Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

Recently there has been a lot of discussion concerning President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, there are those who support the nomination, and those who don’t. Both sides try to frame their argument in terms of what a good Supreme Court Justice should be. Those arguments have descended to the point of ridiculousness.

The focus has become on the proper influence a judge’s background should have. Those opposing the nomination argue that it should have no effect; they view the comment that she sees herself as a Latina judge as offensive.

It is hard to come up with a more ridiculous argument. Everything about any person, from what you put on in the morning to what you eat for breakfast is determined by your upbringing and experience. We are all a product of our life experiences. Hopefully we have learned things along the way, but you cannot divorce yourself from who you are and more than you can change your physical make up.

The proper focus should be on what sort of person we want to be a Supreme Court judge. In the past it has been almost entirely federal court judges. Basically, it has been a promotion from one court to another. While there is some logic to appointing someone with judicial experience, there is also a drawback. More than any other court, the Supreme Court has an impact on every person in America. It specifically has an impact on those involved in the court system, especially the trial courts. Unfortunately, very few Supreme Court judges have ever served as trial court judges. To me, that is significant because they are telling those judges what to do, without any understanding of its impact. There simply is no similarity between a Court of Appeals judge and a trial court judge in terms of what they do on a daily basis. Courts of Appeals review cases on paper, while trial judges see cases as they are happening.

I’m all for diversity, and believe it will be a good thing to bring a different perspective. However, I question how different the perspective of Judge Sotomayor is really going to be. While she may come from a different background, her work experience is no different than the other judges. She has basically been a federal court of appeals judge; as such she has no more insight into the daily workings of the justice system than your average citizen.

Personally, I would like to see at least one judges who has worked “in the trenches”, whether it be a trial judge, or a trial lawyer. They see up close real people, and real problems, and see the effects those problems have on them. No one who has watched a mother sob uncontrollably as her son is led away to prison, or seen the effects of crime on a victim as they testify can say that has not effected them. They see good police officers, and they see those who they wouldn't trust to tell them the correct time. They know there is always more than one side to a story. They are in touch - as much as an outsider can be - with life on the streets. Unfortunately, I don’t think we will ever have a Supreme Court justice who can bring us that perspective.

Despite the rhetoric, I seriously doubt that Judge Sotemayor's nomination is in jeopardy. I hope she will bring a diferent insight to the court. I for one hope she is influenced by her background and upbringing. I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's not surprising that the blawgosphere is buzzing over the ethics complaint filed against Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Both Scott Greenfield and Mark Bennett have weighed in on the issue. Grits collects some of the numerous editorials that have come out. As you would imagine, no one is coming to her defense.

The complaint contains additional details that were not well known. We knew that she instructed the clerk's office to close at 5:00, even though she knew MIchael Richard's lawyers were planning on filing a request for stay. Some of the other facts are truly outstanding, and show the mentality that is far to common among criminal court judges.

It appears a little thing someone's life wasn't going to get in the way of really important things; she had to go home to meet a repairman. After all, everyone would want to make sure everything in her house was working properly. Some of the justices were actually taking their job seriously; they stayed late to review the anticipated filing. They were never told that the clerk's office had been closed, and nothing could be filed. Apparrently they expressed their surprise the following day, and were never told what had happened. This included Justice Cheryl Johnson who actually had the responsibility of ruling on Richard's requests.

That conduct illustrates an extreme, that in lesser measure is far too common; judges don't see defendants as real people, with real families. They are viewed as defendants - convicted criminals. No matter what they have done, they are still people, and deserve some respect. That respect at a minimum should include actually reviewing their case before making a decision. It also includes putting your job ahead of your personal interests. I firmly believe that we will be judged by how we treat the least among us; that includes people like Michael Richard.

Justice Keller is now basically a defendant. Although criminal charges are not a possibiity, these proceedings will determine her future. I'm reasonably sure she wants to be treated with respect; she probably expects more because of her position as a Justice on the Court of Criminal Appeals. She will probably get a full and fair hearing. No one is going to close the office, or go home early. Everyone will bend over backward to ensure she is treated fairly. She will probably get the benefit of every right she is entitled, even those she thinks defendants shouldn't have. Fortunately for her, she will probably get to exercise the very rights that she has voted to extinquish - rights like due process, confrontation and even the presumption of innocence.

Fortunately for society its rare for a judge to become a defendant. When they do, I'm sure their perpective. All those rights they think should be limited suddenly become important. We will have to wait and see what happens - I have no idea. One thing I do know t hough; I doubt there are many people in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that are upset about what is happening.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several weeks ago the trial of a prominent local civic leader ended abruptly with a guilty plea. While a mid-trial plea is not unusual, how this one came about was. Before the trial started, the judge refused to accept a plea that included 9 years in prison, and restitution. Apparently, the judge indicated he was not going to accept any plea that did not include at least 15 years in prison. At the time though, that was not even a possibility; the State had dismissed several counts that reduced the charges from a first degree felony to a third degree, and therefore the maximum punishment possible was ten years.

The judge was upset with the State for dismissing the charges, and accused them of trying to circumvent his authority. He eventually gave in, and at a break told the parties he was willing to reconsider the plea agreement. After additional negotiations, she accepted what appeared to be the original agreement.

The case raises questions about what role the judge has or should play in plea bargaining. The law is fairly clear that a judge cannot participate in plea bargaining; the question is when a judge steps over the bounds. A judge has the ultimately authority to accept or reject a plea agreement, so there was no problem with the judge refusing to accept the agreement. A judge walks a fine line when he states why he won't accept an agreement, especially when he indicates what he will accept. The line is far from clear, but at some point a court will declare a judge became too involved in the plea negotiations.

Why can't a judge take part in plea bargaining? The most basic reason is the inequality in power; neither side wants to alienate the judge who is presiding over the case. Another reason is based on the division of functions in the criminal justice system; the judge is supposed to be impartial, and not take sides. When the judge takes part in plea bargaining he comes down in favor of one side - usually its on the prosecution side. That position has to be  based on assumptions about the case, which may or may not be accurate. Also, a judge should be neutral; that neutrality is questioned when he takes a position on plea bargaining. If negotiations fall through, the court's decisions may be questioned since he has already indicated his position on the case.

The division of functions also  means the State controls what to charge. In this case, there was nothing improper about the State dismissing charges. They knew the facts, and based on that knowledge would have an opinion on what a proper resolution should be. If someone doesn't like the decision, there is a political solution; you can not  re-elect the prosecutor. The judge may not like the decision, but their job is to judge the case brought before them. They cannot, and should not, tell the State what charges to file. In this case.

The criminal justice system functions smoothly most of the time. It can fall apart though when one of the parties steps outside their role. When judges side with either the prosecution or defense, there are problems. The job of a judge is to be neutral and impartial; it is not to see that someone is prosecuted, or avoids punishment.

I'm sure there is more to the story in this case, as there are in most cases. While it should play no part in a judge's decision making, public sentiment appears to be equally divided; some think she got off too easy, while some think she was punished too harshly. Perhaps that is the definition of a fair and reasonable resolution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks