The other day, I was in court when a judge I actually like did something that I definitely don’t.

It’s not just a matter of my not liking it, however.  It’s part and parcel of why the United States of America no longer exists under its original charter, the United States Constitution.

Lest anyone think this post is a criticism of that judge, it is not.  One day, I think it’s even possible that judge will become a fine judge. The judge is just a product of zeitgeist and has not yet thought clear of it.

The thing about zeitgeist is that, almost by definition, we don’t normally recognize the effect it has upon us. Daniel Boone Davis, the protagonist in Robert Heinlein’s The Door into Summer, noted that the ideas one can conceive are often limited by the era in which one finds oneself. Only upon serious reflection — in which, frankly, judges are supposed to engage — does it become evident how our thoughts, attitudes, and actions may be impacted, for better or worse, by the attitudes prevalent in our society, or the milieu, in which we find ourselves.

But judges don’t really do that anymore.

The majority of judges today are drawn from the ranks of the District Attorney’s Office: they’re prosecutors.  Supposedly chosen because of their ability, knowledge of law, and character, they are more often chosen because they fit the “tough on crime” mold currently in vogue — which too often requires a tendency to look the other way on questionable ethical issues, or, at the very least, to ignore the overall systemic safeguards in favor of obtaining convictions — and because they’ve pleased the right people.

Which does not mean those who adhere to the laws of the United States, as written.

It does not mean this because the core laws of the United States are primarily written for the purpose of reigning in the government and those who work within the government do not want to be reigned in. Our public servants are irked that the bedrock principles of American law act as a brake on the otherwise unbridled power of “public servants.”

Which includes judges.

Yes, you wouldn’t know it from sitting in a courtroom, watching an ordinary citizen, or a private attorney, or even another public servant, receiving an ass-chewing from a judge, but judges aren’t actually meant to be demi-gods; they’re public servants.

Each of us in the legal system which acts to balance the varying interests and mediate the squabbles of the citizens of the Republic has a role to play.  Theoretically, prosecutors act to the best of their ability to ensure Justice is carried out.  To the extent that we think protecting society means protecting the rest of us from those who commit crimes, then protecting society is the job of the prosecution.

To the extent we think it includes protecting innocent people from losing their liberty interests, there are other players, other functions, other public services to be performed by other public servants within the legal system.

For example, defense attorneys have a different assignment. Our “goal,” if you will, is to force the prosecution to prove its case. We defend — not criminals — people accused of having committed crimes.  (They aren’t “criminals,” in the true meaning of that word, until and unless a conviction occurs.) Surprisingly, not everyone who is arrested and accused of committing a crime has actually done so. Our job is to work to ensure that people do not lose their liberty interests unless and until the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, their guilt; we fight to keep people from being convicted and saddled with a record, being fined, and being sent to jail or prison.

In that sense, we, too, work to protect the public.

In the middle of these two sides — the prosecution and the defense — sits the judge.

The job of the judge is to make sure that the other parties, in performing their duties, follow the laws of the State and the Federal Republic. Those chosen to be judges are supposed to be of the highest caliber, to have the most knowledge and discernment, and the temperament that will allow them to perform their duties without being swayed by the emotive aspects of either the defense, or the prosecution.  They are to favor neither side in the contest before them, but to make sure the contest remains subject to rules laid down through centuries of experimentation and experience in the pursuit of Justice and the proper balance of competing societal interests.

When a judge properly performs his or her function, the judge — just like the defense attorney — helps to ensure that the public is protected.

When a judge forgets his or her function, ignores the bedrock principles of our republic, such as (among other things) due process of law, to favor one side over another, then no amount of saying that it is being done for the protection of the public makes it true.  By abdicating the role assigned, by failing to perform duties spelled out in law so as to assist one side or the other, the judge helps to destroy public safety.

So it was that I was disturbed recently in the courtroom. A man arrested for a crime presented himself as ordered. The prosecution, having decided there was not enough evidence for a conviction, refused to file charges. The Probation Department, having realized that even under the incredibly low standards for probation violation hearings it could not prove its case, withdrew an alleged violation of probation.

The prosecution (in theory) must prove cases “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Probation merely has to win by a preponderance of evidence; in other words, it has to be “more likely than not” that the accused probationer committed the acts of which he is accused.  Neither the prosecution, nor probation, felt there was enough evidence for them to proceed. Both departments refused to proceed: the prosecution did not file charges; probation withdrew their original too-hastily-filed charge.

That should have been the end of it. After all, there were no charges pending — not even an allegation of violation of probation.

But then the judge, egged on by the Probation Department, indicated a desire to impose new restrictions upon the no-longer-legally-accused man.  “I am concerned about public safety. I am concerned that he continues to engage in behavior like that for which he was already convicted.”

This might be true. I don’t know. Neither does anyone else. There is currently no legal charge to which the man must answer. There is therefore no vehicle for the court to consider any new evidence, if such evidence exists. When even the Probation Department withdraws its charges from a lack of evidence to prove them, you know whatever “basis” for the accusation exists is weak.

At least, under the law.

The law the judge has sworn an oath to uphold.

The law whose intent is to protect the public.

As I said, not everyone accused of having done something illegal has actually done that something. That’s why we have courts. That’s why we have prosecutors. That’s why we have defense attorneys. That’s why we have judges.

When each of us performs the duties assigned to us, the system (in theory) works to protect the public safety.

It’s not a perfect system. When the system is working at its optimum, sometimes guilty people go free. Unfortunately and paradoxically, the better the system works to make sure guilty people do not go free, which is the aim the judge in this case apparently believes in, the more people who were not really guilty go to jail or prison. The judge here embraced not the proper role of ensuring the two adversarial parties to the contest followed the rules, but the improper role of making sure guilty people are punished.

Ensuring guilty people are punished is not a duty assigned to judges. That is the “job,” if you will, of the legal system as a whole.

When one of “us public servants” — any officer of the court — fails to perform the duties assigned to us, the system does not work to protect the public safety, neither in theory, nor in fact.

I do not know if the client I was representing actually did what they think he did. It is, of course, possible. It is, in fact, not proven. Nor can it be, at least at this point in time.

And so what the judge wants to do is wrong. It is a slap in the face of the Rule of Law. It is in direct contravention of judicial duty.

That does nothing to protect the public. I don’t think it’s going too far to say that it actually harms the public.

8 comments

  1. I was recently victimized by a narc perjuring a warrant affadavit, plain and simple. the search yeilded NO C.S.’s whatsoever, but I was charged with 2 felonies, manuf. cannabis and maintain. dwell. 5 k bond, 3 days in jail, attorney says no indictment so charges gone. Unless a person can afford counsel to sue civially, there is no recourse and the same cop can do this as many times as he likes. he is notorious in this region as i have found out. The only items seized were legal, and now I have to fight to get it back.

    Justice? Not unless you can write a fat check to a lawyer, and those people never get the treatment the rest of us do. A false rumor led a cop to invent a story from thin air that never happened and had No corroborative evidence. The DA’s all ignore the crimes of the cops and choose to allow judges and magistrates to become meaningless rubber stamps, just like in a police state. God help us.

  2. I was recently victimized by a narc perjuring a warrant affadavit, plain and simple. the search yeilded NO C.S.’s whatsoever, but I was charged with 2 felonies, manuf. cannabis and maintain. dwell. 5 k bond, 3 days in jail, attorney says no indictment so charges gone. Unless a person can afford counsel to sue civially, there is no recourse and the same cop can do this as many times as he likes. he is notorious in this region as i have found out. The only items seized were legal, and now I have to fight to get it back.

    Justice? Not unless you can write a fat check to a lawyer, and those people never get the treatment the rest of us do. A false rumor led a cop to invent a story from thin air that never happened and had No corroborative evidence. The DA’s all ignore the crimes of the cops and choose to allow judges and magistrates to become meaningless rubber stamps, just like in a police state. God help us.

  3. seems that the attorneys ought to have a one pager that they can give the “victims” with the information as to where they can file a complaint against the judge. many people don’t know they have the right to do this. maybe even the judicial council should consider posting such an annouocment outside the court rooms.

    By the way.. we will be having Berekley COPWATCH conduct a training on COPWATCHING in Fresno at the main library on Jan 15 times to be confirmed later on. people can contact me if they are interested in attending.

  4. seems that the attorneys ought to have a one pager that they can give the “victims” with the information as to where they can file a complaint against the judge. many people don’t know they have the right to do this. maybe even the judicial council should consider posting such an annouocment outside the court rooms.

    By the way.. we will be having Berekley COPWATCH conduct a training on COPWATCHING in Fresno at the main library on Jan 15 times to be confirmed later on. people can contact me if they are interested in attending.

  5. I have some thoughts on this, you’ll have to fill in the blanks. First of all,

    You haven’t named the judge or what he did. I believe that as a lawyer if you publicly criticize a member of the judiciary before whom you have appeared you might be soon be a lawyer no longer. I could be wrong about what I believe and please correct me if I am. This belief colors my perceptions.

    If what I believe is true, the rules about this must be rewritten and reflect accepted rules of what constitutes the tort of defamation. The process of punishing a judge or lawyer that publicly criticizes a member of the judiciary should be left to a civil court. The way I see it, if a judge blatantly violates the law and gets called on it the judge should have no recourse against the lawyer making the claim. If the claim is untrue then that judge should get a lawyer.

    Please entertain this aside as an example of colored perception.

    I had watched the news covering the reactions of people after the New Orleans Henry Glover murder case. The defense attorney for one of the defendants stated that he was making no criticism of the process, or he may have stated that he was making no criticism of the system. I believe that he repeated this twice. It might have been from the cold, or maybe from some neurological dysfunction, but the defense attorney was almost imperceptibly shaking.

    Afterwards I caught an interview with Jim Letten – thought of as a decent guy – and he praised the judge on camera. I heard no mention of the system or the process from Mr. Letten. I wish that Mr. Letten had confined his remarks to being pleased with the system or process, this wouldn’t have caused me to have that tiny thought of ‘did this judge do something that would cause Mr. Letten to praise him and the defense attorney to not make any mention of him?’

    Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that these police officers’ were guilty as charged of either murdering Henry Glover or assisting in the cover-up – there existed confessions or admissions, testimony from other officers’, etc… Therefore, ultimately whatever the judge may have done to upset the defense attorney, if the defense attorney was actually upset and not just cold, is actually irrelevant.

    I didn’t sit through the trial. I don’t know whether during that proceeding the defense attorney was not allowed to introduce evidence or testimony that may have made some difference in the outcome. I don’t know whether questionable testimony or evidence was allowed. I do know if that defense attorney actually had a complaint and was allowed to voice it without fear of repercussions that could put him in a homelesss shelter I’d have more confidence in the system, the process, and judges.

    If what I believe is true, I could see myself writing out for a criminal defendant every last thing a judge did that violated the law and telling that defendant to post it online. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I’d probably be seeing myself out of work.

  6. I have some thoughts on this, you’ll have to fill in the blanks. First of all,

    You haven’t named the judge or what he did. I believe that as a lawyer if you publicly criticize a member of the judiciary before whom you have appeared you might be soon be a lawyer no longer. I could be wrong about what I believe and please correct me if I am. This belief colors my perceptions.

    If what I believe is true, the rules about this must be rewritten and reflect accepted rules of what constitutes the tort of defamation. The process of punishing a judge or lawyer that publicly criticizes a member of the judiciary should be left to a civil court. The way I see it, if a judge blatantly violates the law and gets called on it the judge should have no recourse against the lawyer making the claim. If the claim is untrue then that judge should get a lawyer.

    Please entertain this aside as an example of colored perception.

    I had watched the news covering the reactions of people after the New Orleans Henry Glover murder case. The defense attorney for one of the defendants stated that he was making no criticism of the process, or he may have stated that he was making no criticism of the system. I believe that he repeated this twice. It might have been from the cold, or maybe from some neurological dysfunction, but the defense attorney was almost imperceptibly shaking.

    Afterwards I caught an interview with Jim Letten – thought of as a decent guy – and he praised the judge on camera. I heard no mention of the system or the process from Mr. Letten. I wish that Mr. Letten had confined his remarks to being pleased with the system or process, this wouldn’t have caused me to have that tiny thought of ‘did this judge do something that would cause Mr. Letten to praise him and the defense attorney to not make any mention of him?’

    Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that these police officers’ were guilty as charged of either murdering Henry Glover or assisting in the cover-up – there existed confessions or admissions, testimony from other officers’, etc… Therefore, ultimately whatever the judge may have done to upset the defense attorney, if the defense attorney was actually upset and not just cold, is actually irrelevant.

    I didn’t sit through the trial. I don’t know whether during that proceeding the defense attorney was not allowed to introduce evidence or testimony that may have made some difference in the outcome. I don’t know whether questionable testimony or evidence was allowed. I do know if that defense attorney actually had a complaint and was allowed to voice it without fear of repercussions that could put him in a homelesss shelter I’d have more confidence in the system, the process, and judges.

    If what I believe is true, I could see myself writing out for a criminal defendant every last thing a judge did that violated the law and telling that defendant to post it online. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I’d probably be seeing myself out of work.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free ePamphlet

Sign up for my newsletter and receive a free ePamphlet on "How to Hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer."

Recent Posts

Topics

Archives