Dick, you're wrong. You're wrong on general principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence going back to at least the Magna Carta and maybe back to the Roman roots of the system; wrong on foundational American political theory about the criminal legal process and the rights of the parties; wrong on the general ethics of the process, and certainly wrong on the judicial ethics rules, and those applicable to attorneys. This is truly conduct that shocks the conscience.
I've been a cop and a prosecutor in two states. I have served as a part time judicial officer in a small city a few times, covering for a friend who had conflicts or had to be elsewhere. My token defense work was for a friend's kid who got a traffic ticket - the trooper who wrote it is a mutual friend and actually gave me a ride home after court. More than a few people, including judges, have told me I would be a good judge especially in the appellate setting. I have a pretty good idea of the roles of each party in the courtroom.
We all have roles, and we need to stick with them. A prosecutor is an advocate, but is also "a minister of justice". Obtaining justice, not merely getting convictions is our duty and an ongoing goal. Do things get sideways? You bet. We have a mandate to try like hell to be right in what we do, though. One of my tats is a scale of justice framed by "RPC (rule of professional conduct) 3.8" on the top, and "Do Justice" on the bottom. It matters, and any prosecutor (or defense attorney) who would accept conduct like this needs to be disbarred and prosecuted too (and that's the polite, lawful version). Anyone who knew and didn't report it, too. Have I had off the record chats with judges and opposing counsel
after a case is over about the state of the law, and our view of the case? Hell yeah. Many. Might have even been mentored on trial practice, or told a judicial officer that I thought they were flat out wrong. That's allowed, and part of how we all learn. Can't do anything that looks like that while the decision is pending though.
BUT: a judge is supposed to be neutral and detached. Are they? Probably not - everyone has biases and views, and judges are human (well... sorta)
. Actions such as this cannot be taken with a case pending. This is such a perversion of the judicial code of ethics that she should NEVER be able to practice law or anything like it. I heard a case as a judge (bench trial, no jury) that made me crazy (crazier
), because I knew damned well the defendant was doing something that he should not have been. I even believed that I could rule in that manner without personal consequences. I did not do it, because ruling on the evidence is the duty of a fact finder, and the evidence did not support finding the offense committed. (Part of the problem being that the city ordinance was badly written and way out of date, which could not be fixed in that setting.) I may have told off the defendant after ruling in his favor, in front of the officer, prosecutor, and defense attorney, but I made the decision I was mandated to make.
We have a state constitutional provision in WA that a judge cannot comment on the evidence. In essence, this is part of keeping the process not only fair, but appearing fair to all watching or involved. There is a specific pattern jury instruction for criminal cases warning the jury to disregard it if they got the impression that the judge was commenting on the evidence when making a ruling. That's one of the reasons that some objections are argued outside the presence of the jury. Telling a jury that it is in deliberations anything but the legal standard to apply? Unacceptable. Any contact outside the courtroom, with both counsel and the defendant present? Hell no. Texting "tips" about the conduct of the case? Not in a zillion years. This anal pore has defecated all over the rights of the defendants, on the rules of the system, and the expectations of all citizens that the people in the system will stick to their roles and the rules that apply.
I assume the worst of people. I am rarely proven wrong. That's the reality of our system. Most of the people who come in as defendants are guilty. Overwhelmingly. BUT: that's for a jury to decide, based on the law and the evidence. That's why we have a jury - to protect the defendants from bitter old guys like me.
