By Greg Mitchell

Intelligent, hard-working, and quick to laugh, Ming Chin is a popular figure among his fellow judges. He authored the most majority opinions last year at the Supreme Court, his first full term there. And when the court sits for monthly oral arguments, Chin is usually perched attentively on the edge of his high-backed chair, even if the case is a snoozer. He doesn't dominate oral arguments, but usually tosses counsel crisp and clarifying questions.

Chin's climb to the state's highest court reads like a classic rags-to-riches story. One of eight children born to Chinese immigrants who settled in Klamath Falls, Ore., Chin spent his early youth on the family potato farm before coming to California. A devout Catholic and family man, Chin was awarded an Army commendation medal and a bronze star for his service in the Vietnam war. After his return, Chin did a tour of duty as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County. He then went into private practice at Oakland's Aiken, Cramer & Cummings, where he quickly made partner. He was tapped for the trial bench in 1988, and was promoted to the First District Court of Appeal two years later.

If Gov. Pete Wilson thought he had found a team player in Chin, it didn't take long to prove him wrong. In 1997, Chin shot down Wilson's attempt to privatize state highway jobs in Professional Engineers v. Dept. of Transportation, 15 Cal.4th 543. The state is constitutionally required to outsource only those jobs that its own employees can't handle, Chin wrote. That, he reasoned, "seems appropriate to assure that the state civil service is not neglected, diminished, or destroyed through routine appointments to 'independent contractors' made solely on the basis of political considerations or cronyism."

A moderate conservative, Chin is often a solid vote for the prosecution in criminal cases that come before the court. When the seven justices are divided along ideological lines, Chin usually lines up alongside Justices Marvin Baxter and Janice Rogers Brown, the two most conservative members of the court. And it's probably no coincidence that Chin's campaign materials begin with a list of his death penalty affirmances.

But prosecutors shouldn't take Chin for granted. That was evident early on when, at the court of appeal, Chin undertook his own examination of the scientific literature on DNA evidence and ended with a result that angered many law enforcement types. His 1992 opinion in People v. Barney, 8 Cal.App.4th 798, barred certain types of DNA evidence from being admitted because of lingering questions about the reliability of the science.

Like Chief Justice Ronald George, Chin tends to the middle-of-the-road on civil law issues. Indeed, he joined a George opinion that struck down a California law that required minors to obtain parental or judicial consent before getting an abortion. For that, Chin was targeted for removal by pro-life conservative activists. Even before he took the bench, Chin was in trouble with anti-abortion groups, since he told reporters, shortly before his confirmation to the court, that he happened to believe "that it's the woman's right to choose."

For more evidence of Chin's moderation on civil issues, look at this year's Green v. Ralee Engineering, 19 Cal.4th 66, and Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640. In Green, Chin said a fired aircraft parts inspector could rely on federal aviation regulations to establish that he was fired in violation of public policy. In Reno, Chin held that supervisors can't be held personally liable for employment discrimination.