Justice perverted

[cmort666]

The problem isn't that she may have helped jail an innocent. The problem is we don't know if she helped jail an innocent.

What that judge did was to render EVERY decision she EVER made suspect. If she's favoring the prosecution, did she ever favor the defense... for money? Google "Greylord" to see where that leads.

By doing that, she rendered the entire legal process in that jurisdiction suspect, because now people will wonder who ELSE is doing that, and to what extent police and prosecutors are complicit and violating the law.

I come from a place where judgments have literally been for sale like bags of rock. Trust me you don't want to go there.

She's fundamentally sabotaged the "justice" system in that jurisdiction and she should serve jail time for it.

 

[tomf52]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys. No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted. It does seem the prosecutor wasn't up to speed, and that the judge was significantly more aware of what they should have been doing and asking. But no where is there the suggestion the criminals weren't guilty. She just helped put the bad guys away. Maybe she's missed her calling and should become a law professor.

Where I come from, we kind of want the bad guys in jail or at least convicted. I thought the standard of justice in Texas was to give them a fair trial and then hang them! There is an implication that the trials weren't fair because the judge had her thumb on the scales. But now it seems more like she was just making sure the prosecutor presented a better case than he was able to do on his own. I don't see where she was cheating the criminal. If he was innocent, maybe there'd be a reason to raise some stink. No suggestion that was what took place, she was just training the boy..

I admit that if I were on trial, I'd hate having questions asked that nailed me. But I'm not seeing the questions as being out of line, just that she was helping a maybe incompetent prosecutor do his job.


What????!!!!!

 

[S&W45Colt]

As far as guilty getting sentenced, and innocent getting off, that's what it looks like so far.

OK....you stick with that assumption, logical fallacy aside. I do not see how anyone other than a politician could argue ethics and most likely laws were broken, but we should trust the result. You are entitled to your opinion, none the less.

 

[GerSan69]

Well, I disagree with most of ya. Getting kind of overblown with the "hang 'em high" stuff. Unethical? Maybe. Illegal? Probably not.
Judges correct attorneys all the time. Usually, it's by calling them up to the bench, sometimes by embarrassing them in front of everybody. A lot of times, judges will ask a question themselves to clarify an answer from a witness. I've had that happen several times. If either attorney doesn't like how the judge asks, they can object.
I said "maybe" unethical because the only problem I see is the manner in which the judge interjected herself. Texting is not a substitute for a sidebar conversation IMHO. But given that the defendant was acquitted anyway, no harm-no foul. I don't see her getting anything but a reprimand letter.
It's a problem for the Bar Association to figure out, that's all.

 

[cmort666]

No where in the discussion did I hear anyone suggest that a criminal defendant was wrongly convicted.

Immaterial.

It is NOT the job of judges to "put bad guys away".

It's the job of judges to fairly and impartially administer the application of the law. That clearly was NOT done.

What that judge did was call into question EVERYTHING she's EVER done, AND give EVERY criminal who's ever been convicted in her court an avenue for appeal.

 

[cmort666]

But given that the defendant was acquitted anyway, no harm-no foul.

That's like saying, "That escaped felon tried to shoot you during a traffic stop, but he was a lousy shot and missed, no harm no foul."

Even the APPEARANCE of impropriety in the courts creates mistrust and disrespect for the law.

Hear that faint scratching sound in the distance? That's the attorneys for everybody ever convicted in her court furiously taking notes in preparation for their appeals.

 

[cmort666]

OK....you stick with that assumption, logical fallacy aside. I do not see how anyone other than a politician could argue ethics and most likely laws were broken, but we should trust the result. You are entitled to your opinion, none the less.

I GUARANTEE you that there's a line of defense attorneys queuing up in anticipation of filing their appeals on the basis of a pattern of PROVEN judicial bias and misconduct in that court.

Were innocent people convicted? Don't know.

Will guilty people now possibly get off because of her? Quite possibly.

The last time I looked, I couldn't find it, but there's a spot on quote of Erwin Rommel on the subject of the harm that industrious idiots can cause.

 

[cmort666]

I finally found that Rommel quote, and it OH so perfectly fits the judge in question:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" - Erwin Rommel -

Correction - The apparent real source of the quote is allegedly Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.

 

[GerSan69]

That's like saying, "That escaped felon tried to shoot you during a traffic stop, but he was a lousy shot and missed, no harm no foul."

Even the APPEARANCE of impropriety in the courts creates mistrust and disrespect for the law.

Hear that faint scratching sound in the distance? That's the attorneys for everybody ever convicted in her court furiously taking notes in preparation for their appeals.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You're making this out to be a lot more than it is. While the judge may have made an error in the means of communication, the communication itself was really quite routine because judges ask stuff like that during trials all the time. You all seem to think this criminal justice "system" should have these steel-clad rigid rules and the penitentiary awaits those who dare to cross any boundary. Reality is, it's just not like that. Yes, laws and certain rules must be upheld. No doubt. But you're making like a judge asking a question thru the DA is a capital offense and clearly, it's no such thing. If you're going to play this game, you have to parse the situation...
1. Judge basically asks a question thru the DA by giving the DA the question. Is it OK? Probably. Judges can ask questions.
2. Judge texts instead of calling attorneys to a sidebar. Is it OK? No. It's lazy and looks bad.
3. Did it prejudice the jury? No, they acquitted him.
Now - name a law that was broken. I'll answer myself: there isn't one.
Maybe a procedural error? Probably. Judges aren't supposed to have improper contacts with attorneys on either side. There's no law against that, though. Here, improper is in the eye of the beholder. The judge wanted a question asked. She clearly went about it the wrong way. She didn't promise to convict the defendant no matter what. There's a difference. The defendant was not convicted wrongly because of the judge's behavior - therefore, "no harm, no foul."
So the bottom line is, the judge made herself look bad. She "may" have violated a procedure, but we don't send people to jail for that. There would have been a "sanction" of some sort, such as a written reprimand, but she chose to resign and that ends the case.
They also won't "revisit" each and every case this judge ever tried, because conduct in the current case has no bearing on previous ones, unless there's proof positive that this conduct occurred in every other case.
Don't go thinking in absolutes, guys. That's not how it works.

 

[LVSteve]

There would have been a "sanction" of some sort, such as a written reprimand, but she chose to resign and that ends the case.

That is a common theme in many areas of public service, and it makes my blood boil. However, I'll bet this is not the end of the case as far as legal action against that jurisdiction is concerned.

 

[Road Rat]

That is a common theme in many areas of public service, and it makes my blood boil. However, I'll bet this is not the end of the case as far as legal action against that jurisdiction is concerned.

LVSteve, the latest American citizen.................right on!!!

We can only hope this judge gets brought up on charges.

That is in spite of the input from some members who's opinions scare the bee-jesus out of me.........I'm sure I do NOT want to be in their court room in Texas!!!

 

[mc5aw]

As a fan of irony, I would like to see the judge in question prosecuted by those she contacted, using the prosecutorial strategies she promoted.

 

[Doug M.]

There may or may not be a charge for the unlawful acts engaged in Texas or other states, but I can assure you that there is in Washington and I would HAPPILY file and try it. Official Misconduct, RCW 9A.80.010 would fit, and maybe some others. The good thing about this charge is that it makes clear that there is a forfeiture of office and of eligibility for government employment of any type for life pursuant to RCW 9.92.120. (There is also some case law from 1993 that holds that ANY such conviction for any misconduct in office related to the duties of the office has that effect, but we have had difficulty getting some other government attorneys to understand and apply that.)