreme Court of 
California, 47 Cal. 3d 1132; 767 P.2d 1020; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 17; 233 Cal. Rptr. 
542, February 23, 1989, The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the 
case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

14. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD GRIFFIN, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004332, Crim. No. 21733, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 
1011; 761 P.2d 103; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 234; 231 Cal. Rptr. 643, October 3, 1988 

13. DUDLEY REESE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. KENNETH KIZER, as 
Director, etc., et al. , Defendants and Appellants, No. 8002737, Supreme Court of 
California, 46 Cal. 3d 996; 760 P.2d 493| 231 Cal. Rptr. 299| 1988 Cal. LEXIS 
193, September 22, 1988 

16. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK A. CRUZ, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 26142., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 1247; 732 
P.2d 439; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 99; 246 Cal.-fiptr. 1, April 21, 1988. 

17. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent. PHILLIP LOUIS LUCERO, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22304., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 1006; 730 
P.2d 1342; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 73; 243 Cal. Rptr. 183, March 28, 1966; Review denied 
May 3, 1968. 



VENTURE, Plaintiff and -Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant 
and Respondent. CROCKER NATIONAL BANK et al., Plaintiff* and Appellants, v. CITY 
AND COUNTY- OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent., No. S000156, No. 
5000156, No. 3000136., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d S3?; 750 P.2d 
324; 19*6 Cal. LEXIS 39j 244 Cal. Rptr. 682, March 17, 1968. 

19. MARIA P., a Minor, etc., et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILSON 
RILES, as Superintendent, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants., L.A. No. 
32086., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 1281; 743 P.2d 932; 240 Cal. 
Rptr. 872, October 29, 1987. 

20. VASflttJEZ-GONZALEZ, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY 
OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent; STEWART, Real Party in Interest, CNo Number in 
Original], Supreme Court of California, In Bank, Slip Opinion, January 29, 1967, 

21. PEOPLE v. JACK NIEMEYER et al. , CNo Number in Original], Supreme Court of 
California, In BanK, Slip Opinion, January 29, 1987, Filed 

Respondents, CNo number in original], Supreme Court of California, In BanK, Slip 
Opinion, January 22, 1987, Filed 

23. JOHN S. SARCHETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, 
Defendant and Appellant., L.A. No. 31988., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 
3d 1; 729 P.2d 267; 233 Cal. Rptr. 76, Jan. 2, 1987; Mod. of Opn. February 24, 
1987; Rehg. den. Feb. 24, 1987. 

24. LEONARD COLE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FAIR OAKS FIRE 
PROTECTION DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents., S.F. No. 24919., 
Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 148; 729 P.2d 743; 233 Cal. Rptr. 308, 
Jan. 2, 1987; Rehg. den. Feb. 11, 1987. 

23. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN ALBERT JACOBS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 25366., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 472; 729 
P.2d 737; 233 Cal. Rptr. 323, Jan. 2, 1987; Rehg. den. Feb. 26, 1987. 

26. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD JUDSON WRIGHT, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 23362., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 467; 
729 P.2d 260; 233 Cal. Rptr. 69, Jan. 2, 1987; As modified Jan. 29, 1987. 

27. In re GREGORY ULAS POWELL on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 24441., Supreme 
Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 1073; 728 P.Zd 1168; 232 Cal. Rptr. 333; 232 
Cal. Rptr. 333, Dec. 29 f 1966; Rehg. granted March 26, 1967. 

I % "" 

28. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDDIE LEE OVERSTREET, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 24637., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 891; 
726 P.2d 1288; 231 Cal. Rptr. 213, Nov. 13, 1966. 

29. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED 
S.F. No. 24946., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 810; 726 P.2d 338; 



230 Cal. Rptr. 656; 123 L.R.R.M. 28^1, Oct. 27, 1986. 

30. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIO PIEDRA ALFARO, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 25042., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 627; 724 
P.2d 1154; 230 Cal. Rptr. 129, Oct. 2, 1966. 

31. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT CALIO, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24711., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 639; 724 
P.2d 1162; 230 Cal. Rptr. 137, Oct. 2, 1986. 

32. ANA MARIE BURCHARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM BARAY, Defendant 
and Respondent., L.A. No. 31937., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 331; 
724 P.2d 466; 229 Cal. Rptr. 800, Sept. 22, 1986. 

33. FRANCES T., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VILLAGE SREEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION et 
al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31873., Supreme Court of California, 
42 Cal. 3d 490; 723 P.2d 373; 229 Cal. Rptr. 436; 39 A.L.R.4th 447, Sept. 4, 

34. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARYLE KEITH MARTIN, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24474., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 437; 722 
P.2d 903; 229 Cal. Rptr. 131, Aug. 21, 1986; Rehg. den. Sept. 16, 1966. 

35. ARTHUR FELLOWS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC., 
Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 32082., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 
3d 234; 721 P.2d 97; 228 Cal. Rptr. 215; 57 A.L.R.4th 223; 13 Media L. Rep. 1305 
July 31, 1986. 

36. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES JORDAN, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24655., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 308; 721 
P.2d 79; 228 Cal. Rptr. 197, July 31, 1986. 

EXCHANGE et al., Defendants and Appellants., S.F. No. 24861., Supreme Court of 
California, 42 Cal. 3d 206; 721 P.2d 41; 226 Cal. Rptr. 160, July 24, 1986; 
Rehg. den. Sept. 25, 1966. 

36. BRYAN W. STEVENS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DWIBHT GEDULDIG et !., 
Defendants and Appellants., S.F. No. 24601., Supreme Court of California, 42 
Cal. 3d 24; 719 P.2d 1001; 227 Cal. Rptr. 405, June 30, 1966; Mod. of opn . 
July 30, 1986. 

LONG BEACH et al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 32031., Supreme Court 
of California, 41 Cal. 3d 937; 719 P.2d 660; 227 Cal. Rptr. 90; 103 Lab. Cas. 
(CCH) P33,633; 40 Em pi. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36,309, June 19, 1986. 

> c - 

COUNTY, Respondent; TERRY JO TYUS et al., Real Parties in Interest., L.A. No. 
32083., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 646| 718 P.2d 119; 226 Cal. 
Rptr. 132; 60 A.L.R.4th 1237, Mmy 29, 1986) Rehg. den. July 21, 1986. 

41. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24713., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 837; 716 
P.2d 94j 226 Cal. Rptr. 107, May 22, 1986. 



42. SPORTS ARENAS PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and 
Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and 
Respondents., L.A. No. 31987., Supreme Court of California, 40 Cal. 3d BOB; 710 
P.2d 338; 221 Cal. Rptr. 338, Dec. 31, 1983. 

43. BRIAN WHITE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WESTERN TITLE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant., S.F. No. 24813., Supreme Court of California, 
40 Cal. 3d 870 j 710 P.2d 309; 221 Cal. Rptr. 309, Dec. 31, 1983; Rehg. den. 
Feb. 14, 1986. 

44. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVIN PETE WALKER, JR., Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 21707., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 116; 
711 P.2d 463| 222 Cal. Rptr. 169, Dec. 31, 1983; Rehg. granted Mar. 20, 1986. 

43. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARNELL LUCKY, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22372., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 315; 710 
P.2d 939; 221 Cal. Rptr. 880, Dec. 31, 1963; Rehg. granted Feb. 20, 1986. 

46. Estate of MARY SANDERS, Deceased. SARA SANDERS et al., Petitioners and 
Appellants, v. FRANK C. BUTTON, 'as Executor, etc., Objector and Respondent., 
L.A. 32054, Supreme Court of California, 40 Cal. 3d 607; 710 P.2d 232; 221 Cal. 
Rptr. 432, Dec. 23, 1985.; As Modified March 13, 1986 

47. In re KEVIN, 0., a Minor. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEVIN 
Q., Defendant and Respondent., Crim. No. 24086., Supreme Court of California, 40 
Cal. 3d 644; 709 P.2d 1313; 221 Cal. Rptr. 146, Dec. 23, 1983. 

48. JACK KENDALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ERNEST PESTANA, INC., 
Defendant and Respondent., S.F. No. 24831., Supreme Court of California, 40 Cal. 
3d 488; 709 P.2d 837; 220 Cal. Rptr. 818, Dec. 3, 1983. 

49. JOSE L. CLEMENTE, an Incompetent Person, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. 
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Appellants., L.A. No. 31832., 
Supreme Court of California, 40 Cal. 3d 202; 707 P.2d 816; 219 Cal. Rptr. 443, 
Oct. 28, 1965; Mod. of opn. Jan. 23, 1966; Rehg. den. Jan. 23, 1986 

30. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEN BARFIELD, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24244., Supreme Court of California, 40 Cal. 3d 192; 707 
P.2d 238; 219 Cal. Rptr. 196, Oct. 24, 1983.: 

APPEALS BOARD and VIRBIL J. MEIER, Respondents. r L.A. No. 32046., Supreme Court 
of California, 40 Cal. 3d 5; 706 P.2d 1146; 219 Cal. Rptr. 13, Oct. 17, 1963. 

32. MICHAEL U. , a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMIE B., a Minor, 
etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.' JAMIE B. , a Minor, etc., Petitioner, 
Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 32014., Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 
3d 767; 703 P.2d 362; 218 Cal. Rptr. 39, Sept. 19, 1963. 

33. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD JAMES MOTTON, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24173, Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 3d 396; 704 
P.2d 176; 217 Cal. Rptr. 416, August 19, 1963; Respondent's petition for a 
rehearing was denied October 3, 1985, and the opinion was modified to read as 



printed above. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be 

54. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FAIR 
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION et al. , Defendants and Appellants; RICHARD 
ARTHUR AMON et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents., S.F. No. 24716., 
Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 3d 422; 703 P.2d 334; 217 Cal. Rptr. 16; 44 
Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1030; 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P35,480, Aug. 6, 
1985; Mod. of opn. Sept. 19, 1965. 

Real Parties in Interest., S.F. No. 246BO., Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 
3d 434; 703 P.2d 374; 217 Cal. Rptr. 36; 44 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1147, 
Aug. 8, 1985; Mod. of opn. Sept. 19, 1985. 

36. CHERYL BARRINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, 
Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31939, Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 
3d 146; 702 P.2d 363; 216 Cal. Rptr. 405, July 29, 1983. 

COUNTY, Respondent; COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Real Parties in Interest., 
S.F. No. 24637., Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 3d 139; 703 P.2d 1; 216 
Cal. Rptr. 661, July 29, 1983. 

38. PAUL PERDUE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CROCKER NATIONAL BANK, Defendant 
and Respondent., S. F. No. 24391., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 913; 
702 P.2d 303; 216 Cal. Rptr. 343, July 16, 1983.; Rehearing Denied August 15, 

59. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAVIER A., Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23869., Supreme Court of California, 38 Cal. 3d 811; 700 
P.2d 1244; 215 Cal. Rptr. 242, June 13, 1983. 

60. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN ANTHONY BOYD, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21704., Supreme Court of California, 38 Cal. 3d 762; 700 
P.2d 762; 215 Cal. Rptr. 1, June 6, 1985. 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO et ml. , Defendants and Appellants., L.A. 
No. 31630., Supreme Court of California, 38 Cal. 3d 364; 699 P.2d 633; 214 Cal. 
Rptr. 424; 119 L.R.R.M. 2433, May 13, 1983. 

62. GEORGE BECKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IRM CORPORATION, Defendant and 
Respondent., S.F. No. 24618., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 434{ 696 
P.2d 116; 213 Cal. Rptr. 213; 48 A.L.R.4th 601; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10,322, 
Apr. 29, 1983. 

Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31942, Supreme Court 
of California, 36 Cal. 3d 345; 696 P.2d 134; 211 Cal. Rptr. 742, March 16, 



64. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUTHER CLAYTON BROCK, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 23650., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d ISO; 
695 P.2d 209; 211 Cal. Rptr. 122, Feb. 28, 1983. 

65. ZELVERN W. MANN, as Administrator, etc., et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, 
v. ANDREA CRACCHIOLO III et al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31837., 
Supreme Court of California, 38 Cal. 3d 18; 694 P.2d 1134; 210 Cal. Rptr. 762, 
Feb. 19, 1985. 

66. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAROLD BINION JACKSON, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 23622., Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 826; 
694 P.2d 736; 210 Cal. Rptr. 623, Jan. 28, 1985; Rehg. den. Mar. 21, 1983. 

67. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DEAN 'BRYAN, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 23621., Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 841; 
694 P.2d 135; 210 Cal. Rptr. 430, Jan. 28, 1965. 

COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT RUBANE DIAZ, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31876. 
Supreme Court of California, 37 .Cal. 3d 772; 691 P.2d 1026; 209 Cal. Rptr. 360; 
11 Media L. Rep. 1297, Dec. 31, 1984. 

69. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JERRY DOUBLAS BIQELOW, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 22D18., Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 731; 
691 P.2d 994j 209 Cal. Rptr. 328; 64 A.L.R.4th 723, Dec. 27, 1984; Mod of cone, 
and dis. opn. Feb. 6, 1985. 

COUNTY, Respondent; SHELL OIL COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest., S.F. 
No. 24727., Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 591; 691 P.2d 642; 208 Cal. 
Rptr. 886, Dec. 20, 1984. 

COURT OF MARIN COUNTY, Respondent; SYNANON CHURCH et al., Real Parties in 
Interest., S.F. No. 24686., Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 244; 690 
P.2d 610; 208 Cal. Rptr. 137; 11 Media L. Rep. 1065. Nov. 19, 1984. 

Respondent; SYNANON CHURCH et al., Real Parties in Interest., S.F. No. 24685., 
Supreme Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 268; 690 P.2d 625; 208 Cal. Rptr. 152; 
11 Media L. Rep. 1076, Nov. 19, 1984. 

73. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRICK TED MARTINEZ, Defendant 
and Appellant.,- Crim. No. 22940., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 816; 
685 P.2d 1203; 205 Cal. Rptr. 852, Sept. 10, 1984. 

* * '* 

COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents., 8.F. No. 24587., Supreme 
Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 799; 685 P.2d 1193; 203 Cal. Rptr. 842, Sept. 
6, 1984. 

INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31873., Supreme Court of 
California, 36 Cal. 3d 676; 685 P.2d 1178; 205 Cal. Rptr. 827, Aug. 27, 1984. 



Petitioners, v. MARCH FONG ED, as Secretary of State, etc., et al., Respondents; 
LEWIS K. UHLER, Real Party in Interest., S.F. No. 24746., Supreme Court of 
California, 36 Cal. 3d 667; 666 P.2d 609; 206 Cal. Rptr. 89, Aug. 27, 1964 

77. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE RICHARD GARCIA, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 22799., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 539; 
684 P.2d 826; 205 Cal. Rptr. 265, Aug. 6, 1964; Rehg. den. Oct. 29, 1984. 

78. THE PEOPLE ex rel. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, as Attorney General, etc., Plaintiff 
and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et al., Defendants and Appellants. 
PROPONENTS OF THE INITIATIVE et al., InterVeners and Appellants., S.F. No. 24586 
Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 476; 683 P.2d 1150; 204 Cal. Rptr. 897; 
14 ELR 20767; 21 ERC 1595, July 26, 1984. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31817., 
Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 441; 683 P.2d 699; 204 Cal. Rptr. 700, 
July 16, 1984. 

80. In re JERALD C. , a Person Coming Under the JuVenile Court Law. COUNTY OF 
SANTA CLARA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HIRAM 6. , Defendant and Appellant., 
S.F. No. 24392., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d lj 676 P.2d 917; 201 
Cal. Rptr. 342, Apr. 20, 1984. 

61. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEE EDWARD HARRIS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21633., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 36; 679 
P.2d 433; 201 Cal. Rptr. 762, Apr. 20, 1984; Rehg. den. June 20, 1984. 

82. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TERRY L. SLAUGHTER, Defendant and 
Respondent., Crim. No. 22896., Supreme Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 629; 677 
P.2d 854; 200 Cal. Rptr. 448, Mar. 22, 1984. 

83. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVIE LAMAR FIELDS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21126., Supreme Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 329; 673 
P.2d 660; 197 Cal. Rptr. 803, Dec. 29, 1983; Rehg den. Mar. 27, 1984. 

84. COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, 
v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 
31603., Supreme Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 197; 673 P.2d 660; 197 Cal. 
Rptr. 763, Dec. 22, 1983. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. 31487, Supreme 
Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 131; 672 P.2d 862) 197 Cal. Rptr. 79, Dec. 12, 
1983; Rehg. den. Jan. 19, 1964. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest, L.A. No. 31424, Supreme 
Court of California, 35 Cal. 3d 24; 672 P.2d 110; 196 Cal. Rptr. 704, November 
21, 1983; Mod. of opn. December 21, 1983; Petitioner's application for a 
rehearing was denied December 21, 1963. Bird, C.J., was of the opinion that the 
application should be granted. 



87. BENELLA MILLISAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellant*, v. CITY OF LAGUNA 
BEACH, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31611., Supreme Court of California, 
34 Cal. 3d 829; 670 P.2d 1121; 196 Cal. Rptr. 38, Oct. 31, 1983. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., S.F. No. 24321., 
Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 384; 668 P.2d 799; 194 Cal. Rptr. 492, 
Sept. 8, 1963. 

89. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TITUS EDWARD YATES, Defendant and 
Appellant, Crim. No. 22817, Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 644; 669 
P.2d 1; 194 Cal. Rptr. 763, September 8, 1983; Mod. of opn. October 6, 1983; On 
October 6, 1983, the opinion Mas modified to read as printed. 

90. DENNIS PARTEE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAN DIEBO CHARGERS FOOTBALL 
COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant., L.A. No. 31360., Supreme Court of California, 
34 Cal. 3d 378; 668 P.2d 674; 194 Cal. Rptr. 367; 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 
P65,388, Aug. 29, 1983; Mod of opn. Sept. 28, 1983; Rehg. den. Sept. 28, 1984. 

SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., S.F. No. 24529., 
Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 360; 667 P.2d 1163; 194 Cal. Rptr. 132, 
Aug. 23, 1983. 

92. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE LEE FAIN, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23014., Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 330; 667 
P.2d 694; 193 Cal. Rptr. 890, Aug. 18, 1983. 

93. In re DAVID IBARRA on Habeas Corpus., Crim No. 22366., Supreme Court of 
California, 34 Cal. 3d 277; 666 P.2d 980; 193 Cal. Rptr. 338, Aug. 8, 1983. 

94. ROBERT 0. PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., 
Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31641., Supreme Court of California, 34 
Cal. 3d 223; 666 P.2d 973; 193 Cal. Rptr. 333, Aug. 4, 1983. 

93. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK MOORE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22832., Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 213; 666 
P.2d 419; 193 Cal. Rptr. 404, Aug. 1, 1983. 

96. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES HARRY WOLCOTT, Defendant 
and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT RUSSELL JOHNSTON, 
Defendant and Appellant., Crim. No. 22293., Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 
3d 92; 665 P.2d 320; 192 Cal. Rptr. 748, July 7, 1983. 

97. FRANK FAHEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRED QLEDHXLL, Defendant and 
Respondent. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRED BLEDHILL, 
Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31349., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 
3d 884; 663 P.2d 197; 191 Cal. Rptr. 639, May 26, 1983} Rehg. den. July 14, 

VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31386., Supreme Court of 
California, 33 Cal. 3d 332; 638 P.2d 1313; 189 Cal. Rptr. 312, Mar. 10, 1983. 


PAGE 10 

MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31587, Supreme Court of 
California, 33 Cal. 3d 542; 658 P.2d 1319; 189 Cal. Rptr. 518, March 10, 1953 

100. KENNETH CORY, as State Controller, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES 
Party in Interest., 3.F. No. 24418., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 
522; 658 P.2d 749; 189 Cal. Rptr. 386; 52 P.U.R.4th 494, March 3, 1983. 

ANQELES et al., Real Parties in Interest., S.F. No. 24368., Supreme Court of 
California, 33 Cal. 3d 419; 658 P.2d 709; 189 Cal. Rptr. 346; 13 ELR 20272; 21 
ERC 1490, Feb. 17, 1983; Mod. of opn. Apr. 14, 1983, Rehg. den. Apr. 14, 1983. 

102. RUDI A. UNTERTHINER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DESERT HOSPITAL DISTRICT 
OF PALM SPRINGS, Defendant and Appellant., L.A. No. 31469., Supreme Court of 
California, 33 Cal. 3d 285; 656 P.2d 554; 188 Cal. Rptr. 590, Jan. 24, 1983. 

103. In re RODELL KELLY, JR., on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 22054., Supreme Court 
of California, 33 Cal. 3d 267; 655 P.2d 1282; 188 Cal. Rptr. 447, Jan. 17, 1983. 

104. ARTIE BAILEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. OTIS A. LOGGINS, as 
Superintendent, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants., S.F. No. 24076., 
Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 907; 654 P.2d 758; 187 Cal. Rptr. 575, 
Dec. 10, 1982. 

105. In re JERALD C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. COUNTY OF 
SANTA CLARA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HIRAM 3., Defendant and Appellant., 
S.F. No. 24392., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 1; 654 P.2d 745; 187 
Cal. Rptr. 562, Dec. 10, 1982; Rehg. granted Mar. 10, 1983 (See 36 C.3d 1) 

106. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN MARK BARRICK, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22389., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 115; 654 
P.2d 1243; 187 Cal. Rptr. 716, Dec. 10, 1982; Rehg. den. Jan. 27, 1983. 

107. JOHN A., a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY 
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31391., 
Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 301; 654 P.2d 242; 167 Cal. Rptr. 472, 
Dec. 10, 1982. 

108. SAN LORENZO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY A. 
WILSON et al., Defendants and Appellants., 6.F. No. 24409., Supreme Court of 
California, 32 Cal. 3d 841; 654 P.2d 202; 187 Cal. Rptr. 432; 115 L.R.R.M. 2347, 

Dec. 6, 1982; Mod. of opn. Feb. ,3-, 19S3{ Rehg. den. Feb. 3, 1983. 

109. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FELIX LEONARDO MANCHENO, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 22507, Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 855; 
654 P.2d 211; 187 Cal. Rptr. 441, December 6, 1982. 

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant., L.A. No. 31415., Supreme 
Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 779; 654 P.2d 168; 187 Cal. Rptr. 398, Dec. 2, 


PAGE 11 

111. CITIZENS AGAINST FORCED ANNEXATION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. 
Appellants., L.A. No. 31414., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 816; 654 
P.2d 193; 187 Cal. Rptr. 423, Dec. 2, 1982. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31524., 
Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 741| 653 P.2d 648; 187 Cal. Rptr. 144, 
Nov. 22, 1982. 

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, as Attorney General, etc., et 
al., Defendants and Appellants., S.F. No. 24207., Supreme Court of California, 
32 Cal. 3d 44D; 651 P.2d 822; 186 Cal. Rptr. 235; 8 Media L. Rep. 2436, Sept. 
27, 1982; Mod. of opn. Nov. 15, 1982; Reng. den. Nov. 15, 1962. 

114. METROMEDIA, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant 
Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al. , Defendants and Appellants., L.A. No. 
30782., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 180; 649 P.2d 902; 185 Cal. 
Rptr. 260, Aug. 30, 1982. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31418, Supreme 
Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 163; 650 P.2d 302; 185 Cal. Rptr. 427, August 
26, 1982 

116. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DAVID BLACK, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 2228., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 1; 648 P.2d 
104; 184 Cal. Rptr. 454, July 29, 1982. 

Respondent; ALFRED RICHARD SOSA et al., Real Parties in Interest., S.F. No. 
24311., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 683) 649 P.2d 696; 185 Cal. 
Rptr. 113, July 6, 1982; Mod. of opn. Aug. 18, 1982; Rehg. den. Aug. 18, 1982. 

118. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDDIE RAY COLE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22200., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 568; 645 
P.2d 1182; 163 Cal. Rptr. 350, June 3, 1982. 

119. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22326., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 468; 645 
P.2d 115| 163 Cal. Rptr. 64, May 27, 1962. 

COUNTY, Respondent) NORtlAN THOMPSON, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 31439., 
Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 147; 642 P.2d 1305; 181 Cal. Rptr. 784, 
Apr. 8, 1962. 

121. HELENE FRINK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BERALD PROD, as Director, etc., 
Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 31453, Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 
3d 166| 643 P.2d 476; 161 Cal. Rptr. 693, April 8, 1982 

122. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT JOSEPH TERESIN8KI, Defendant 
and Respondent., Crim. No. 20497., Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 


PAGE 12 

622; 640 P.2d 733; 180 Cal. Rptr. 617, Feb. IB, 1982; Rehg. den. Apr. 15, 1982. 

123. DAWN INVESTMENT CO., INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
LOS ANBELES COUNTY, Respondent; EDITH BECK et al., Real Parties in Interest., 
L.A. No. 31413., Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 695; 639 P.2d 974; 180 
Cal. Rptr. 332, Feb. 4, 1982. 

124. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY WRIBHT, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21692, Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 705; 639 
P.2d 267; 180 Cal. Rptr. 196, February 4, 1982 

125. RICHARD L. 6ILARDI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GARY L. HALLAM et 
al., Defendants and Appellants., S.F. No. 24325., Supreme Court of California, 
30 Cal. 3d 317; 636 P.2d 588; 178 Cal. Rptr. 624, Dec. 3, 1981. 



1. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004711, Crim. 25423, Supreme Court of California, 1991 Cal. 

2. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. SOI 1326., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 437; 795 P.2d 
783; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4023; 272 Cal. Rptr. 613, September 6, 1990. 

ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROXANA KOPETMAN et al. , Real Parties in Interest, 
No. S006866, Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 783; 789 P.2d 934; 1990 
Cal. LEXIS 1842; 268 Cal. Rptr. 733, May 3, 1990, Petition for rehearing of Real 
Parties in Interest DENIED July 11, 1990., The judgment of the Court of Appeal 
is affirmed. The Court of Appeal is directed to issue a peremptory writ of 
mandate compelling respondent Los Angeles Superior Court: (1) to vacate its 
orders entered December 16, 1987, in case numbers HC 206320 and HC 206321, 
entitled In re Roxana Kopetman and In re Roberto Santiago Bertero, respectively, 
which orders granted their petitions for writs of habeas corpus; and (2) to 
simultaneously make new and different orders denying the petitions for writs of 
habeas corpus. 

DOROTHY COOPER, Real Party in Interest, No. S009171, Supreme Court of California 
30 Cal. 3d 658; 788 P.2d 1156; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 1491; 268 Cal. Rptr. 284, April 
19, 1990, The Court of Appeal's decision, issuing a writ of mandate directing 
that petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, is reversed. 

5. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH BURTON LANG, JR., Defendant 
and Appellant., No. S004635, Crim. No. 24257., Supreme Court of California, 49 
Cal. 3d 991; 782 P.2d 627; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2094; 264 Cal. Rptr. 386, December 
7, 1989; Appellant's petition for rehearing is DENIED February 1, 1990. The 
motion to stay issuance of the remittitur is denied February 1, 1990. MosK, J. 
and Broussard, J., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

6. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEROME JOSEPH MARKHAM, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. 5009472, Crim. No. 25339., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 
3d 63; 773 P.2d 1042; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1329; 260 Cal. Rptr. 273, July 24, 1989. 

7. People, Petitioner, v. Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Defendant 
and Appellant; Jose Ronillo Abogado Lucero et al., Real Parties in Interest, No. 
RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., Supreme Court of California, 1989 Cal. 
LEXIS 1633, June 29, 1989 

8. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEITH EDWARD ADCOX, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. SOO4358, Crim. No. 23192, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 
207; 763 P.2d 906; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 254; 233 Cal. Rptr. 55, November 17, 1988, 
Appellant's petition for a rehearing was denied February 2, 1989, and the 
opinion was modified to read as printed above., Me have found no prejudicial 
error at either the guilt or penalty phases of defendant's trial. The 
financial-gain special circumstances is set aside. In all other respects the 
judgment is affirmed in its entirety. 



9. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARD MOORE, JR., Defendant 
and Appellant. In re CHARLES EDWARD MOORE, JR., on Habeas Corpus, No. 3004614, 
Crim. Nos. 23721, 24849, 23087, 25921, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 
63; 762 P.2d 1216; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 230; 232 Cal. Rptr. 494, November 3, 1968, 
Appellant's petition for rehearing was denied January 9, 1969, and the opinion 
Mas modified to read as printed above. Arguelles, J., and Eagleson, J., did not 
participate therein., Because Me find that no prejudicial error occurred at 
either the guilt or penalty phase of defendant's trial, the judgment of guilt, 
finding of five special circumstances, and the judgment of death are affirmed. 

10. COUNTY OF SAN MATED, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELL J., SR., et al., 
Defendants and Appellants, No. 3002243, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 
1236; 762 P.2d 1202; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 249; 232 Cal. Rptr. 478, October 31, 1988 

11. JOHN F. HENNING, Individually and as Secretary-Treasurer, etc., et al., 
Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION et al., Respondents; CALIFORNIA 
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION et al., Intervenes, No. 3003119, Supreme Court of 
California, 46 Cal. 3d 1262; 762 P.2d 442; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 247; 232 Cal. Rptr. 
278, October 31, 1988 

12. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM GEORGE BONIN, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S004563, Crim. No. 23286, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 
3d 659; 758 P.2d 1217; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 189; 250 Cal. Rptr. 687, August 29, 1988; 
Rehearing denied October 19, 1986. 

13. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN G. BROWN, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22646., Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 432; 758 
P.2d 1135; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 172; 250 Cal. Rptr. 604, August 25, 1986; Rehearing 
den. October 13, 1988. 

14. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT CRUZ McLAIN, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. 5004370, Crim., Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 97; 757 
P.2d 569; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 158; 249 Cal. Rptr. 630, July 26, 1968; Rehearing 
denied September 29, 1988. 

15. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BILLY RAY HAMILTON, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S004399, Crim. 22311, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 
123; 756 P.2d 1346; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 162; 249 Cal. Rptr. 320, July 26, 1988; 
Rehearing denied September 22, 1986. 

16. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. 8ARY LEE GUZMAN, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re GARY LEE 8UZMAN on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 22418, No. 
S002482., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 913} 755 P.2d 917; 1986 Cal. 
LEXIS ISO; 246 Cal. Rptr. 467, June 28, 1986; Rehearing denied August 18, 1968. 

17. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JATURUN SIRIPONGS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23082., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 348; 754 
P.2d 1306; 1986 Cal. LEXIS 113; 247 Cal. Rptr. 729, June 6, 1968; Rehearing 
Denied July 28, 1968. 

18. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC B. KIMBLE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crin. No. 21962., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 460; 749 
P.2d 803; 1986 Cal. LEXIS 34; 244 Cal. Rptr. 146, February 25, 1988; As 
modified; Appellant's petition for rehearing DENIED April 21, 1988. The request 
for an order staying issuance of remittitur is DENIED April 21, 1966. Mosk, 


PA6E 3 

J., and Broussard, J. are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

19. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ADAMS HOVEY, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22487., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 543; 749 
P.2d 776j 1988 Cal. LEXIS 35; 244 Cal. Rptr. 121, February 25, 1988. 

20. n. L. KING et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GEORGE MEESE, as Director, 
et al., Defendants and Respondents., L.A. 32133, Supreme Court of California, 43 
Cal. 3d 1217; 743 P. Id 889; 240 Cal. Rptr. 829, October 26, 1987. 

in Interest., L.A. No. 32110., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 1060; 742 
P.2d 209; 240 Cal. Rptr. 160, October 1, 1987; Plaintiffs' petition for 
rehearing GRANTED December 17, 1987. Argument will be limited to the following 
issue: Does either section 798.76 of the Civil Cade or the Unruh Civil Rights 
Act prohibit defendants from excluding adults under the age of 25 from residing 
in their mobilehome park? Plaintiffs shall serve and file a supplemental 
brief addressing this issue on or before January 15, 1988. Defendants shall 
serve and file a responsive supplemental brief on or before Febuary 1 , 198S. 
Plaintiffs may serve and file a reply brief on or before February 26, 1988. 

Respondent; FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest., L.A. No. 
32138., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 858; 741 P.2d 124; 239 Cal. 
Rptr. 626, September 3, 1987. 

23. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID L. GHENT, JR., Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21311., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 739; 739 
P.2d 1250; 239 Cal. Rptr. 82, August 13, 1987. 

24. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL RAY BURGENER, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 22219., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 505; 
714 P.2d 1251; 224 Cal. Rptr. 112, Mar. 27, 1986; Rehg. den. May 22, 1986. 

25. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE DEERE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22878., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 353; 710 
P.2d 925; 222 Cal. Rptr. 13, Dec. 31, 1985; Rehg. den. Feb. 14, 1986 

26. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAYNE A. SHAW, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re WAYNE A. SHAW on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 22443, Crin. No. 
22365., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal, 3d 533; 674 P.2d 739; 198 Cal. 
Rptr. 788, Feb. 6, 1984; Rehg. den. Mar. 13, 1984. 

27. JOHN P. O'CONNOR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VILLAGE GREEN OWNERS 
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN P. O'CONNOR et al., Defendants and Appellants. 
L.A. No. 31495., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 790; 662 P.2d 427; 191 
Cal. Rptr. 320, May 9, 1983. 

28. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW EDWARD ROBERTSON, Defendant 
and Appellant. In re ANDREW EDWARD ROBERTSON on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 20577, 
Crim. No. 21119., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 21; 655 P.2d 279; 188 
Cal. Rptr. 77, Dec. 10, 1982; Rehg. den. Jan. 19, 1983. 



29. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUGLAS RAY STANKEWITZ, Defendant 
and Appellant. In re DOUGLAS RAY STANKEWITZ on Habeas Corpus., Crim. Nos. 20705, 
21310., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 80; 648 P.2d 378; 184 Cal. Rptr. 
611; 23 A.L.R.4th 476, Aug. 3, 1982. 

30. JAMES BROSNAHAN et al., Petitioners, v. MARCH FONG EU, as Secretary of 
State, etc., et al., Respondents; PAUL SANN et al., Real Parties in Interest., 
S.F. No. 24393., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d Ij 641 P.2d 200; 181 
Cal. Rptr. 100, Mar. 11, 1982. 



COUNTY, Respondent; CHARLES D. SLATON et al., Real Parties in Interest, No. 
S014626, Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 237; 607 P.2d 416; 279 Cal. 
Rptr. 376; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1212, April 1, 1991, Filed, THE LEXIS PAGINATION 

2. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD JAY BEARDSLEE, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. 3004609/Crim. 23393, Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 66; 
606 P.2d 1311; 279 Cal. Rptr. 276; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1137, March 25, 1991, Filed 

in Interest and Respondent, No. S004129, Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 
1102; 805 P.2d 300; 278 Cal. Rptr. 346; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 983; 6 BNA IER CAS 365, 


4. HYDROTECH SYSTEMS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OASIS WATERPARK et al. , 
Defendants and Respondents., No. SD13248., Supreme Court of California, 52 Cal. 
3d 968; 603 P.2d 370; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 139; 277 Cal. Rptr. 317, January 24, 1991. 

3. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERROL PIETERS, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S014237., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 894; 802 P.2d 
420; 276 Cal. Rptr. 918; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1, January 7, 1991., THE LEXIS 

6. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRONTE LAMONT WRIGHT, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S004479, Crim. No. 22843., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 
3d 367; 802 P.2d 221; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3300; 276 Cal. Rptr. 731, December 27, 

Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., No. 8010633., Supreme Court of 
California, 51 Cal. 3d 1292; 801 P.2d 292; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3240; 276 Cal. Rptr. 
21, 1991, Reported at 1991 Cal. LEXIS 6A6. . 

8. SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANTON J. WOZAB et 
al., Defendants and Respondents., No. S01D502., Supreme Court of California, 51 
Cal. 3d 991; 800 P.2d 337| 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3229* 273 Cal. Rptr. 201, November 
RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., Respondents' petition for rehearing 
DENIED February 14, 1991, Reported at 1991 Cal. LEXIS 663. MosK, J. Broussard, 
J. and Kennard, J., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

9. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARD WHITT, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S004669., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 620; 798 



P.2d 849; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4681; 274 Cal. Rptr. 252, October 25, 1990., THE 
FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., Appellant's petition for review DENIED December 20, 
1990, Reported at 1990 Cal. LEXIS 5738. MosK, J., Broussard, J. and Kennard are 
of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

10. JOHN MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE RESENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 
CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Repondents., No. B006987., Supreme Court of 
California, 31 Cal. 3d 120; 793 P.2d 479; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 2858; 271 Cal. Rptr. 
146; 15 U.S.P.Q.2D (SNA) 1753, July 9, 1990., Respondent's petition for 
rehearing DENIED August 30, 1990. MosK, J. and Broussard, J., are of the opinion 
the petition should be granted. 

11. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOHN CLARK, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. 5004662, Crim. No. 24342, Supreme Court of California, 50 Cal. 3d 
383; 789 P.2d 127; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 1272; 266 Cal. Rptr. 399, April 3, 1990, As 
Modified; Appellant's petition for rehearing DENIED June 7, 1990., The finding 
that defendant committed the murder charged in count II under the special 
circumstance of murder by means of explosives (I 190.2, subd. (a) (6) ) is 
stricKen. The judgment is modif.ied to direct that the term imposed on count V 
is stayed pending service of the terms imposed on counts II, III, and IV, the 
stay to become permanent upon service of those terms. As modified, the judgment 
is affirmed. 

12. Estate of FLOYD D. PROPST, Deceased. BRAPLE EULA PROPST, Petitioner and 
Respondent, v. NETA STILLMAN et al. , Objectors and Appellants, No. S006951, 
Supreme Court of California, 50 Cal. 3d 448; 788 P.2d 628; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 1225; 
268 Cal. Rptr. 114, April 2, 1990, The judgment of the Court of Appeal is 
reversed to the extent that it upholds the claims of respondent Braple Eula 
Propst as surviving joint tenant; in all other respects the judgment is 
affirmed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

Respondent., No. S008142., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 3d 1071; 782 
P.2d 680; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2096; 264 Cal. Rptr. 439, December 11, 1989. 

14. MONTEREY S. P. PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. U. L. BANBHAM, 
INC., Defendant and Appellant., No. S004027, , Supreme Court of California, 49 
Cal. 3d 454; 777 P.2d 623; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1600; 261 Cal. Rptr. 387, August 24, 

15. HAIDY McHUBH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD, 
Defendant and Appellant; LINDA L. SMITH et al., Real Parties in Interest and 
Respondents; HELEN McCLELLAN et al., Interveners and Respondents., L.A. No. 
32062., Supreme Court of California, 4.9 Cal. 3d 348; 777 P.2d 91; 1989 Cal. 
LEXIS 1597; 261 Cal. Rptr. 318, August 17, 1989; Rehearing denied November 1, 

16. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN HAMILTON, Defendant 
and Appellant., No. S004485. Crim. No. 22911., Supreme Court of California, 48 
Cal. 3d 1142; 774 P.2d 730; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1506; 259 Cal. Rptr. 701, June 26, 
1989; Modification of Opinion August 17, 1969; Rehearing denied August 17, 1989. 



17. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WATSON ALLISON, De r endant and 
Appellant., No. SOD4649, Crim. No. 24038., Supreme Court of California, 48 Cal. 
3d 879| 771 P.2d 1294; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1293; 238 Cal. Rptr. 208, May 11, 1989; 
Modification of Opinion June 29, 1989; Rehearing denied June 29, 1989. 

18. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE BURTON, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S004691, Crim. No. 24589., Supreme Court of California, 48 Cal. 
3d 843; 771 P.2d 1270; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1293; 238 Cal. Rptr. 184, May 8, 1989; 
Rehearing denied July 27, 1989. 

19. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM GEORGE BONIN, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004440, Crim. No. 22530, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 
808; 765 P.2d 460; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 3; 254 Cal. Rptr. 298, January 9, 1989, 
Appellant's petition for a rehearing mas denied March 2, 1989., For the reasons 
stated above, we conclude that nine of the ten multiple-murder 

special-circumstance findings must be set aside on the ground that only one such 
special circumstance could properly have been alleged. We conclude that in all 
other respects the judgment must be affirmed. 

20. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD WILLIAM GARRISON, Defendant 
and Appellant. In re RICHARD. WILLIAM GARRISON on Habeas Corpus, No. S004354, 
Crim. Nos. 21821, 26262, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 746; 765 P.2d 
419; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1; 234 .Cal. Rptr. 237, January 5, 1989, Petitions of both 
parties for a rehearing were denied March 30, 1989. Broussard, J., was of the 
opinion that appellant's petition should be granted., The judgment of guilt, the 
finding of one multiple-murder special circumstance, and the findings of 
felony-murder (robbery) special circumstances are affirmed. The second 
multiple-murder special circumstance, the witness-Killing special circumstances, 
and the felony-murder (burglary) special circumstances are set aside. The 
judgment of death is reversed. We discharge the order to show cause and deny 
the petition for habeas corpus. 

Defendant and Respondent, L.A. No. 32148, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 
3d 634; 763 P.2d 373; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 269; 294 Cal. Rptr. 211, December 29, 1988 
Accordingly, that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the 
dismissal of plaintiff's causes of action alleging a discharge in breach of 
public policy and a tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and 
fair dealing is affirmed. That portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeal 
affirming the dismissal of the cause of action alleging an implied-in-fact 
contract not to discharge except for good cause is reversed, and the case is 
remanded for action consistent with the views expressed herein. n43 n43 We do 
not reach the issue of the retroactive or prospective application of our 
opinion. The parties have not briefed or argued the question and we will deal 
with the matter in a later case when we have the benefit of the views of 

22. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVIN PETE WALKER, JR., Defendant 
and Appellant, No. S004330, Crim. No. 21707, Supreme Court of California, 47 
Cal. 3d 605; 765 P.2d 70; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 268; 233 Cal. Rptr. 863, December 27, 
1988, Appellant's petition for a rehearing was denied March 16, 1989., The 
judgment is affirmed in its entirety. 

Respondent; UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Real Party in Interest, 



L.A. No. 32129, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 157; 763 P.2d 881; 1988 
Cal. LEXIS 255; 253 Cal. Rptr. 30, November 17, 1988, The portions of the Court 
of Appeal's judgment vacating the special compensated one-hour field access 
provision of the Board's order and directing the Board to establish specific 
limitations on access are reversed. Otherwise, the judgment of the Court of 
Appeal is affirmed and each party is ordered to bear its own costs on review. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest, S.F. No. 24996, Supreme 
Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 112; 763 P.2d 852; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 232; 253 Cal. 
Rptr. 1, November 10, 1988, Petitioner's application for a rehearing was denied 
January 9, 1989., We conclude that the prosecution of defendant for involuntary 
manslaughter and felony child endangerment violates neither statutory law nor 
the California or federal Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is 

25. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KELVIN SHELBY MALONE, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004553, Grim. No. 23155, Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 
1; 762 P.2d 1249; 1988 Cal. LEXJ.S 251; 252 Cal. Rptr. 525, November 3, 1988, 
Appellant's petition for a rehearing was denied January 9, 1989, and the opinion 
was modified to read as printed above., For the reasons stated, the judgment is 
affirmed in its entirety. 

26. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY CORNELL BEAN, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. 5004387, Crim. No. 22144, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 
919; 760 P.2d 996; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 207; 251 Cal. Rptr. 467, September 19, 1988; 
Rehearing denied December 15, 1988. 

27. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES E. McDOWELL, JR., Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 24110., Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 551; 
758 P.2d 1060; 763 P.2d 1269; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 168; 250 Cal. Rptr. 330, August 
25, 1988; As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 10, 1988. 

28. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR LEE MORRIS, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re OSCAR LEE MORRIS on Habeas Corpus., No. SO04601 , Crim. No. 
23427, Crim. No. 25305., Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 1; 756 P.2d 
843; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 157) 249 Cal. Rptr. 119, July 21, 1968; Rehearing denied 
September 1, 1988 

29. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENJAMIN WAI SILVA, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22546., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 604; 754 
P.2d 1070; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 115; 247 Cal. Rptr. 373, June 9, 1988; Rehearing 
denied July 28, 1988. 

30. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BERNARD LEE HAMILTON, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re BERNARD LEE HAMILTON on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 21956, Crim. 
Nos. 25303, 5001870, Supreme Court of California, 45 Cal. 3d 351; 753 P.2d 1109; 
1988 Cal. LEXIS 107; 247 Cal. Rptr. ; 31 , May 19, 1988; As Modified July 28, 1988 
on Denial of Rehearing. 

31. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES RICHARD ODLE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23254., Supreme Court of California, 45 Cal. 3d 366; 754 
P.2d 184; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 105; 247 Cal. Rptr. 137, May 19, 1968; Rehearing 
Denied June 30, 1988. 



32. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARNELL LUCKY, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22572., Supreme Court of California, 45 Cal. 3d 239; 733 
P.2d 1032; 196B Cal. LEXIS 94; 247 Cal. Rptr. 1, May 16, 1988; Rehearing 
Denied July 21, 1988. 

33. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ANDREW MELTON, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23029., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 713; 750 
P.2d 741; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 53; 244 Cal. Rptr. 867, March 3, 1988; As modified on 
denial of rehearing May 26, 1988. 

34. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO GILBERT RUIZ, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 21370., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 589; 
749 P.2d 854; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 39; 244 Cal. Rptr. 200, February 29, 1988; 
Modification of opinion on denial of rehearing April 7, 1988. 

33. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARY LEE HOWARD, SR., Defendant and 

Appellant., Crim. No. 22647., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 375; 749 

P.2d 279; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 24; 243 Cal. Rptr. 842, February 16, 1988; Rehearing 
denied April 21, 1988. 

36. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE BELL, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 20879., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 137; 745 
P.2d 573; 241 Cal. Rptr. 890, December 3, 1987; Rehearing granted January 28, 
1988 (See 49 Cal. 3d 302) 

37. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM MIRANDA, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re ADAM MIRANDA on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 22787, Crim. No. 
25330., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 37; 744 P.2d 1127; 241 Cal. 
Rptr. 394, November 12, 1987; Modification of opinion on denial of rehearing 
January 7, 1988. 

38. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES PHILLIP ANDERSON, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 21287., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 1104; 
742 P.2d 1306; 240 Cal. Rptr. 385, October 13, 1987; Rehearing denied November 
12, 1987. 

39. MA6DALINE M. HANSEN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN 
BUENAVENTURA, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 32091., Supreme Court of 
California, 42 Cal. 3d 1172; 729 P.2d 186; 233 Cal. Rptr. 22, Dec. 31, 1986; 
Rehg. den. Feb. 5, 1987. 

40. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLARENCE RAY ALLEN, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22879., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 1222] 729 
P.2d 113; 232 Cal. Rptr. 849, Dec. 31, 1986; As modified Jan. 2, 1987; Rehg. 
den. Feb. 11, 1967. 

41. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD EOUARTE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24651., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 436; 722 
P.2d 890; 229 Cal. Rptr. 116, Aug. 21, 1986; As modified Aug. 28, 1986; Rehg. 
denied Oct. 2, 1986. 

42. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALONZO COLLINS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 24784., Supreme Court of California, 42 Cal. 3d 378; 722 
P.2d 173; 228 Cal. Rptr. 899, Aug. 11, 1986; Rehg. den. Sept. 10, 1986; Opn. 
Filed Jan. 6, 1987 not for publication. 



43. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL TODD LEACH, Defendant and 
Respondent., Crim. No. 21586., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 92; 710 
P.2d 893; 221 Cal. Rptr. 626, December 31, 1983; Rehearing Denied January 30, 

44. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN QALEN DAVENPORT, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 22356., Supreme Court of California, 41 Cal. 3d 247; 
710 P.2d 861; 221 Cal. Rptr. 794, Dec. 31, 1983; Rehearing Denied January 30, 

45. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD N. WEAVER, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 23932., Supreme Court of California, 39 Cal. 3d 654; 703 
P.2d 1139; 217 Cal. Rptr. 245, Aug. 22, 1985. 

46. WESTERN OIL AND 6AS ASSOCIATION et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AIR 
RESOURCES BOARD et al. , Defendants and Appellants., L.A. No. 31583., Supreme 
Court of California, 37 Cal. 3d 302; 691 P.2d 606; 208 Cal. Rptr. 830, Dec. 17, 

47. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN JAY DILLON, Defendant and 
Appellant. Crim. No. 21964, Supreme Court of California, 34 Cal. 3d 441; 668 
P.2d 697; 194 Cal. Rptr. 390, September 1, 1983; Rehg. October 6, 1983; 
Respondent's petition for a rehearing Mas denied October 6, 1983. Richardson, 
J., MBS of the opinion that the, petition should be granted. 

48. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EARL BRADLEY CROWSON, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22415., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 623; 660 
P.2d 389; 190 Cal. Rptr. 165, Mar. 24, 1983. 

49. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELBERT LEE EASLEY, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 21117., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 63; 634 
P.2d 1272; 187 Cal. Rptr. 745, Dec. 10, 1982; Rehg. granted Feb. 23, 1963 (See 
34 C.3d 858) 

30. J. GEORGE PRESSLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. BREN COMPANY, 
Defendant and Appellant; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Intervener and 
Respondent., L.A. No. 31553., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 831; 654 
P.2d 219; 187 Cal. Rptr. 449; 25 BNA WH Cas 1202, Dec. 6, 1962. 

51. TERRY W. SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAY W. FRIEDMAN et al., 
Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 31541., Supreme Court of California, 32 
Cal. 3d 149; 649 P.2d 686; 185 Cal. Rptr. 244, Aug. 23, 1982; Rehg. den. Sept. 
30, 1982. 


1. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN COOPER, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004687, Crim. 24332, Supreme Court of California, 1991 Cal. 

2. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE HERBERT WHARTON, Defendant 
and Appellant, No. 3004769, Supreme Court of California, 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1608, 

Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest, No. S016614, Supreme Court of 
California, 807 P.2d 434; 279 Cal. Rptr. 392; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1210, April 1, 

INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, No. S014133, Supreme Court of 
California, 33 Cal. 3d 121; 806 P.2d 1342; 279 Cal. Rptr. 307; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 

5. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRUCE WAYNE MORRIS, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004781, Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 132; 807 P.2d 
949; 279 Cal. Rptr. 720; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1218, March 28, 1991, Filed, THE 

6. TAMELA HARRIS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CAPITAL GROWTH INVESTORS 
XIV et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. S011367, Supreme Court of California 
32 Cal. 3d 1142; 805 P,2d 873; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 900; 278 Cal. Rptr. 614, 

7. J. C. PENNEY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and 
Appellant, v. M. K., a Minor, etc., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant; 
S. K. et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents., No. S010324., 
Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 1009; 804 P.2d 689; 278 Cal. Rptr. 64; 
1991 Cal. LEXIS 334, February 3, 1991. 

Party in Interest and Respondent., No. S009487., Supreme Court of California, 32 
Cal. 3d 40; 801 P.2d 337; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3488; 276 Cal. Rptr. 114| 34 Fair 
Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1239; S3 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40,461, December 20, 

9. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, . v. JESSE EDWARD GONZALEZ, Defendant and 
Appellant. In re JESSE EDWARD GONZALEZ 'on Habeas Corpus. THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, 
Real Party in Interest., No. S004384, No. SOD4384, No. S012308., Supreme Court 
of California, 31 Cal. 3d 1179; 800 P.2d 1139; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3233; 273 Cal. 

LEVEL 1-48 CASES 243 
Review Denied February 27, 1991, Reported at 1991 Cml. LEXIS 874. 

10. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TEOFILO MEDINA, JR., Defendant and 
Appellant., No. 5004758., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 670; 799 P.2d 
1282; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 3034; 274 Cal. Rptr. 849, November 19, 1990., THE LEXIS 
PUBLISHED VERSION., Appellant's petition for rehearing DENIED February 14, 1991, 
Reported at 1991 Cal. LEXIS 664. Mosk, J. and Broussard, J., are of the opinion 
the petition should be granted. 

11. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE SANDERS, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. 3004439., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 471; 797 P.2d 
361; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4385; 273 Cal. Rptr. 337, September 27, 1990., THE LEXIS 
PUBLISHED VERSION., Review Denied November 28, 1990, Reported at 1990 Cal. LEXIS 

12. In re MALINDA S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO 
Defendant and Appellant., No. S012792., Supreme Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 
368; 795 P.2d 1244; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4024; 272 Cal. Rptr. 787, September 6, 1990. 

COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., No. SOI 1131., Supreme 
Court of California, 31 Cal. 3d 333; 793 P.2d 1223; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4026; 272 
Cal. Rptr. 767, September 6, 1990. 

14. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL DEE MATTSON, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004703, Crim. No. 23181, Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 
826; 789 P.2d 983; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 1844; 268 Cal. Rptr. 802, May 3, 1990, 
Appellant's petition for review DENIED July 11, 1990. ttosk, J. and Broussard, J. 
are of the opinion the petition should be granted. On October 24, 1990, this 
court stayed the judgment of execution pending final determination of 
appellant's petition for certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court. 
This court hereby confirms that the stay extends through and including the 
disposition of any timely petition for rehearing in the United States Supreme 
Court, or the expiration of the 23-day period for filing such petition, 
whichever is sooner. (See Rules Supreme Ct., rule 44.) Certiorari having been 
denied on December 10, 1990, the stay thus extends through and including January 
4, 1991, at the earliest, unless a petition for rehearing is sooner denied., The 
judgment is affirmed. 

15. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THADDEUS LOUIS TURNER, Defendant 
and Appellant, No. 3004638, Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 3d 668; 789 
P.2d 887; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 1634; 268 Cal. Rptr. 706, April 26, 1990, Appellant's 
petition for rehearing DENIED June 21, 1990., The judgment is affirmed in its 

t * '* 

Insurance Commissioner, etc., Respondent, No. S008962, Supreme Court of 
California, 30 Cal. 3d 82; 783 P.2d 300; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 149; 266 Cal. Rptr. 117 
January 29, 1990, The petition for peremptory writ of mandate is granted. Let a 
writ of mandate issue commanding the Commissioner to set aside her decision and 
order, and to issue a new decision and order not inconsistent with this 

244 PAGE 



17. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LELAND DELLINBER, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. S006339., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 3d 1212; 7S3 P.2d 
200; 1969 Cal. LEXIS 2101; 264 Cal. Rptr. 841, December 18, 1989; Appellant's 
petition for rehearing DENIED February 15, 1990. 

Interest., No. S001133., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 3d 713; 781 P.2d 
347; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2097; 263 Cal. Rptr. 313, October 31, 1989., Petitioner's 
application for a rehearing denied January IB, 1990. Mosk, J., and Broussard, 
J., were of tine opinion that the petition should be granted. 

19. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD LEE BELL, Defendant and 
Appellant., No. 5004260, Crim. No. 20879., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 
3d 302; 778 P.2d 129; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1602; 262 Cal. Rptr. 1, September 3, 
1989; Appellant's petition for rehearing is DENIED November 30, 1989. MosK, J. 
and Boussard, J., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 

20. COMMON CAUSE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS OF LOS AN6ELES COUNTY et al., Defendants and Appellants., No. 
S001833., Supreme Court of California, 49 Cal. 3d 432; 777 P.2d 610; 1989 Cal. 
LEXIS 1398; 261 Cal. Rptr. 374, August 24, 1989. 

21. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID LESLIE MURTISHAW, Defendant 
and Appellant., No. S004521 . Crim. No. 23039., Supreme Court of California, 48 
Cal. 3d 1001; 773 P.2d 172; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1339; 238 Cal. Rptr. 821, June 8, 
1989; Rehearing denied August 31, 1989. 

22. ROBERT NEWMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EMERSON RADIO CORPORATION, 
Defendant and Respondent., No. SO09323, L.A. No. 32284., Supreme Court of 
California, 48 Cal. 3d 973; 772 P.2d 1039; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1299; 238 Cal. Rptr. 
592, May 23, 1989. 

23. MARIA E. THING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES V. La CHUSA et al., 
Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 32301., Supreme Court of California, 48 
Cal. 3d 644; 771 P.2d 814; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1492; 237 Cal. Rptr. 865, April 27, 

THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., No. 5001963., Supreme Court of California, 
48 Cal. 3d 632; 770 P.2d 1119; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1137; 237 Cal. Rptr. 330, April 
20, 1989; Reht .ring denied June 1, 1989. 

23. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL ANBELO MORALES, Defendant 
and Appellant., No. 3004532, Crim. No. 23133., Supreme Court of California, 48 
Cal. 3d 327; 770 P.2d 244; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1107; 237 Cml. Rptr. 64, April 6, 
1989; Modification of Opinion June 1 , 1989; Rehearing denied June 1, 1989. 

26. In re ERIC W. JOYNER, on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 23396., Supreme Court of 
California, 48 Cal. 3d 487; 769 P.2d 967; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1103; 236 Cal. Rptr. 
783, April 3, 1989; Rehearing denied May 24, 1989. 

245 PAGE 4 


27. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAGDALENO TORO, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S002765 , Supreme Court of California, 47 Cal. 3d 966; 766 P.2d 
377; 19S9 Cal. LEXIS 10; 254 Cal. Rptr. 811, January 30, 1989, Appellant's 
petition for a rehearing Mae denied March 23, 1989. MosK, J., and Broussard, 
j., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted., The judgment of 
the Court of Appeal is reversed. 

28. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE 
ROGER L. CARNES, Real Party in Interest and Appellant, S.F. No. 25021, Supreme 
Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 902; 760 P.2d 464; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 196; 231 Cal. 
Rptr. 267, September 19, 1988 

29. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH CRANDELL, Defendant and 
Appellant, Crim. No. 22467, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 833; 760 
P.2d 423; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 194; 231 Cal. Rptr. 227, September 13, 1988; Rehearing 
denied November 10, 1988. 

30. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSSELL COLEMAN, Defendant and 
Appellant, No. S004410, Crim. No. 22376, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 3d 
749; 759 P.2d 1260; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 209; 231 Cal. Rptr. 83, September 8, 1988; 
Modification of Opinion November- 2, 1988; Rehearing denied November 3, 1988. 

31. RICHARD C. ELDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT LOUIS SHELDON et al., 
Defendants and Respondents., L.A. No. 32063., Supreme Court of California, 46 
Cal. 3d 267; 758 P.2d 382; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 167; 230 Cal. Rptr. 254, August 18, 
1988; Modification of dissenting opinion September 13, 1988. 

32. In re GREGORY ULAS POWELL on Habeas Corpus., Crim. No. 24441., Supreme Court 
of California, 45 Cal. 3d 894; 755 P.2d 881; 1968 Cal. LEXIS 127; 248 Cal. Rptr. 
431, June 27, 1988; As modified June 30, 1988. 

33. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ERIC FORD, Defendant and Respondent. 
Crim. No. 25361., Supreme Court of California, 45 Cal. 3d 431; 754 P.2d 168; 
1988 Cal. LEXIS 102; 247 Cal. Rptr. 121, Hay 19, 1988; Rehearing Denied June 30, 

34. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN MEFFERY WADE, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22654., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 975; 750 
P.2d 794; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 73; 244 Cal. Rptr. 903, March 24, 1988; Modification 
of opinion May 19, 1988; Rehearing denied May 19, 1988. 

35. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND RAMIREZ BUERRERO, Defendant 
and Appellant., Crim. No. 26174., Supreme Court pf California, 44 Cal. 3d 343; 
748 P.2d 1150; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 23; 243 Cal. Rptr. 688, February 11, 1988; 
Rehearing denied March 24, 1988. 

36. In re MICHAEL G. , a Minor, on Habeas Corpus. MICHAEL G., Petitioner, v. THE 
SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. 
S.F. No. 24917., Supreme Court of California, 44 Cal. 3d 283; 747 P.2d 1132; 
1968 Cal. LEXIS 21; 243 Cal. Rptr. 224, January 23, 1968. 

37. DYNA-HED, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 
COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. No. 32143., Supreme Court of 
California, 43 Cal. 3d 1379; 743 P. 20 1323; 241 Cal. Rptr. 67; 46 Fair En-pi. 

246 PAGE 5 


Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1143; 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37,503, November 2, 1987. 

38. WILLIAM INGERSOLL et al. , Petitioners, v. ALFRED PALMER, as Chief of Police, 
etc., et al., Respondents., S.F. No. 25001., Supreme Court of California, 43 
Cal. 3d 1321; 743 P.2d 1299; 241 Cal. Rptr. 42, October 29, 1987. 

39. In re JAMES D., a Person Coining Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, 
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES D., a Minor, Defendant and Respondent., L.A. 
No. 32030., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 903; 741 P.2d 161; 239 Cal. 
Rptr. 663, September 8, 1987; As modified September 16, 1987. 

LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., Real Party in Interest., S.F. No. 24916., Supreme Court 
of California, 43 Cal. 3d 696; 739 P.2d 140; 238 Cal. Rptr. 780, August 3, 
1987; As modified August 13, 1987 

Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest., L.A. No. 32209., Supreme Court 
of California, 43 Cal. 3d 86; 729 P.2d 766; 233 Cal. Rptr. 332, Jan. 2, 1987. 

42. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff ana Respondent, v. VENSON LANE MYERS, Defendant and 
Appellant., Grim. No. 21991., Supreme Court of California, 43 Cal. 3d 250; 729 
P.2d 698; 233 Cal. Rptr. 264, Jan. 2, 1987; Rehc denied April 2, 1987. 

COUNTY, Respondent; SHERRE STURM et al., Real Parties in Interest., S.F. No. 
24572., Supreme Court of California, 36 Cal. 3d 273; 682 P.2d 338; 204 Cal. 
Rptr. 143, July 2, 1984. 

Interest., S.F. No. 24414., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 42; 671 P.2d 
1260; 196 Cal. Rptr. 318, Nov. 21, 1983; Rehg. den. Jan. 19, 1984. 

Party in Interest and Appellant., S.F. No. 24449., Supreme Court of California, 
34 Cal. 3d 1; 663 P.2d 904; 192 Cal. Rptr. 134, June 6, 1983; Rehg. den. July 
14, 1983. 

46. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENNY JASPER, JR., Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22663, Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 931; 663 
P.2d 206} 191 Cal. Rptr. 648, May 26, 1983; Appellant's petition for a rehearing 
Mac denied July 20, 1983. Bird, C. J., Broussard, J., and Reynoso, J., Mere of 
the opinion that the petition should be granted. 

Respondents, v. MARIO 6. OBLEDO, as Secretary, etc., Defendant and Appellant., 
L.A. No. 31361., Supreme Court of California, 33 Cal. 3d 348; 637 P.2d 363; IBS 
Cal. Rptr. 873, Feb. 7, 1983. 

48. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NEVA B. SNYDER, Defendant and 
Appellant., Crim. No. 22293., Supreme Court of California, 32 Cal. 3d 390; 652 
P.2d 42; 186 Cal. Rptr. 485, Oct. 18, 1982. 

Appendix F: Citation, Alumnus of the Year, California Alumni Association, 1992, 


LLEN BROUSSARD, attorney, jurist, educator, alumnus of the University 

. of California J& Born in Lake Charles, Louisiana, a small town in the segregated 

south in 1929, you have since that year taken a voyage across time, geography, and changing 

mores J&~ As a teenager you made a transcontinental move with your family to the Bay Area 
At San Francisco City College, you began the first of many efforts toward breaking down racial 
barriers to employment ~& You saw that you could make a signficant difference in the lives of 
your people, and this led you to choose a career and a course for your life: the law J&~ You finished 
your undergraduate work at Berkeley and continued on, leaving an exceptional record as a law 
student at Boalt J& You began work in your field, first as a research attorney for the California 
Court of Appeal, then extended your knowledge with eight years in private practice in Oakland 
~& In keeping with your desire to engender greater changes, you sought the role of judge, which, 
in a variety of venues, you would perform for 27 years, first in the Oakland-Piedmont Municipal 
Court, then as judge of the Alameda County Superior Court from 1975 to 1981 J&* In the latter 
year you were elevated to become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California J&~ 
During your decade on that bench you wrote more majority opinions than any other member of the 
court as well as key dissents in many important decisions J&~ Your writings are held as examples 
of eloquence, careful thought, and legal craftsmanship J^ Widely noted for your independence, 
you also built a reputation as a consensus builder on the court and beyond J&~ In a lifetime of 
making and breaking precedents, you were the first black member of your national law fraternity, 
the first black judge elected as President of the California Judges Association, and you are 
recognized as a pioneer in the fight for minority opportunities in the judicial system J&" Active 
in all levels of legal education, you have fostered the advancement of aspiring students, and you 
have been a longtime faculty member of the California Trial Judges College, held annually at 
Boalt Hall J&~ Your service to the community continues as Chairman of the Board of the 
Oakland-based advocacy group Children Now and as Commissioner of the Port of Oakland, 
and as a member of boards, commissions, and committees for civic and legal organizations as well 
as your University J&~ In recognition of your achievements, the California Alumni Association 
confers upon you its highest honor, the California Alumni Association Award for 1992 

Given at Berkeley this twelfth day of 

March , nineteen hundred and ninety three f&&L^M PRESIDENT 


;ndix G: 

, 103, 


'California Q&A; 
. 4, ' 

Allen Broussard,' 

am Rodanuor, California 

Monthly , 


t i o 

n w 

iia Si 


j. 1 

i t h 

When people call former California Supreme Court 

Justice Allen Broussard .'50, Boalt '53, a "great role model," the 

d^Hfr " ''' 

plication is that he is a model for blacks. After all, he rose from 

- ' .- ' "'-siirt- 

poverty in the segregated South to become the second black member 
on California's High Court (following Wiley Manuel '51, Hastings 
t53). But listen to his longtime friend, Robert Raven, Boalt '52: 

jfe*. : -I 1 ** , ' >%' v - - : 

Allen has been an ideal judge his integrity and temperament are 
first-rate and a lot of people in the law look up to him. He's also a 
sgreat person; Allen is an excellent role model for all of us." To that 

f"" ' H'' 

accolade, the California Alumni Association is adding its own: Allen 
[Broussard is the Association's 1992 Alumnus of the Year. 

A witty, self-deprecating man, Broussard will 
probably be the first to puncture any inflated 
praise. At his 1981 swearing-in ceremony at Oak 
land's Paramount Theater he was appointed by 
Governor Jerry Brown '61 the new Justice light 
ened the occasion with the crack: "All my life I 
said that if I had the opportunity to play the Para 
mount, I'd do it big!" 

Born poor in Louisiana in 1929, Broussard 
moved to the Bay Area with his family in 1945. He 

spent two years at San Francisco City College, 

'*MfSp $' 
then went on to Berkeley and Boalt Hall. The law 

..,;. - 1 

school assigned an upperclassman to look after 
each new freshman^ and Broussard drew Bob 

- "X- ' 

KKaveri; who would become a lifelong friend (and the Alumni Asso- 

*** ** ' ~* r ; V ' '- , '' ' 

Cation's 1989 Alumnus of the Year). "Allen was always a very 
tvvy guy," Raven said. "He had a grasp for any situation he found 
unsSfmTand he fitted in well." 

H "Al*^jUt*:9'l ', ; ~t J ^S5&i ' *^W^^^B/ ^^^^IB^ V 

Oalti : Broussard won the Arthur Newhouse and Arthur Gould 
> - 
scholarships, edited the California Law Review, and served as --. 

* ' iiS2t 3Q cJ^jXi. i- ' *^^B9^K3^^HB^I^^^^^^B^ 

^'vi ce president *of the Boalt Hall Students Association. After two 

ecame. a research attorney for Ray- 

i_-. .. -.- l *. * 

presidingfjustice of the California 

. - 

- (and later a justice on' the' Supreme 
private practice 




from 1956 to 1964, becom- 

.; ing a partner with Oak- 

' land's Metoyer, Sweeney & 
Broussard. But Allen Brous 
sard felt he could make his 

I biggest contribution as a 

"judge. He wound up spend 
ing 2,7 years on the bench, 
from his first municipal 
court appointment in 1964 
to his retirement from the 
Supreme Court hi 1991. 
Today Broussard lives hi 
Oakland near his mother, 
sister, and brother; he and 
his wife Odessa have two 
sons^Craig and Keith '87. 
~-:~ ForJmore than half his 
ten years on the California 
Supreme Court, Broussard 
was one of its leaders. At 
the peak of his influence in 
the '80s, Broussard wrote 

more majority opinions 

than any other member of 
the court, including some of 
its most sweeping opinions. 
In Carlos v. Superior Court in 
1983, for example, he held 
that juries in capital cases must be instructed that the defen 
dant had an intent to kill. Since most juries in felony murder 
cases hadn't been so instructed, reversals came in droves. 
-;,*Allen was a very important figure on the Supreme . 

; Court" says legal scholar Bernard Witkin '25, Boalt '28. "He 

r was an experienced lawyer, and his opinions were well- 
crafted. But he also had a sophisticated understanding of the 

I struggle : of blacks in law practice and the judiciary a battle^: 
for recognition that has been successfully fought." > \ 

But for Justice Broussard, a reversal of fortune came after 
the piyptal election of 1986, which ousted some of his main 
allies'on the Court: the liberal trio of Chief Justice Rose Bird, 
M.A. r '62; Boalt '65; Justice Cruz Reynoso, Boalt '58; and 
Justice Joe Grodin. Governor Deukmejian replaced the three 
with conservatives, and the Court swung to the right under 
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas. Broussard found himself writ- 
mgjnany more dissents, including this sharp note when his 
Carlos, decision was reversed in 1987: "Periodically, when the , 
political winds gust in a new direction, it becomes'necessary^ 
to remind all concerned of the virtues of a steady course." , 

Perhaps out of frustration, Broussard set his own course.;:?.." 
in 1 99 ] for a potent San Franciscb law firm rife with Old j 
Blae Democrats? Coblentz; Cahen, McCabe & Breyer. The V 
firm, headed by|ormer UC regent Bill.Co'blentz'.'43, 's 

iss-and-marble elegance in < Kearney St-ee; 
' sine only firm in the'state_witb abiackietired 

I astice onboard, rn.:r- ii;g 
: a masnet fox new la'.v business. 
-ha^.'s< . for.l>ri,:r . 

. Boalt. He meets with them regularraH 


ry yoarAincrudipg the$| 


who worked in his Court chambers over die years. Asked , 
whether there is a "Broussard Alumni Club," the Justice,'^- 
laughed. "I've worked with a lot of upcoming young lawyers, 
and many of them ask me to swear them in when they join 
the bar." Broussard has even married a few; the unions? have 
lasted, he iaid, "because I used good glue." S^-^^ 

"He's always been a role model for me," says . Richard?* 
| Russell '78, a southern California lawyer and Alumni Asso- 
- Delation vice president. "Given what this man has accom 
plished, he really Is the black Horatio Alger.'?^ 
sJjjSr Alumnus of the^year Allen Broussard will be honored at 
Jjthe Universiry of California's 125th Charter Banquet, he) 
^ this year at the SanTPrancisco Marriott Hotel on March 1 
?^(For details, see page 29.) f 
- Q: What first pot you interested in the law? Your family? 
. JtNo, there's nothing in my background.... I was bom an 
reared hi the racially segregated south, in Lake'Ch 

sewing at home. We lived right across the streetfrom the^ 

colored high's^hoof^tut my parents chose very wisti v ; 

!V'se'nd me to Sacred'Heart, the Cath'olic,high school, v.v 

^weren't starving, but it was a sacrifice to send me tht- r - 

: Sacred Heart High" was small, but I got a good funda 

education there. 


. QM'vi; heard \ cu >,*.' ^ -l 

'' WI'TC a kid? 
K ;A.No,t .; 
/'school, because we us :d 
' ( eyery*Tnoraing:'AIy 

. downtown st^resbefoi* sch6 
\ downtown eveiyrr ornir z, 
j wh'.teresider-t 
- would be comir.g 'i 





icir dogs on us and throw rocks at us. We 

; dies and bills dubs to fight off the 

we'd have the opportunity. to do"" 

.v diJ \r> u i 

1 the Sisters "of the Bles: 
: us a: Sacred HearCThey were pri 
rjlassjyhite women who had come into 

3r blacks. They were 'a tremendous 
lives. And we primarily had whitej)riests. 56' 

Sat was" 

juthto : 
jence on our 
ad a lot of 

'enrichment in my life from people who were white. 
'& After your family moved to the Bay Area, you didn 'tgo to Cal right 

A: I'll. tell you. I applied to Cal, but I had gotterfa'p, in high 
school algebra, and I had to make it up before I could be 
admitted. The only way I could make it up entailed taking a 
class that summer, but I needed to work to earn money for 
my^ducation. So I decided to go to City College in the fall, 
which freed me to work. To this day, I think that had I gone 
to Cal as a freshman, I would have gotten lost.'The campus 
enrollment was larger than the town I came from! 
Q: What was San Francisco like in the late '40s? ?-$'" 
A: At City. I was perennial president of the NAACP youth 
council. And the NAACP at that time had to break down a 
1 ot of barriers and a lot of doors. San Francisco prides 
itself on being "the'aty that knows how." Well/in the 
late 1940s and early '50s, we were in the business i'of, 
teaching San Francisco how especially in public 
. . employment. I can still remember when the city hired 
the first black police officer, probation officer, high 
school teacher, and so on. 

Q: What about the private sector? 

A; Let me tell you about the effort to get blacks employed 
as sales clerks in downtown department stores. If s an 
interesting story, and very few people know it. 

In 1947 and '48, the NAACP hadn't been able to 
persuade the Downtown Merchants' Association to 
agree to hire blacks. So we decided to picket. But we 
felt we couldn't picket all the downtown stores, so we 
picked two: Macy's and the Emporium. Macy's had just 
come to San Francisco, and its posture in the negotiations 
was, Took, in New York, we have a good employment and 
promotion policy for blacks. And we're willing to do it hi 
San Francisco. But we're the new guys in town, and we 
"don't want to be the first; economically, it will hurt us." In a 
war, you always hit your enemy at its weakest point. And 
when we started picketing, Macy's said "unde."lt was a 
victory for the NAACP, and we picked up neWjSupport. 

San Francisco is a very union town. And in mose days, 
the AFL f American Federation of Labor], especially, had 
racially restrictive membership and closed shop agreements 
with employers. Blacks couldn't get jobs becausethey couldn't 
get into the unions^So we had to fight that battle/too. ' 

Q: Was it then that you began to think that maybe lawyers had a use- 
fulfunction? , '.%-, 

A: That's what finally persuaded me. I felt I could make a 
difference in the lives of my people. Even lawySjing on' : 
an individual scale, and dealing with individual legal 
"problems, especially as they relate to injustice,-would be a 

very significant contribution. 

Q: What WM it liketidnfl a bhickstudfmtatGiliril949-50?i 

A: There might havepeen a couple of hundred of us, on a 
campus of 27,500.\Many of tis knew each other; we tended 
to gather together at Sather Gale. And most of us wererela- 
tivelyncw to the urban, cosmopolitan Bay Area like 
myself, two years away from Lake 'Charles, Louisianaviwas 
friends" with Marguerite Ray '53, the soap opera star; Hank 
Clark 'SB.who wason the Alumni Association board; and 
Larry W. Scott, the doctor. Larry was Involved in campus 
politics we called him "Hot Scott" and I managed his 
campaign for ASUC. president. Larry aran a strong third in a 
field of five which was" impressive! considering there were 
so few blacks on campus.ij^' tiste- 
Q: Was there any notion that a black student had to be twice as good as 
a white student to be admitted?^ . &&*..-,.- 4$& 
A: No. Back then, we felt that if we had the grades, we could 
get into Cal. But that wasn't true of many professional 
schools. I knew black pre-med students at Cal who applied 
to as many as 40 medical schools and you had to send in 
five dollars and a photograph with each application-rand 
the admission rate wasn't high at all. The situation wasn't ;* 
quite as bad in the law school, though to the best of my . 
knowledge", my dass at Boalt was the first to have morethan JV 
one black. 

Q: Bruce Thompson '49, Boalt '53, recently told us I 

that his law fraternity. Phi Alpha Delta, was the first to admit a black 
student you. 

A: That's true. The year before I went to Boalt, representa 
tives from the Berkeley PAD chapter had gone to the nation 
al convention in Chicago and led a floor fight to eliminate 
the Caucasian-only clause from the [fraternity's] constitu 
tion. But when I was rushed by Phi Alphafifita inmy sec- 

~V9pP^ - : - - 

ond semester at Boalt, the chapter was suspended, suppos 
edly because of voting irregularities; the PAD chapter at 
Hastings had blackballed us. That next summer [1951], we 
took our appeal to the national convention and got the chap 
ter reinstated. So Ibecame the first black in the fraternity, 
nationally. ^ 

- t,^"- - '* f* '' 

And there's a funny sequel to that story: The following 
year, the Hastings chapter the cljapter which had allegedly 
complained against us wanted to pledge Wiley Manuel. 
We were contemporaries, and Wiley had been first in his 
class the first year, and editor of the Hast ings law review in 
hfcssecond. Yet it wasn't until his third year that Phi Alpha 
Delta asked him to join. 7 * 



So Wiley called me, and said, "What should I do?" I said, 
"First, you should be insulted. But second, I think you 
should go ahead and pledge, to open the door to someone 
else who might come after you." And he agreed. But then he 
found out that two important scholarships he had prohibit 
ed membership in a Greek-letter organization so he didn't 
pledge after all. Isn't that ironic? 

tf. Did that atmosphere continue after you graduated from Boalt? 
t Despite the fact that I earned a good academic record and 
was on law review, I didn't receive one invitation to inter 
view with any of the so-called traditional law firms. At that 
point, those firms weren't even considering hiring someone 
like me. 

Q: As a judge, you 're often spoken of in the same breath as Thurgood 
Marshall. You 're both distinguished black justices, with a tradition of 
independence of thought and a fairly high number of dissenting 

Hi It depends on the court on which you're sitting. I enjoyed 
years on the California Supreme Court when I was writing 
significant majority opinions, and rarely dissenting. But 
after the changes in the composition and direction of the 
court, I began dissenting more often. 
Q: You have a reputation as a consensus-builder, and of get 
ting along with people even when you disagree with them.... 
fc Throughout my tenure on the court, I always tried 
to build consensus; I never set out to write a dissent. 
When a justice dissents, the world knows about it. 
But when a justice starts out with what appears to 
be a dissenting view and is able to persuade his or 
her colleagues that their initial view isn't appropri 
ate, that justice can change a case from "affirm" to 
"reverse," without the public ever knowing about 
it. I've had that experience on occasion, and it's a 
.'. source of real satisfaction to me. 
Q: How else has the California court changed in recent 

A: In the days of [Chief Justices] Phil Gibson and Roger 
Traynor ['23, Ph.D. '26, Boalt '27], I think the California 
Supreme Court was on the cutting edge of the law, develop 
ing new legal concepts. We're not doing much of that now. 
This is a generalization, but I would say our court looks 
more to precedents and other courts for guidance in making 
its decisions and is much less inclined to develop new 

.'- doctrines.L ' 

"OK ^r *" 

Q: Wha{ areas of the law do you think we should be exploring fur- 

;>>' ' 

A: I think we should be responsive to change and growth in 
our society in every area of the law. I believe our Constitution 
;!d be interpieted as'a Living document, and not as 
a/ think, the Founders originally intended. 

Vch is what causes me to be labeled a lib- 

ush administration 's c 
itf law in its adr- 

jSause i.iy.notiou of civil rig, 
rn;?t they were designed to pi 

t: ' . 'i..,-('.Civ'> 

a swore! to ;>e LLsed against 

*E eral i 


Herma Hill Kay appointed to look into the whole issue. 
We're trying as best we can to comply with the require 
ments of the Civil Rights Division while maintaining a rea 
sonable amount of diversity in the admissions program. 
Q: Do you think there is a tide in civil rights? 
A: Oh, certainly and it's been going out. At the level of the 
judiciary, especially nationally, the emphasis has been less 
on traditional civil rights than on undermining affirmative 
action and other such programs. These haven't "been good 
times for civil rights, either at the United States Supreme 
Court or the national administration. 
Q: As you look back on the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas affair, what 
feelings do you have? 

t It would have been better if none of it had happened. And 
one way to have avoided the whole thing would have been 
not to nominate Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I 
don't think he was ready for it, and I don't think he should 
have been confirmed. Very frankly, I didn't think that as a 
black he would speak with the kind of voice that Thurgood 
Marshall had. I wanted to see someone on the Court who is 
a role model reaching out, communicating, talking. And 

also, Thomas is so young; absent something unexpected, 
he'll be occupying that seat for a very long time. That will 
make it very difficult for another black to serve on the 
Supreme Court. 

As for the Anita Hill matter, I think it was unfortunate for 
both of them. But if you want to look at things positively, it 
really helped promote an increased awareness of the need to 
have more representation of women in government and 
society. So a lot of things I consider healthy came out of a sit 
uation that I wish had never happened. I think it's very 
unfortunate that President Bush has left us with Thomas on 
the bench. 

Q: What do you expect of Bill Clinton as President? 
k I think we're going to see what amounts to a revolution. 
Not just politically, but the contrast between Reagan- 
Bush especially,, Bush and Bill Clinton's whole vision, is^ 
going to be more dramatic than most people think. I think 
."we'll look at the United States of America eight years from 
now and see a very, very different country- a beuerecono- 
/my; more opportunities for people of color a" i wcmr 
; much more openness in government; and probably 
standard of living for a lot of our people. Arid I thi; 
we'll be a respected nation, and a leader in the wbr 




Appendix H: Memorial Service Program, 

Nnvpmhpr ..li_ .... 






























NOVEMBER 8, 1996 
11 A.M. 



orn in Louisiana in I'.):!!). Allen K. Broiissard came \ ( > 
"alifornia with his family as a teenager. HI- graduated from 
Hie University of California. Berkeley in Hi'idaml ih,. |'C 
B<iall HalUflxv school in IU-V1 lie hegan lo practice law in 
Oakland and became aclivc in many groups working lo include 

-Slrican Aittt'Ficaiis in Ihe cilv's politics and uovernmenl. 


liwtissard's distinguished career spanned more than id 
years. In l%i. while engaged jn private practice wilh the llrni of 
Mel over. Sweeny \- Brotissard. lie was appoinled to Ihe Oakland- 
I'iedmoiU Munici|>al Conrl. where lie served until HIT"), lie was 
elected presiding judge in HIOS. In H)7". lie was elevated In the 
Alaweda Connly Superior Courl where he was serving as presiding 
judge when ! was appointed to Ihe California Supreme Court 
in HJHI. Belore his illness. Bronssard was a parlnei in Ihe San 
Francis^Uaw linn ofColilenlx. Cahen. McCalie \- Breyer. having 
- an active alternative dispute resolution practice and a member ol 
the larii'e Complex Case I'anel ol'lhe American Arliilralion 

In HtT'J. Bronssard was the first African American to he 
elected president of Ihe California .Indues Association, lie received 
mam awards including -Inrisl of the Year from Ihe.lnlin Laiiuslnu 
Bar Association in HISS. Appellate .Inslire nf the Year from the 
California Trial Lawyers. \ssocialiun m HIS'.I. and the California 
Law lleview Ahimiius u| Ilie Year in I'l'.ld. 

Ill Sepleinlier of I !!!) I liKMissanl uas appointed a niem- 
lier of the Oakland Board of I'orl Cominissioiiers. operalnr nf the 
city's harlior and airport, lie uas elected president in July Hl'.Mi. 

lie was a former hoard nieinlier and direHni of many 
conimiinilv. civic and professional ortnnii/alions including 
Oakland Men of Toinoi row. Alameda Connly Council of the 
.National Bar Associalion. Ihe (ioverniiiL! Board ol Ihe Center for 
Judicial Kdiicalion and llesearch and the American Bar 
Association Judicial Adminislralion Division Task Force on 
Minority Opportunities. 

In HH):> he was named Alumnus of the Year hy the Cal 
Alumni Associalion. 

Bronssiird i.s survived hy his wife. Odessa: his sons. Craiij 
and Keilh; his mother. Lnirenia I5ronssard: his hrother. James C. 
Broiissiird and his wife Marjorie; his sisler. Mila Bronssard; his 
sislers-in-law. Mallie Mc(!o\van and Conslance James: his hrolh- 
ers-in-law. Talmadsjc O.Bell. Sr. and Moses P. James: his nephews. 
James C. Broussard. Jr.. Talmadge 0. and Althclia Bell. Jeffrey and 
Gerri Barren and Bryan Humphries: his nieces. Jacqueline and 
Joseph Cooper. Valerie and Earl Smith: his grand nephew, Derek 
Broussard: his cousin Peter and Vrrna Daulererie and a host of 
other relatives and friends. 





















*Hon. Rose Bird followed S.F. Mayor Brown with her remembrance. 










P.O. BOX 1774, OAKLAND, CA 94604 



















W H E R I: I ' V F. N If V E R R I: E N 







































Appendix I: "Broussard Eulogized by 
Brown, Bird at Service," Bob Egelko, 
West [Contra Costaj County Times, 
November 9, 1996 

Saturday, November 9, 1996 


. . 

The Tlms^7A 

-rs ui 9> 


. -* t-J. 

IIP *j 

_r ? "w t>~ 


^ g-o-psSo" 

* 2 ** s }" 

ts 8,11 ? I 
Ibf&ggl 4 
-l^^^^- 2 

:3. = ^ o^ j: 

Ig .S, 


** *+. CL, O* T^ *^ 5 
QJ O *^ rt ^H *^ 3 *^ 

t/l *^ t- i U n 'if, 

SB. o s c S 
^Sg-fcSgfflx .g 

s - 2 i : i^B'Ss 5 s^ 


*" <u *- ^* 5 *c ?** ^ a* *9 

.... _ . - . 

vi -i _,... ; .-.., ---,. 

Vja "-.- -v- .--i-^-!: ' 

Appendix J 



A SKtwn oT Mr Sundbr Exanmtr tf Chooidi 

The Death of a Friend, 


Colleague and Guiding Light 

Justice Allen Broussard was the 
second black to serve on the state's 
highest court and worked 
all his life to help minorities 
advance within the legal system 

By Harriet Chiang 

When I last saw Justice Allen 
Broussard, he greeted me 
like an old friend with a 
warm handshake and a 
broad smile, even though I was just 
another reporter on the court beat. 
Looking healthy and hearty, he 
seemed to be enjoying life after his 
retirement from the California Su 
preme Court 

So it came as a shock earlier this 
month when I heard that he had 
died of prostate cancer at age 67. 

He was only the second black 
ever to serve on California's highest 
court, and during his 10 years as a 
state Supreme Court justice, he 
played a crucial role in shaping Cali 
fornia law. When I was assigned to 
cover the court in the late 1980s, he 
was one of only two holdovers from 
the Rose Bird era and was widely 
considered the court's liberal con- 


science. On the Bird court, he was 
one of the most prolific writers of 
majority opinions. Now, with a con 
servative majority, he was penning 
eloquent dissents. 

In 1991, 1 wrote about his depar 
ture from the bench and went to one' 
of the many retirement dinners 
thrown in his honor. I was on vaca 
tion when he died, just two months 
after he was hospitalized, and I re 
gretted that I was not mere to write 
his obituary. 

His memorial service was at the' 
Paramount Theatre in Oakland, 
where he had been sworn in as a 
high court justice IS years before. A 
man with an irrepressible sense of 
humor, he was fond of saying that 
he once played the Paramount 

More than a thousand people 
gathered on a warm autumn day 
senators and former governors, judg 

Allen Broussard 


es and lawyers, and many friends 
'and colleagues to pay their respects 
and share their memories. 

I knew him primarily through his 
decisions and seeing him at court 
arguments, but at the service I saw 
another dimension of his full life. 
One speaker after another described 
him as an influential role model for 
black lawyers, working throughout 
his life to help minorities advance in 
the legal profession. 

When he was a student at the 
University of California at Berkeley 
in the late 1940s, he helped orga 
nized a group of minority students, 
even though there were only a few 

At the justice's 
memorial service, 
one speaker after 
another described 

him as an 

influential role 

model for black 


dozen blacks on campus at the time. 

In 1972, he was the first African 
American to be elected president of 
the California Judges Association. 
Many years later, U.S. District Chief 
Judge Thelton Henderson recalled 
how Broussard convinced him to 
become chief because of his larger 
responsibility to the African Ameri 
can community. "You're a symbol 
to a lot of black lawyers," Broussard 
told him. "You owe it to them to 
take it and to do a damned good 

He attended almost every meet 
ing of the Charles Houston Bar As 
sociation, a group of primarily black 

lawyers and judges in Northern Cali 
fornia, as well as the National Bar 
Association, the oldest and largest 
organization for blacks in the legal 

He seldom, if ever, turned down 
an invitation to speak, whether it was 
from the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored Peo 
ple, a neighborhood group or a 
gathering of law students. 

"He gave the feeling that he really 
knew you, and it had a real impact 
upon people," recalled San Francis 
co attorney Robert Harris, a former 
president of the National Bar Associ 
ation who regarded Broussard as his 
mentor, colleague and friend. "It 
sends a strong message to people 
that the justice system really cares." 

He was proud of his heritage, but 
it was only part of his identity, and 
he was able to reach common 
ground with people of all races and 
backgrounds. A lawyer and trial 
judge for many years in Oakland, he 
never forgot his ties to the East Bay, 
and upon his retirement served on 
the Oakland Port Commission and 
was a voice of reason on many com 
munity panels. 

Alameda County District Attor 
ney Tom Orloff said he saw Brous 
sard emerging as an elder states 
man."! would see him participating 
in more and more things to bring his 
perspective," he said. 

He was a liberal with passionate 
deals, but was regarded as unques 
tionably fair by both prosecutors and 

defense lawyers. On the high court, 
he worked toward building consen 
sus even through the most turbulent 
times and wrote some key decisions 
- as well as fervent dissents after the 
court became dominated by conser 

While some talked about Brous- 
sard's professional accomplish 
ments, many talked about how 
much they would miss a good 
friend, someone who always was 
willing to do a wedding or help out a 

And many mentioned how much 
he loved gumbo. 

He kept a electric hot plate in his 
chambers, and colleagues recalled 
how, on occasion, they could smell 
the tempting aroma of homemade 
gumbo emanating from his offices. 
His idea of lunch out was to take a 
colleague or his staff across the Bay 
Bridge to some small restaurant 
where they could sample the gum 
bo. Invariably, he would suggest 
how they could make it just a little 
bit better. 

Even in the last few months, he 
kept his sense of humor. Bird re 
called how he greeted her from his 
hospital bed with a hug and kiss, 
saying, "Hello, Public Enemy No. 
2." She was left wondering who was 
No. 1. 

They said he died at home with 
his family in much the same way as 
he lived: with quiet dignity. 

Reynolds Holding is on vacation 
this week 



Allen E. Broussard, who 
served as a liberal dis 
senter for many of his 10 
years on the California 
Supreme Court, died 
Nov. 5 at his Oakland 
home after a brief illness. He was 67. 

Broussard, the second black man 
appointed to the high court, wrote 
key opinions on the death penalty and 
the environment. "I've had a tremen 
dously satisfying career," Broussard 
said at his 1991 retirement from the 
bench. "I've had the opportunity to 
make a contribution." 

Appointed by then Gov. Edmund 
"Jerry" Brown in 1981, Broussard 
joined the liberal majority of the 
court, headed by Chief Justice Rose 
Bird. He wrote a key opinion two 
years later requiring proof of intent 
to kill in most death penalty cases, 
giving the court the legal basis for 
overturning scores of death penalty 

Because he was elected to a 12- 
year term one year after his appoint 
ment, he did not face the wrath of 
voters, who in 1986 ousted Bird and 
two other justices. 

But he became a frequent lone dis 
senter on the more conservative 
court. In 1987, when the court over 
turned his death penalty decision and 
permitted death sentences without 
proof of intent to kill, Broussard 
wrote in dissent: "Periodically, when 
the political winds gust in a new 
direction, it becomes necessary to 
remind all concerned of the virtues 
of a steady course." 

In 1983, 

Broussard wrote 
an important envi 
ronmental opinion 
establishing the 
state's authority to 
protect the envi 
ronment by 
restricting diver 
sion of water from 
lakes and streams. 
That ruling also 
was reversed sev 
eral years later despite his dissent. 

Broussard grew up in segregated 
southwestern Louisiana, where in his 
last year of high school, a favorite 
teacher suggested he consider law as 
a career. Following graduation from 
the University of California at 
Berkeley, he pursued that suggestion 
and received his law degree from 
Boalt Hall, where he was in the top 
10 percent of the class. 

After developing a thriving prac 
tice with future Oakland Mayor 
Lionel Wilson, Broussard was 
appointed to the municipal bench in 
1964, succeeding his former law part 
ner and beginning a 27-year career as 
a jurist. 

He was elevated in 1975 to the 
Alameda County Superior Court, 
where he was presiding judge at the 
time of his appointment to the 

Supreme Court. 

Bird described her former col 
league as "a lovely human being ... a 
talented jurist and a superb public 
servant." Broussard "was highly 
respected as an honorable man by tht 
attorneys who appeared before him 
and the justices with whom he 
worked," added former Supreme 
Court Justice John A. Arguelles. 

Broussard was the first black 
president of the California Judges 
Association, and received many 
awards including 1988 Jurist of the 
Year from the John Langston Bar 
Association, 1989 Appellate Justice oi 

the Year from the California Trial 
Lawyers Association, and the 
California Law Review Alumnus of 
the Year in 1990. 

He was a partner in Coblentz, 
Cahen, McCabe & Breyer in San 
Francisco and co-chair of the Judici 
Council's Advisory Committee on 
Race and Ethnic Bias, which was 
reviewing the treatment of racial ar 
ethnic minorities in the courts. 

Broussard is survived by his wif< 
Odessa, sons Keith of San Franciscc 
and Craig of Oakland, his mother 
Eugenia Broussard, sister Rita and 
brother James. 


INDEX--Allan E. Broussard 

African Americans, 1, passim 
AFL-CIO v. March Fong Eu; Lewis K. 

Uhler, 134-136 

Afro-American Association, 21-22 
aging cities, 63 
agribusiness, 108 
Alameda County 

courts, 42, 67, 75-80, 150- 


District Attorney, 92 
politics in, 18, 44, 48, 

72, 81, 91 

See also Berkeley, Oakland 
Alameda County Bar Association, 

alternative dispute resolution, 

192-195, 199 
American Arbitration Association, 


American Bar Association, 41 
American Friends Service Committee 

(AFSC), 15 

Anderson v. Phillips, 91 
Anderson, Carl, 91-92 
arbitration, 199 
Arguelles, John, 155, 197-198 
Armstrong -Brown, Sandra, 150 
Army Engineers, 174, 175 
Ashigawa, Vivian, 15 
Asian Americans, 4-15, 47-48, 100 
attorney general, California, 98, 

100, 124 
Avakian, Spurgeon (Sparky), 75, 


Baker, C.H. Shoe Store, 29 
balanced budget movement, 134-135 
ballot measures, 199, 200 
bar association, 152 

Alameda County, 150, 151, 


American, 41, 156-158, 184 
California, 73-74, 153, 
158, 193 

Barton, Bob, 33 

Becker v. IRM Corporation, 136- 


Behrens, Eric, 151 
Bendig, Al, 28 
Berkeley, 2-3 

politics, 20, 23, 56 
Berkley, Thomas, 21n, 42, 54, 55 
Beta Sugma Tau, 28 
Bird, Rose Elizabeth, 98, 106- 

110, 112, 114, 122, 142, 143 
Black Panthers, 21-22, 93-94 
Blacks , see African Americans 
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 71 
Bradley, Tom, 106 
Brady, Dean, 9 

Brewster-Hardy, Gail, 150, 151 
Briggs, John, 122, 132, 200 
Broussard, Clemire, 2, 3, 6 
Broussard, Eugenia, 2, 6 
Broussard, James, 2, 3, 4-5 
Broussard, Jeanne, 2, 8 
Broussard, Odessa, 57-58, 65, 

167, 170 

Broussard, Rita, 1 
Brown, Edmund G., Jr., (Jerry), 

6, 74, 90, 91, 92, 96, 100-101, 


appointments, 105, 107 
campaigns, 110, 143 
Brown, Edmund G., Sr., (Pat), 19, 

43-45, 65-66, 75, 106 
Brown, Willie L., Jr., 164, 176- 


Buckley, Homer, 75 
Bussey, John, 55 

Cahen, Donald, 28 

California Association of Black 

Lawyers, 152-153 

California Democratic Council, 22 
California Judges' Association, 

68-71, 76, 100, 192 
California Packing Company, 29 


California Supreme Court, 81-87, 
91, 148, 160, 183, 192, 197-198 
appointments to, 96-101, 

budget, 161 
decisions, 121-123, 127- 

141, 146-147, 201-203 
discretionary jurisdiction, 


and minorities, 144-146 
90-day rule, 113, 118-120 
opposition to, 105-107 
procedures, 112-114 
retention elections, 105- 


workload, 101-104, 114-118 
Capitol Restoration Project, 117 
Carlos v. Superior Court of 

California, 131-134 
Catholic church, 8-9, 52; 

schools, 1, 5 
Center for Judicial Education and 

Research (CJER) , 68-69 
Chambers, Jane, 12 
Charles Houston Bar Association, 


Ching, Ling, 197 
Citizens for Law and Order, 78, 


civil liability, 136-137 
Clark, William, 96, 197 
Clinton, William J. , 175 
Cohelan, Jeff, 23 
Cole, Audley, 11 
Cole, Josephine, 11, 13 
Colley, Nat, 144 
Commission on Judicial 

Appointments, 98, 143 
Commission on Judicial 

Performance, 191-192 
Committee on Childrens Television, 
Inc. v. General Foods 
Corporation, 139 
Committee on Race and Gender Bias 
in the Courts. See Judicial 

community service, 46, 56, 63 
Community Service Organization 
[CSO], 47 

Conference of California Judges, 

69, 71 

conservatives, 89-90, 144 
Constitution, U.S., 106 
Costello, Bob, 28 
Consumers Union, 139 
Council for Civic Unity, 14, 15 
Council of Social Planning, 46 
courts, 21, 24, 62, 205 

administration, 66, 68-69, 
88-89, 151, 154, 161, 190, 

appointments, 64, 67-68, 
74, 90-93, 150-151, 153, 

First Appellate District, 
38-39, 67, 85, 86, 87, 
102, 130, 159 
minorities and, 186-188 
municipal, 42, 43, 44, 68, 

71, 75-78, 93 

overseas, 165-166, 168-169 
superior, 43, 44, 79-80, 

82, 87-94 
See also California Supreme 

Curb, Mike, 74 

Dagget, Bob, 28 

Daly, E.A., 55 

Dalsimer, Vincent, 98, 100 

death penalty, 87, 107-108, 121- 

123, 131, 134, 199-201 
Deiden, Leonard, 43 
Dellums, Ronald, 23, 175 
DelMonte cannery. See California 

Packing Company 
Democratic party, Democrats, 19, 

20, 22-23, 43, 44, 92, 93, 110 
demonstrations, 93-94 
Deukmejian, George, 96, 98-101, 

105-106, 131, 143, 159, 197, 200 
Dins, Ruby, 19 
disability, 26, 149, 150 
discrimination, in employment, 

12-13, 29, 40-41, 61 

litigation, 62, 154-155 


District Attorneys' Association, 

diversity, 92, 144-146, 151, 153, 

161-162, 172-173, 186, 188, 190- 


Dixon, Billy, 42 
Downtown Merchants Association, 


Eagleson, David, 197-198 

East Bay. See Berkeley, Oakland 

East Bay Community Foundation, 

East Bay Democratic Club, 19, 43, 

44, 47-48, 62 

economic development, 172-174 
Economic Development 

Administration, U.S., 63 
education, 1, 5, 8 
Eighth Congressional District, 19 
election campaigns, 19-21, 48-49, 


1982, 105-108, 110-111 
ballot measures, 122, 139- 


Ellenberg, Janet, 114-115 
employment, 12-14, 61 
Emporium, 13 

environmentalists, 174-175 
Experiment and Change in Berkeley, 


Fair Employment Practices 

Commission, 44, 61-62 
fair housing legislation, 106 
Farrow, Harold, 33 
federal government, 67, 68, 135, 

175, 178, 180 

courts, 129-131, 133-134 
Feinstein, Dianne, 177 
Fleet Industrial Supply Center 

(FISCO), 178 

Ford Foundation, 63, 64, 

Foster, Charles, 180 

Francois, Terry, 11, 54 

Friedman, Monroe, 43 


Galbreath Golf Course, 174 
gender issues, 154-155, 185-186 
Gibson, D.G., 19, 22-23, 43, 45 
Gibson, Phil, 197 
Gillespie, Roxanne, 140 
Goodlett, Carleton, 11, 16-17 
Goodwin, Jim, 41-42 
Gore, Al, 175 
Grant, Don, 149 
Griffin, Noah, 11 
Grille, Evilio, 19, 44, 45-47, 63 
Grodin, Joe, 111, 197 

Hanley, Ralph, 28 
Hanson, Henry, 28 
Harrin-Forte, Brenda, 150, 151 
Harris, Elihu, 164, 170 
Hawkins, Pat Christiansen, 28 
Hebert, Stan, 181 
Henderson, John, 42 
Hilburn, Barney, 20-21 
Hispanic Americans, 20, 46, 47 
Hofelt, Dick, 28 
housing, 14-15, 63; 

discrimination in, 106 
Hughes, Dolly, 19 
Hutchins, Robert, 40 

integration, 11 

initiative ballot measures, 122- 

124, 131, 133-136, 139-140 
insurance industry, 139-140 
interracial activities, 22, 28, 

70, 72 
Ito, Pete, 15 

Japanese American Citizens League 

( JACL) , 15 

Japanese Americans, 14-15 
Jenkins, Martin, 150, 151 
Jennings, Richard, 32 
John Langston Bar Association, 


Jones, [Mrs.] Frankie, 23, 33 
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation 

Services (JAMS), 194-195 


Judicial Council, 68, 71, 76, 78, 
194, 195, 204 

Advisory Committee on Race 
and Gender Bias in the 
Courts, 154-158, 161, 
185-191, 203 
Judicial Nominees' Evaluation 

(Jenny) Commission, 73-74, 98 
judicJary, 21, 24, 71-72, 188-191 
activism, 98-99 
appointments, 43-44, 65, 
72-75, 90-93, 98-101, 159, 
190, 197 

education, 68-70, 161-162 
ethics, 191-192 
election of, 96, 110-111 
minorities in, 72, 92, 95- 

97, 157 
philosophy of judging, 81- 


retirement, 195-199 
See also California Supreme 

Junior Chamber of Commerce, 59 

Kaiser Industries, 41 

Kaufman, Marcus, 197-198 

Kaus, Otto, 86, 96-97, 99, 101- 

102, 105, 116 
Kennedy, Joe, 11, 54 
Key System, 61 
Kline, Tony, 39 
Knowland family, 63 
KSAY, 58 

labor unions, 3-4, 12, 14, 171- 


law, lawyers, 6, 31, 32, 39, 42, 
122, 123, 199 

court interpretations, 133, 

140, 146-147 
jurisdiction, 129-131 
minorities in, 40-42, 54- 
57, 60-66, 152, 153, 156- 
overseas, 168-169 

Law Enforcement Assistance 

Administration (LEAA) , 69 
legislature, legislation, 74-75, 

103, 106, 111, 121-124, 131-132, 

136, 200-201 
Lindsay, Alan, 88 
Long Beach City Employees 

Association v. City of Long 

Beach, 138 
Lopez, Henry, 20 
Louisiana, Lake Charles, 2-11, 

12, 51-52, 148-149 
Lucas, Malcolm, 123, 136, 142- 

144, 153-154, 155, 161, 185, 

201-202, 204 
Lui, Elwood, 98-100 

Macy's, 13 

Manuel, Wiley, 95-96, 197 

Manuel, Eleanor, 95 

Marriott Corporation, 171-172 

Marshall, Thurgood, 24, 50-51 

McCullum, Donald, 19, 44, 184 

McKee, Al, 44 

media, 100, 119, 139, 150-151, 
152, 187, 191, 202, 203 

California Journal, 191 
California Voice, 55 
Oakland Tribune, 63, 93, 

Post newspapers, 55-56 

mediation, 193 

Men of Tomorrow, 19, 20, 46-47, 
57, 58-60 

Metoyer, Carl, 42, 60 

Metropolitan Study Commission, 44 

military base closings, 178-179 

Miller, John, 90, 159 

Mitchell, Fay, 19 

Miyou, Katherine, 15 

Mono Lake, litigation, 128-131 

Moore, Herb, 28 

Mosk, Stanley, 197, 198 


National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP), 12, 14, 15, 16, 50, 
149, 184 

litigation, 56-57 
student chapter, 11, 16-17, 
23, 33, 42 

National Audubon Society v. Alpine 
County, 128 

National Judicial College, 164, 

Native Americans, 156 

Newman, Frank, 102-104, 198 

Newton, Huey, 21 

Noel, Sidney, 42 


board of education, 20-21 
courts. See Alameda County 
economic development, 62-64 
minorities in, 150 
police, 93-94 

politics, 18-23, 56, 67, 164 
See also Port of Oakland 

Oakland Economic Development 
Council, 63, 67 

Parker, William, 5 

pas en blanc, 10 

Patterson, Charles, 172-173 

People to People, 166 

People v. Anderson, 132, 134 

Perata, Don, 111 

Peters, Ray, 34, 38-39, 41, 85, 

103, 198 

Petris, Nicholas, 48 
Phillips, George, 91 
Phillips, Steve, 164 
Pitts, Lillian, 33 
police, 156 
politics, 20-23, 56, 72-73, 91- 

93, 100 

and the courts, 108, 131, 

Poole, Cecil, 11, 44-45 

Port of Oakland 

Commission, 169-171, 180 
dredging, 174-176 
economic development, 172- 

174, 177-178 
finances, 178-180, 182 
shipping, 171, 175-176, 

178-179, 181 
public attitudes, 156, 174, 188, 


public employees, 138 
public trust, 129-131 
Purchio, John, 43 

Quayle, Dan, 91 

race relations, 8-9, 10-11, 14, 

22, 25, 52, 62-64, 148-149, 151, 


racism, 50 

Reagan, Ronald, 91, 96 
reapportionment, 108 
regional issues, 176-178 
Reyes, Vincent, 39 
Republicans, Republican party, 

20, 49, 92, 93, 100, 152 
Reynoso, Cruz, 105, 111, 197 
Richardson, Frank, 105, 130 
Roberts, Charles, 180 
Rogers, Priscilla, 33 
Rose, Joshua, 2 In 
Roth, Lester, 98, 143 
Rumford, Byron, 19, 22-23, 43, 

44, 45, 48-49, 65, 66, 68, 106 

San Francisco, 2, 6 

City College, 7-8, 9, 11, 
15, 24, 25, 27, 52, 149 

minorities in, 12-14 
Scale, Bobby, 21 
segregation, 7, 8-12, 51-52, 148 
sentencing, 199 

Seventeenth Assembly District, 19 
Shastak, Larry, 28 
Sherman, Lewis, 49 
special interests, 108, 123-124 


State Water Resources Board, 130- 


Supreme Court, U.S., 24 
Sweeney, Wilmont, 20, 42, 44, 51, 


Tanner, 120-121 

Taylor, Viola, 19 

tenBroek, Jacobus, 25-27, 28 

tenBroek Society, 184 

Thomas, William McKinley, 11 

Thompson, Leon, 159 

Tobriner, Matthew, 203 

Transbay Federal Savings and Loan, 


Traynor, Roger, 102-103, 107, 203 
Turner, Charlie, 41-42 
Tyler, Arlene, 156 

U.S. Supreme Court, 121, 132, 

133-134, 200, 202 
University of California 
admissions, 7 
Alumnus of the Year (1992), 


Boalt Hall School of Law, 
25, 28, 30-33, 38, 39, 41, 
129, 165 
Institute of Governmental 

Studies, 45 
at Irvine, 184 
minority students at, 24- 

25, 28, 41-42 
Task Force on Reproductive 

Technology, 184-185 
Urban League, 14, 15, 56, 57 
urban renewal, 63 

Walker, Mme. C. J., 11 

War on Poverty, 63, 67 

Warden, Don, 21 

Warehousing and Waterfront Workers 

Union, 4 
Warren, Earl, 75 
water rights, 129-131 
White, Clinton, 42, 54 
White, Jim, 151 

Wiley Manuel Bar Association, 152 
Williams, John, 63 
Wilson, Charlie, 54, 62 
Wilson, Lionel, 19, 21, 42, 43, 

44, 63, 65, 67, 75, 151, 169 
Wilson, Garff, 26 
Wilson, Metoyer and Sweeney (law 

firm), 41, 42, 57 
Wilson, Pete, 150, 151-152, 159- 


Williams, Franklyn, 56 
women, 19, 27, 33, 56, 92, 150; 

and bias, 154, 185-186 
Woodson, Abe, 82 
workers compensation, 60 
World Airways, 172 
Wright, Donald, 103 

youth, 23 

van de Camp, John, 143 
Vaughns, Dixon and White (law 

firm) , 42 

Vaughns, George, 42, 54,55 
Venable, Jane, 12 
Vision 2000, 204 

Gabrielle Morris 

Graduated from Connecticut College, New London, with 
additional study at Trinity College and Stanford 

Historian, U.S. Air Force. Research, writing, for 
University of California, Bay Area Council of Social 
Planning, Joint Center for Political Studies, Berkeley 
Unified School District, others. Coordinator, California 
State Archives Government History Project, University of 
California, Berkeley, component, 1986-1990. 

Project director, Bay Area Foundation History Projects 
(1974-1977, 1986-1995), UC Black Alumni Project (1984- ), 
Ronald Reagan Gubernatorial Era Project (1979-1990), 
Volunteer Leaders Series (1978- ), Cutter Laboratories 
Project (1972-1974). 

Interviewer-editor, Regional Oral History Office, 1970- 
present. Specialist in state government history, Bay 
Area community concerns; focus on key participants' 
perceptions of selected administrative, social, economic, 
and political issues in California 1938-present. 
Consultant, Women's Suffrage 75th Anniversary Project, 
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area. Author, Head of 
the Class: An Oral History of African-American 
Achievement in Higher Education and Beyond, Twayne 
Publishers, 1995.