Click for 2007 NEWS & COMMENTARIES

Click for Judicial Accountability 2005

Click for Judicial Accountability 2006

2007 News & Commentaries

Click headline to link to original full article

September 2007

FLORIDA  

Judge 'vindictive,' judicial panel says

Rene Stutzman | Sentinel Staff Writer

9-6-07 -- When a janitor stood before Seminole County Judge Ralph Eriksson last year, unable to hear what was going on and confused about why his attorney hadn't filed some paperwork, the judge ordered him to jail. . . . A year later, when a 22-year-old waiter asked the same judge to recuse himself, Eriksson sent him to jail, too. . . . On Thursday, the state agency that disciplines judges formally charged Eriksson with official misconduct. . . . In those two cases, the judge was "punitive and vindictive," abusing his power to hurt men who were only trying to exercise legitimate legal rights, according to the charges leveled by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. . . . Eriksson, of Longwood, a judge for 12 years, would not comment. . . . He must now decide whether to admit to wrongdoing or fight the charges. If he fights, he would stand trial before a different panel of the same agency.

NEW HAMPSHIRE  

Judge Coffey put on leave

Committee on Judicial Conduct sets hearing

By Staff and wire reports

9-6-07 -- The state Supreme Court has placed Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey on paid leave after allegations that she fraudulently shielded her husband's assets from creditors. . . . The court put Coffey on leave as of 4 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 29. . . . Coffey, who weathered accusations of sleeping in court, has been accused of compromising the integrity of the judiciary by creating a trust to put the assets of her husband, lawyer John Coffey, out of reach of creditors when disbarment proceedings were pending against him. . . . Judge Coffey told the committee reviewing her case that the timing may have created the perception that she was aiding her husband in protecting his assets, but she contended that was not her intention. She said the trust was created for the "avoidance of probate based upon the experiences that Mr. Coffey had pertaining to his mother's estate and for related family reasons." . . . Instead, it allegedly hindered efforts by the Professional Conduct Committee to seek reimbursement for the fees and costs associated with the disbarment case.

NEW JERSEY  

Will Americans Rise Up Against The Corrupt Justice System?

By Bill O'Reilly, Fox News

9-6-07 -- On August 4, three young college students were murdered in New Jersey by a gang of thugs, which included two criminal illegal immigrants. Now, the young woman was nearly killed, her face slashed in that attack. . . . Reports say Peruvian Jose Carranza, who was out on bail after being charged with child molestation and assault was the shooter. The judge who allowed Carranza out on the street is Thomas Vena who actually cut Carranza's bail in half, allowing the man to walk out of jail and into the murder zone. Well, the State of New Jersey investigated Vena and has released this report. . . . Quote, "Judge Vena's bail determination was made with knowledge of Carranza's criminal history and the nature of the charges. And an awareness that the prosecutor had previously consented to bail of $150,000 with knowledge that the victim's allegations, included a history of sexual abuse extending over time and occurring in two municipalities." . . . Nevertheless, the State of New Jersey has concluded that Judge Vena's bail cut for Carranza wasn't wrong. But, of course, it was wrong, and so is New Jersey. Number one, the state ordered the investigating officer in the case not to take Carranza's illegal status into account. That is insane. . . . Number two, Vena should have known Carranza was here illegally and was a chronic criminal. We're sure the judge did know that. Why would any judge, then, take the chance of putting a guy like that back on the street? Doesn't make any sense.

WISCONSIN    

Commission faults Ziegler, asks for only reprimand

Wisconsin State Journal

9-6-07 -- Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler committed misconduct by presiding over cases in which she had a conflict of interest, the Wisonsin Judicial Commission said in a complaint filed Thursday. . . . But the commission, along with a contrite Ziegler, said the state's newest justice should receive no more than a public reprimand from her colleagues on the Supreme Court. . . . In documents released Thursday, Ziegler acknowledged she failed to disclose her conflict of interest when she presided as a Washington County Circuit judge over 11 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband, J.J. Ziegler, sits on the board of directors. . . . The Wisconsin State Journal reported in March that Ziegler handled 46 lawsuits, mostly small-claims matters, involving the bank since 2001 while her husband was on the board. In none of those cases did Ziegler recuse herself or notify the parties of her conflict as required under the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, the State Journal found.

FLORIDA  

Failed polygraph exams on sex-harassment allegations haunt judge at hearing

Jim Leusner | Sentinel Staff Writer

9-2-07 -- After allegations surfaced in November that Orange Circuit Judge James C. Hauser exposed himself at a law student's apartment months earlier, he passed a lie-detector test and supplied it to deputy sheriffs and a state judicial panel investigating the matter. . . . On Friday, a lawyer for Florida's Judicial Qualifications Commission disclosed that Hauser failed two earlier polygraph exams and did not report the findings to authorities -- raising questions about this truthfulness. . . . JQC special counsel Lauri Waldman Ross, acting as a prosecutor on the probe, produced the test results subpoenaed from Richard Keifer, an Apopka polygraph examiner and retired FBI agent. . . . "You wanted people to believe you passed a polygraph," Ross asked the judge. "And that included the sheriff's department, the JQC and the public at large?" . . . "That is correct," Hauser said, adding that Keifer told him that the earlier results were "inconclusive." Hauser said he never saw the earlier results.

August 2007

CALIFORNIA  

Riverside County jurist defends his actions

By Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

8-31-07 -- Judge Robert Spitzer, the hopelessly messy jurist who faces possible removal from the bench over allegations that he let cases languish and improperly contacted witnesses, told a skeptical state judicial panel Wednesday that he should be censured but allowed to keep his job. . . . In a hearing before the state's Commission on Judicial Performance, the Riverside County Superior Court judge was accused of repeatedly lying and undermining public trust in the judiciary. . . . Trial examiner Andrew Blum said the commission had brought Spitzer up for questioning in 2003 after receiving complaints about his failure to rule in a timely manner. The judge promised to take care of delayed decisions and escaped discipline, but didn't change, he said. . . . "This was not one period of bad behavior," Blum said. "Judge Spitzer's misconduct has gone on for years. . . . "Given Judge Spitzer's extensive history of misconduct and failure to reform, it seems very likely he will re-offend," Blum said. "To protect the public, Judge Spitzer should be removed from office."

Good Government Advocates Press To Place Judicial Accountability On The Agenda Of 2008 Presidential Candidates

8-17-07 -- (PRWEB) Rice University of Houston, Texas was the site of what may turn out to be one of the most important civil rights and constitutional liberties conferences in recent history. On August 11, 2007, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP) hosted a free conference at the prestigious university campus to solidify a national grassroots movement for important judicial reforms. The conference title asks the rhetorical question "Silencing of the Lambs?", prompting consideration of whether average Americans truly have a say about the quality of justice dispensed by American courts. Zena Crenshaw, NJCDLP Executive Director, explained that "we begin our analysis with a consideration of how effective average Americans seem to be in holding the gatekeepers of justice accountable for their conduct." . . . Attending the NJCDLP conference were many good government advocates representing more than a dozen states - Texas, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, California, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Virginia, District of Columbia, Florida, New Mexico, and Georgia. The gathering summoned the spirit of Washington Whistleblower Week (WWW) which brought scores of activists to Washington, D. C. to protest government waste, fraud, and abuse in May 2007.

Also See: http://victimsoflaw.net/NJCDLP.htm

GENERAL

O’Reilly And Judges

Daily News Reporter Opinion

8-17-07 -- Fox Broadcaster Bill O’Reilly has been taking it on the chin – and neck and shoulders – for criticizing judges who give lenient sentences to violent offenders. . . . A fearless O’Reilly staffer will jam a microphone in a judge’s face and demand, "Why did you let that defendant off with probation? He went out and raped another child." . . . There is, of course, no reasonable answer to such a question. Which is why the targeted judges have slinked away, slid under a door and hid in their homes or chambers. . . . Ironically, as Mr. O’Reilly has noted, the media outrage seems to have been directed against him, not the irresponsible black-robed justices. . . . In fact, the mainsteam media seems to bend over backward not to hold judges accountable. . . . In a New York Times story Wednesday on the Newark murders, the reporter writes, "Despite felony charges against both men, (accused defendants Jose Carranza and Rudulgo Godinez) both had been released on bail or probation." . . . So, doesn’t the reader want to know why they were released and who the judges were who released them? The NYT never asked that question so, of course, it never gave readers the answer.

CALIFORNIA  

CLE-You-Later: Judge Accused of Fudging Expense Report

New York Lawyer, By Cheryl Miller, The Recorder

8-17-07 -- An Orange County, California judge who allegedly submitted a false expense report for reimbursement will face charges of willful misconduct, the Commission on Judicial Performance announced Wednesday. . . . Judge Kelly MacEachern asked the Superior Court travel coordinator to reimburse her for three nights spent at a San Diego hotel for a continuing judicial education conference held there in July and August of 2006, commission investigators said. When MacEachern was confronted in September by the court's supervising judge, however, she admitted that she had lied to the travel coordinator about attending two classes at the event and therefore didn't qualify for reimbursed expenses, investigators said. MacEachern then withdrew her claim. . . . MacEachern's attorney, Ed George Jr. of Long Beach, was out of the office on Wednesday and did not return a phone message.

HAWAII   

Improving Judicial Accountability in Hawaii's Highest Court
By Randall Roth

8-17-07 -- This is a summary of Randy Roth’s Comments to AJS Committee on Judicial Independence and Accountability (March 13, 2007)  . . . Something is wrong with the system of judicial accountability when serious questions can be raised about the conduct of a state’s entire Supreme Court without an official body either coming to the defense of those justices or taking steps to hold those justices accountable. . . . Given the seriousness and specificity of the allegations in the Broken Trust essay and book, one would expect some kind of response. Thus far, the silence has been deafening: / Commission on Judicial Conduct / Judicial Selection Commission / The Judiciary—Rule 19 Judicial Evaluations / Hawaii State Bar Association / American Judicature Society—Hawaii Chapter / AJS Committee on Judicial Independence and Accountability . . . Nearly 10 years have passed since publication of the Broken Trust essay. Why has none of these organizations done anything? Are they assuming that the allegations have no merit? Or, are they assuming the existence of meritorious explanations for what appears to be unethical behavior? Why assume anything?

NEW JERSEY  

Judge named to review bail of Newark slaying suspect

by Claire Heininger

A retired Superior Court judge will conduct an independent investigation into how a8-17-07 -- n illegal immigrant charged in the Newark schoolyard slayings was free on bail at the time of the shootings, New Jersey's chief justice announced today. . . . Judge Arthur N. D'Italia will review the court procedures followed in consolidating and setting bail in the prior criminal cases against Jose Lachira Carranza, whose arrest record - for attacking patrons during a bar fight and for child rape - sparked outrage following the Aug. 4 killings. . . . The results of D'Italia's probe will be made public, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said. . . . "In the aftermath of this tragedy, concerns have been raised about the setting of bail in this matter. It is important that we address these questions openly, swiftly and fairly for the sake of all involved," Rabner said. "I am grateful to Judge D'Italia for agreeing to conduct this review. His credentials are impeccable, and his depth of knowledge of bail statutes, criminal court rules, constitutional issues, and day-to-day court processes make him the right person to assess how these issues were resolved."

WISCONSIN    

Northeastern Wisconsin judges vary on following judicial code

Review finds 50 cases where judges had connection to participants

By Keegan Kyle, Post-Crescent Madison bureau

8-17-07 -- Nine county judges in northeastern Wisconsin have heard 50 cases in the past four years involving family employers or companies in which they own stock, court records show. . . . The cases found in a Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers review of court records were civil actions — none included criminal cases — and most were foreclosure of mortgage settlements with banks or small claims cases. Other cases were classified money judgments or personal injury. . . . According to the analysis, some judges followed standards of ethical conduct and disclosed their financial interests to litigants. Most said hearing the cases was not a problem but some said they regret not disqualifying themselves from cases. . . . Government and judicial watchdog groups said the analysis shows there may be a larger problem across the court system with judicial disqualification. . . . "There's no fast and easy answer on something like that," said Geoffrey Lyon, investigative counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Watch. "But I think it's (these findings are) of tremendous concern."

OHIO  

Right To Criticize Judiciary Focus Of Baumgartner Contempt Appeal

North Country Gazette

8-13-07 --Does a citizen have the constitutional right to criticize a judge or other public official without fear of retaliation by arrest and jail? . . . That question may soon be answered by the Sixth District Court of Appeals in the case of Elsebeth Baumgartner of Oak Harbor, former attorney, pharmacist and judicial whistleblower, as she has filed her appeal for her conviction last year by Judge David Faulkner on contempt charges. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/documents/TA6thdistbrief.pdf

Baumgartner served 120 days in Ottawa County Jail beginning late last year into this year after retired visiting judge Richard Markus filed contempt charges against her claiming that Baumgartner had insulted him during a defamation trial that he was adjudicating against her in December 2004, a civil action brought against Baumgartner by former Benton-Carroll-Salem school board member Kellen Smith. Markus decided the case in Smith’s favor

GENERAL

Bad precedent and wayward judges
Judge Roy Moore

8-8-07 -- "They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." When Jesus spoke those words, He warned of the danger of following leaders who taught false doctrine. But Jesus did not say that we should reject the instruction and example of those who adhere to sound principle. . . . In our court system, judges must base their decisions on sound legal principles. High regard for following prior judicial decisions, known as precedent, has always been an important concept in our law, but such precedents are only valid if based on the United States Constitution, which all judges are sworn to uphold. Lately, there has been a great deal of criticism of the new "conservative majority" on the United States Supreme Court for disregarding "long-standing precedents" and "running roughshod over the Constitution." I submit that such criticism is wrong. . . . In her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart involving partial-birth abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former ACLU lawyer, complained that for the majority of the justices "moral concerns are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. ... By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent." In another Supreme Court case involving the use of race in public school assignments, another liberal justice, Steven Breyer, echoed this theme when he remarked from the bench, "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much." . . . Court rulings must be consistent for the fairness and impartiality of our justice system. In the words of that eminent jurist Sir William Blackstone, author of the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765: "It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, when the same points come again in litigation ... to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waiver with every new judge's opinion." However, to maintain consistency, judges must not rule by their feelings, but "according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law but to maintain and expound the old one." When a judge substitutes feelings for the law, his or her decision deserves no weight or authority and properly should be discarded. Precedents that are not based upon law are not precedents at all.

NEW YORK  

A Hire Calling

On their honor, it's politics as usual in Brooklyn

by Tom Robbins

8-8-07 -- Politicians often speak of answering "the call to public service." Usually, this is invoked to suggest enormous sacrifice, as in, "If I wasn't running for this crummy elective office, I could be making megabucks at a big law firm." . . . Like certain dog whistles, this call is not audible to most people. If it were, a lot of us might stop yapping like obnoxious little border collies, come to heel, and do some good in the world. Alas, it is out of our hearing range. But there is no denying the call's powerful pull on those who are tuned in to that wavelength. Here now, from the streets of Brooklyn, comes the latest example: a selfless young woman named Shawn Dya Simpson who is currently campaigning for a powerful city judicial post, even though it means forced separation from her loved ones. . . . Simpson, 41, is a former Brooklyn prosecutor who is already doing public service as a judge, having been elected to the bench in 2003. She is now running in a fierce election to see who will become the next judge of Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn (very complicated, it handles estates, details below). The problem is that Simpson's opponents have claimed that she doesn't live in Brooklyn, or even the city at all; hence she is ineligible to hold office. Another judge has been asked to consider these allegations, which he will certainly do later this month.

Probe of Garson wife gets a push

By Nancie L. Katz, Daily News Staff Writer

8-8-07 -- She's the last Garson on the Brooklyn bench, and NOW wants her off. . . . Four months after filing a complaint against Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Robin Garson, the National Organization of Women wants to know why the state's judicial watchdog hasn't moved. . . . In a letter last week, NOW's state president, Marcia Pappas, asked the Commission on Judicial Conduct to take action to remove the wife of convicted divorce Judge Gerald Garson. . . . "Several individuals have questioned why Robin Garson is still a sitting judge, and if any taxpayer money was spent for [her] during her husband's lengthy trial," Pappas wrote. "We wonder how much taxpayers' money will be saved if this commission had done any investigation of prior improprieties with the Garson family." . . . The commission began probing Robin Garson four years ago after she told a grand jury that Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson - her husband's cousin - confessed to improperly taking $100,000 from his elderly aunt. . . . Michael Garson, who resigned in December, has been indicted on grand larceny charges for allegedly looting the nearly $1 million fortune his Aunt Sarah Gershenoff saved over 50 years as a legal secretary. . . . His trial is expected in October.

TEXAS  

Editorial: Judge Gray's poison pen

WacoTrib

8-8-07 -- Surely 10th Court of Appeals Chief Justice Tom Gray has enough on his plate without having to explain his notoriously hyperbolic opinions to a state judicial commission. . . . Surely Gray’s points could be stated without sophomoric digs at fellow jurists and the tone of a fan razzing an ump. He’s the ump, after all. . . . This week former assistant Waco police chief Larry Kelley filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct over the tone of Gray’s opinions in the case over Kelley’s dismissal following a DWI conviction. . . . Kelley said Gray’s comments reflected bias in the city’s favor, rather than the even-handedness expected of judges. . . . It’s hard to say how the commission would react to this claim. The word “opinion” means bias. But no one is served by over-the-top rhetoric and sniping from the bench. We vote for the Officer Joe Friday method: Just the facts, man — and the law.

PENNSYLVANIA  

A Judicial Setback for the Rule of Law

by Kris W. Kobach

8-6-07 -- What do you get when you combine unchecked illegal immigration with judicial activism?  A perfect storm for the rule of law.  Unfortunately, that storm recently arrived in Pennsylvania. . . . On July 26, 2007, federal Judge James Munley of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion striking down the efforts of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to address the consequences of illegal immigration within its jurisdiction. . . . Hazleton -- a small town in the Pocono Mountains with just over 30,000 residents -- had enacted ordinances that prohibited landlords from knowingly renting apartments to illegal aliens and prohibited local businesses from knowingly employing illegal aliens. In Hazleton, the impact of illegal immigration has been severe.  Illegal aliens have committed several murders in the past two years in a town that previously saw murder occur only once about every seven years.  Drug-trafficking and gun-running gangs comprised mostly of illegal aliens, MS-13 included, moved to this sleepy town.  Drug crimes increased, with illegal aliens representing 30 percent of those arrested. . . . At the same time, the City’s budget became stretched to the breaking point.  Illegal aliens working off the books were consuming city services without contributing anything to the City’s income tax base.  . . . Predictably, as soon as Hazleton passed its ordinance, the ACLU, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and liberal allies at the silk-stocking Philadelphia law firm of Cozen O’Connor took Hazleton to court.

July 2007

TEXAS  

Jury trial rejected for Davis

Commission head says rules are clear

By Craig Kapitan, Eagle Staff Writer

7-20-07 -- Embattled District Judge Rick Davis may want a jury to hear the charges state prosecutors have levied against him, but it's not going to happen, a representative of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct said Thursday. . . . Davis - who was formally accused last month of abusing his office to carry out vendettas - made the demand in court documents he released to the media Wednesday evening, after the state agency had closed for the day. . . . "Should the commission ultimately seek to remove [Davis] from office, pursuant to his rights under the Texas Constitution and the Texas Government Code, [Davis] demands a trial by jury," the document states. . . . Representatives of the agency could not be reached for comment Wednesday night. On Thursday, however, Executive Director Seana Willing said the process would continue despite Davis' demand. . . . "The rules are very clear," she said. "They specifically state there's no right to a jury trial."

FEDERAL COURTS

In Humorous Dissent, 2nd Circuit Chief
Calls Students' Speech Suit a 'Silly Thing'

Tom Perrotta, New York Law Journal 

7-18-07 -- Three judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, their law clerks and several attorneys spent a good many hours arguing a free speech case, debating its outcome and producing a 48-page opinion. One panelist, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, clearly thinks this great effort was a waste of time. . . . In an unusual and humorous dissent released Friday, the judge ridiculed a lawsuit involving the student newspaper at the College of Staten Island and scoffed at the prospect of a jury trial, ordered by the majority, in the 10-year-old case, which the judge said was "about nothing" and "should not occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do." . . . "I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion," the judge wrote in Husain v. Springer, 04-CV-5250. "So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it." . . . The suit was brought in federal court a decade ago, after the college's president decided to re-run an election after finding that the editors of the school-funded newspaper had used the paper as a campaign flyer to promote the "Student Union" party. . . . In a mere four pages, Jacobs took numerous swipes at the suit, describing it as a "silly thing" and saying that the majority's 44-page opinion would only "feed the plaintiffs' fantasy of oppression; that plutocrats are trying to stifle an upsurge of Pol-Potism on Staten Island."

TEXAS  

South Texas judge returning to bench after guilty plea

Associated Press

7-18-07 -- A judge from Eagle Pass who was indicted but never convicted of felony charges related to alleged improper campaign contributions will return to the bench after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. . . . State District Judge Amado Abascal III pleaded guilty last week to a misdemeanor charge of tampering with a government record. . . . Abascal, who spent more than 20 months under indictment, is the only judge in the 365th District covering Maverick, Dimmit and Zavala counties. He was elected to a fifth term last year while suspended. . . . "The judge made a finding that he did not act with intent to defraud, harm or injure another," said Jack Paul Leon, one of Abascal's lawyers. . . . With the case resolved, the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct lifted a suspension it imposed in October 2005. . . . "Had he pleaded guilty to a crime of moral turpitude, it would have been automatic removal," said Seana Willing, director of the commission. . . . She said the commission will review the entire case to determine whether the judge faces more discipline.

LOUISIANA   

Judges on trial: Does public influence courts?

By Amanda Newton, Special to The Times
7-16-07 -- The recent resentencing of a driver convicted of vehicular homicide in 2005 perhaps marks the end of what has been a controversial case. . . . The case received a great deal of attention both in the media and from the public. More complex than the average DWI case, it can still serve as a springboard to examine the possibility that public opinion might sometimes sway court decisions, especially in a state where judges are elected, not appointed. . . . In 2004, William Gourdine was involved in the accident that killed 17-year-old Amanda Laurenson. Gourdine was legally drunk and speeding at the time of the accident. Laurenson pulled into the right of way of Gourdine's vehicle and was on her cell phone. So, the case wasn't cut and dried. . . . The original 2005 sentence took into consideration the judge's opinion that Gourdine was not totally at fault. Caddo District Judge Leon Emanuel sentenced him to eight years in prison, seven suspended. . . . The sentence upset Laurenson's family, prosecutors and many in the general public. . . . The prosecution asked for an appellate court review, and that court ordered Emanuel to re-examine his sentencing decision. On July 9, Emanuel resentenced Gourdine, 43, to 10 years in prison at hard labor and ordered that he must serve the first four years.

FEDERAL COURTS

Judicial Clerkships From Hell:

7-13-07 -- University of San Diego law professor Michael Rappaport describes his "clerkship from hell" with Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Dolores Sloviter. The apparently hellish experience of clerking for Judge Sloviter is also the subject of a new thinly veiled novel by recent Columbia Law School grad Saira Rao, who also clerked for Sloviter. I don't know Judge Sloviter, but I do know Michael Rappaport, and can therefore testify that he's not the kind of person to be easily offended by minor instances of mistreatment by a boss. . . . Unfortunately, Judge Sloviter is not the only federal judge who apparently abuses her clerks and other staff. Federal judges have weaker incentives to treat their employees well than most other employers do. They, of course, have life tenure and therefore won't lose income or their jobs if they alienate their clerks. It's possible that a reputation for mistreating clerks will reduce the quality of future clerks; however, there will still be enough applicants for the judge to get at least minimally competent help, and that is sufficient for the judge to be able to get the clerks to handle whatever work she wants to transfer to them. Judges with low-quality clerks will, on average, write worse opinions than judges with good ones. But an abusive judge may not care much about that.

FEDERAL COURTS

Disorder in the court

The 9th Circuit is overturned more than any other appeals court.
Its size may be a factor.

By Brian T. Fitzpatrick,  a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, was a clerk on the
9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

7-11-07 -- ANOTHER Supreme Court term has come to a close, and, while many things changed in the law, one thing stayed the same: The justices spent much of their time reversing the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . The 9th Circuit, which hears appeals in federal cases in the Western United States, is the largest of the 13 such courts, with 28 active judges and more than 20 part-time senior judges. The 9th Circuit is almost three times the size of an average court of appeals, and its jurisdiction stretches from Alaska to Arizona, an area comprising nearly one-fifth of the American population. . . . The 9th Circuit also has a long-running streak as the most overturned, which went unbroken this year. The Supreme Court reviewed 22 cases from the 9th Circuit last term, and it reversed or vacated 19 times. By comparison, the Supreme Court reviewed only five cases, vacating or reversing four, from the next-busiest court of appeals, the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans.

GEORGIA  

FBI Raids Judge's Chambers

Federal grand jury subpoenas issued to Georgia county officials

R. Robin McDonald, Fulton County Daily Report

7-11-07 --Eight carloads of FBI agents recently executed a warrant and searched the Clinch County chambers of the chief judge of Georgia's Alapaha Judicial Circuit, a Clinch County commissioner said. . . . Fifteen FBI agents spent at least nine hours searching the chambers of Brooks E. Blitch III, chief judge of the south Georgia circuit, said Barry Hart, the Clinch Commission's vice chairman. Blitch is married to former Georgia legislator Peg Blitch, who retired from the Georgia General Assembly in 2005. His chambers are in the Clinch County Courthouse in Homerville, the county seat. . . . The Clinch County Commission office is next door to the judge's chambers, Hart said. On June 26, when the commission clerk arrived for work at 7:30 a.m., FBI agents were already searching Blitch's chambers, he said. . . . When Blitch arrived for work later that morning, agents presented him with a copy of the search warrant but refused to let him in, Hart recalled. . . . The agents did not leave until 4:30 p.m., he said. "They got anything, everything," said Hart.

ILLINOIS  

Shouldn't pay to be connected

Northwest Herald Editorial

7-11-07 --McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Michael Chmiel made a bad decision when he held a special Saturday afternoon bond hearing so a politically connected Cary man didn’t have to spend the weekend in jail. . . . Chmiel called the special court hearing June 16 for David Miller, brother of Algonquin Township Highway Commissioner Bob Miller. . . . David Miller was charged the morning of June 16, a Saturday, with felony obstruction of justice after he allegedly tried to flee a Cary police officer who pulled him over on Route 14 to weigh the load in his dump truck. . . . Because of the timing of his arrest, Miller missed the last scheduled bond hearing for that weekend. The next bond hearing wasn’t scheduled until Monday morning. Under normal procedure, Miller would have spent the rest of the weekend at the McHenry County Jail. . . . But Chmiel called the hearing, and set Miller’s bond at $10,000. Miller was the only defendant who participated in the second bond hearing. He posted $1,000, or 10 percent, and was released.

MASSACHUSETTS   

Mass. Panel Files Ethics Charges Against Judge Who Won $2M Libel Award

Denise Lavoie, The Associated Press

7-11-07 --A Massachusetts state commission filed ethics charges Tuesday against a judge who won a $2 million libel award from the Boston Herald, accusing him of misconduct for writing threatening and intimidating letters to the newspaper's publisher. . . . In the charges filed with the Massachusetts' highest court, the Commission on Judicial Conduct alleged that Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy engaged in "willful misconduct" that was unbecoming of a judicial officer and cast the judicial system in a bad light. . . . A jury in 2005 found that the Herald had libeled Murphy in articles that portrayed him as lenient toward defendants and quoted him as saying a 14-year-old rape victim should "get over it." . . . Murphy denied making the remark and said he expressed concern for the victim and asked that counseling be made available to her. . . . In the first handwritten note, dated just two days after the jury awarded him $2 million, Murphy asked for a private meeting with the Herald's publisher, Patrick J. Purcell. . . . "You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000," the letter said. "No check, no meeting."

NEW YORK  

N.Y. Chief Judge Explains Her Deferral of Pay Hike Suit

Kaye calls continuing pay drought the most trying issue in her 14 years as chief judge

Joel Stashenko and Daniel Wise, New York Law Journal

7-11-07 --It can be a sign of strength to defer filing a lawsuit if doing so would weaken the position of judges who are advocating for a pay raise, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye has told the state's judges in an e-mail communiqué. . . . "I have no doubt that a lawsuit by me on behalf of the Unified Court System would not have helped us one whit had it already actually been brought," she wrote in the memo. "Indeed, given these players, it would have damaged our cause." . . . The commencement of a lawsuit trying to force the New York Legislature and Gov. Eliot Spitzer to grant the state judiciary its first pay raise since 1999 "chills our dealing with our partners in government, including -- most pointedly -- further informal communications regarding pay increases," the chief judge wrote in an e-mail dated Friday. . . . "As lawyers and judges, we have all spent our lives dealing with litigation, and know that -- rather than a sign of weakness -- sometimes real strength lies in deferring potentially counterproductive action," Kaye said.

See the full text of Chief Judge Kaye's memo.

Editorial Commentary:
Some U.S. jurists judged unfit for bench

The Economist Commentary

7-9-07 -- A $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, D.C., cleaners was thrown out by a judge recently. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. . . . The fact the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with U.S. litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them. . . . A whole series of judicial misdemeanors, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida