Karlin Urges Voters to Reject Recall : Courts: In first public statement, judge in Korean grocer case says her removal would attack Constitution. Opponents vow to pursue effort.

Superior Court Judge Joyce A. Karlin, who sparked an uproar by sentencing a Korean-born grocer to probation for the shooting death of a black teen-age girl, defended herself publicly for the first time Wednesday.

Calling a recently launched recall petition “an attack on the Constitution,” Karlin urged voters to reject efforts to remove her from the bench. To do otherwise, Karlin said in a written response to the recall drive, would strike a blow against “the independence of judges who protect your rights.”

Karlin did not make herself available for comment on the statement, which did not address her decision to sentence Soon Ja Du to five years probation, not prison, for killing 15-year-old Latasha Harlins. The March 15 shooting--and Karlin’s ruling in November--fueled tensions between Korean-American merchants and African-American customers.

Last month, hundreds of protesters stormed the Compton courthouse, where Karlin is assigned, demanding her ouster. And last week, critics of her ruling served recall papers at Karlin’s Manhattan Beach home. To qualify their petition, recall organizers will need to gather 304,000 signatures.

Karlin, who was appointed to the Superior Court only three months before her controversial ruling, already faces an election in June. Leaders of the recall effort hope to unseat her before then through a special election.

Even before the recall threat surfaced, Karlin hired the political consulting firm Cerrell Associates to work on her campaign in the midst of public protests over the sentencing.

Her statement Wednesday was released by the firm and under California election law must be attached to petitions circulated for her recall.

But late Wednesday, a leader of the recall, Compton Councilwoman Patricia Moore, insisted that Karlin’s statement--and the hiring of Cerrell--would have no effect on efforts to oust the judge.

“She is fighting for her political life . . . but the citizens will act and protect themselves,” Moore said. “Her statement does not in any way diminish the crime we feel she has committed.”

While Karlin portrayed the recall as an attack on the Constitution and judicial independence, Moore countered that voters have a right to voice their discontent through the recall process.

“How can it be an affront to the Constitution when it not only protects judges but citizens who feel an injustice has been served?” Moore said. “Judges are not above the law and when you have a miscarriage of justice, then we have every right as citizens to address that injustice. And we are doing that.”

In her statement, Karlin sought to persuade voters that a recall election would be unwise since she already faces an election. “It’s a waste of tax dollars,” Karlin said. “Special elections cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, valuable money that we need for education, health and welfare services and better housing. . . .

“Do not be misled by hate campaigns and attacks on the judiciary.”

But Moore argued that Karlin’s ruling demanded that she be quickly removed from the bench.

“We have to remove her,” Moore said. “We cannot allow her to stay in our courts and render any more unjust sentences such as this one.”