BERKELEY, Jul. 13 – The judge who tried the Tate-LaBianca murder case called Monday for new state constitutional provisions that would require counsel for criminal defendants and prohibit them from representing themselves.

“The criminal law is too complex, particularly in felony cases, to permit self-representation,” said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles H. Older.

“It results in so many reversals and wasted time, and, in some cases, injustice to the defendant himself.”

Older said he looked forward to the day when defendants could select counsel from a group of criminal law specialists and not have to rely on attorneys whose experience and skills centered on civil law.

“A lot of civil lawyers are no better equipped for criminal trials than the defendants themselves,” he said.

Older was joined in his call for a change in the law on self-representation by Superior Judge George M. Dell of Los Angeles.

Both appeared at a news conference in connection with courses they are teaching at the fifth annual California College of Trial Judges.

Dell, who was here to discuss courtroom disruptions before about 85 superior and municipal judges attending the college, suggested that suspension from practice might be a suitable policy for lawyers who disrupt or encourage disruption of court proceedings.

Noting that the present available remedies — contempt and disbarment — were impractical in most instances, Dell said suspension for a prescribed time or from a certain jurisdiction might offer the means to deal effectively with such disruptions.

“If a lawyer is in fact trying to turn the proceedings into a mockery — either disrupting them himself or assisting the disruption — there is some question of his ability or right to practice law,” said Dell. He added that he did “not wish to imply this was a widespread activity.”

Both Older and Dell suggested greater use of a “standby” attorney as a legal adviser to a defendant who insisted on representing himself.

Should a defendant then use self-representation simply as a means to disrupt the proceedings, the “standby’ lawyer, present through previous proceedings, could be appointed to represent the defendant, they said.

Both acknowledged the question of self-representation was becoming a matter of increasing concern to California trial judges.

The state constitution grants the accused the right “to appear and defend, in person and with counsel.” Generally, the courts have permitted self-representation where the defendant could demonstrate competence to fully understand the charges and their consequences.

The issue has been raised recently in certain criminal proceedings. Charles Manson sought and was denied a request to represent himself in the Tate-LaBianca case. San Quentin inmate Ruchell Magee similarly has been denied self-representation, and Angela Davis has asked to serve as cocounsel in their case involving the Marin Civic Center shooting which now awaits trial.

Manson disrupted his trial several times after Older denied him the right to represent himself and had to be removed from the courtroom.

Older remarked he had rarely seen a defendant as qualified to represent himself as would be an attorney.

“In a complicated case — for example, one with multiple defendants and different counsel — there is virtually no way a man untrained in the law can appreciate the consequences of representing himself through a maze like that,” the judge said.

Asked if he would permit self-representation in instances where a defendant, because of his past experiences, expressed distrust with all lawyers, Older replied:

“…Many of them say just that, but I don’t think that is sufficient reason. A defendant should be able to meet other qualifications for self-representation. His dislike of attorneys is not enough.”‘

By PHILIP HAGER