328. A great judge, except for that
I was reminded of Daniel J. Martinez (see post 327) by the case of Judge Restaino (see post 326). Soon after Martinez was acquitted of two extraordinarily brutal crimes that he almost certainly committed, setting off an entirely justified uproar, a friend of the Martinez family wrote a letter to the editor of the Santa Fe Reporter, the alternative weekly.
Unfortunately the Reporter's online archives don't go back beyond 2000 and so I can't link to or even quote from the letter. But I remember the gist: the writer had known Daniel for years, and he was a great guy except for when he lost his temper, and that didn't happen very often.
I was reminded of that by Raoul Felder's dissent from the order determining that Judge Restaino should be removed from office. Felder wrote:
The record establishes that respondent, after a long period of personal stress, while presiding in a domestic violence part, simply “snapped” when he heard a cell phone go off in his courtroom and engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness. The record also establishes that his conduct over those two hours was a total aberration from his character and demeanor as a judge for eleven years (and previously as public defender for ten years) and that he has received the support and praise of his judicial colleagues, court personnel and community leaders.
So just as Daniel Martinez was a great guy when he wasn't mad enough to rape or shoot anybody, Judge Restaino was a fine judge when he wasn't outrageously abusing his power. You know, I don't really have any reason to doubt either evaluation. (Though I do note that, at least in Felder's listing, Restaino's supporters didn't include lawyers who had practiced before him.)
Felder's dissent is actually quite thoughtful and he makes the powerful point that other New York judges have managed to keep their jobs despite behavior that would shame Bob Ewell. But he also recycles a couple tired themes.
First: "I cannot find it within myself to destroy this individual’s professional life over this regrettable episode." Leaving aside the one-free-bite attitude, and the hint of moral preening, how does removing a judge from the bench destroy his professional life? Only if "professional life" is used as a synonym for "career as a judge." By that standard, every time Felder's firm informs an associate it's time to move on, the firm is destroying that person's professional life, because his or her career at the firm is over. Has Felder ever found it within himself to do that?
Being a judge is a job. All that will happen to Restaino is that he returns to his prior job, practicing law. The very fact that he voluntarily exposed himself to all the publicity his case has garnered shows how important his current job is to him. From his point of view, it probably feels like the destruction of his professional life. But when the exercise of power becomes that important to a person - more important, self-evidently, than avoiding public humiliation - it's time to relieve him of it.
Second:
I am constrained to comment on Commission counsel’s attempt to belittle respondent’s explanation that he “snapped” because of personal stresses in his life. Although Commission counsel argues that such an explanation is not believable because no single triggering event in his personal life had occurred that morning and that prolonged stress cannot explain a temporary loss of reason, I believe that simple human experience has shown that that is simply untrue.
I don't know if Felder has ever been a judge, but he's mastered judge-speak: he's "constrained" to comment in the sense that that word means "want." And I rather doubt that Commission counsel would have described his argument as an "attempt to belittle" Restaino's explanation.
It's classic judge-sniping to say a person tried but failed to accomplish something that in itself is disreputable. My favorite example is Justice Brennan on a majority opinion written by Justice Rehnquist in a criminal case: "The Court's attempted obfuscation in Part II, ante, at 135-139, of its total disregard of the statutory mandate is a transparent failure."
You can practically hear Rehnquist muttering, "Foiled again! I thought that this time, at long last, my disregard of the statutory mandate would be sufficiently obfuscated to slip past him!" In the same way, no doubt Commission counsel said in a voice thick with frustration: "Curses! I thought I could belittle the judge's explanation, but it remains the same size as when I began!"
In real life, probably Commission counsel was actually arguing something more along the lines of what the Commission eventually declared in its majority opinion: "every judge is obliged to set aside his or her personal problems upon entering the courtroom".
You only have to scratch the surface of Felder's remark to see something else. Restaino's defense, in essence, was that he shouldn't have been on the bench at all that day, because he was mentally unfit to perform the duties of his office. That was very like Florida Judge Sloop's defense of his similar behavior (he ordered the arbitrary imprisonment of a bunch of people called for jury duty) on the ground that his mental handicaps rendered him incapable of professional competence. (See post 87.)
I sympathize with anyone who's feeling overwhelmed and stressed-out on the job. But when those feelings become too huge to contain within the vessels of our skins, it's time to look for another job. Mental or emotional incapacity is a reason for removing a judge from a position he can't handle, not a reason for keeping him there.
Joel Jacobsen
in Judging the judges, Individual judges, Legal rhetoric
|
1 Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
Trial: April 21, 2008
Dallas, Texas
Criminal District Court No. 05
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXe40XLPGjk&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8wYaOsCVRCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFifvU9WjQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4bmYb8JLQI
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/pt/slideshows/2008/01/010308_exonerated
Making The Walls Transparent website:
www.angelfire.com/crazy4/texas/
http://www.angelfire.com/crazy4/texas/fakedrugsfakevictims.html
www.angelfire.com/crazy4/texas/taxpayerquestions.htm
State of Texas v. Lakeith Amir-Sharif
F0525061, F0559639, MA0521971,MA0425257
To find many of the answers as to why there was a Fake Drug Scandal in Dallas, and why 15 recently exonerated citizens were railroaded to prison, and why 400 plus others imprisoned citizens from Dallas County alone are claiming they were wrongful convicted and that DNA testing will prove their innocence, you need to look no further than the case of Lakeith Amir-Sharif and the many things MTWT, Justice Watch, Prison Legal News (PLN) and others have pointed out to the world via MTWT's website and other sources. Today, the wrongfully accused is Sharif, but tomorrow it could be you, or someone you know or care about.
For all those interested, a Public Records Request will verify everything that MTWT is saying regarding the case of Lakeith Amir-Sharif:
1. Thus far the prosecution of Lakeith Amir-Sharif has costed taxpayers over two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). Why? This is not a murder case.
2.The allaged victim/witness, Cathy Jonette Hawkins is a vindictive, and heartbrokken ex-girlfriend who has committed perjury in her three criminal complaint affidavits, filed Nov. 23, 2004; Feb. 10, 2005 and Sept. 01, 2005. This same individual has given contradictory and inconsistent testimony about the alleged crimes. The DA's office has ignored all of this, why?
3.Police officers from the Farmers Branch Police Department committed perjury in their affidavits presented to the magistrate judge to obtain an arrest warrant for the alleged Stalking charge. in those affidavits the officers falsely claimed on numerous occassions that they had responded to calls to Ms. Hawkins place of employment and home regarding criminal acts perpetuated by Sharif.
There is "NO" police report on file that shows the Farmers Branch Police responded to Ms. Hawkins home, and only two reports can be found that they responded to her job. Only one of the dates given in their affidavits match the numerous dates given to they alleged when seeking the arrest warrant.
4. The Stalking charge is "statutorily invalid" and was known to be so by the Bill Hill administration when it was presented to the Grand Jury. The Texas Penal Code at sec. 42.07 requires two (2) reported incidents of stalking, yet there is "NO" two police report of stalking on file with either the Dallas or farmers Branch Police Departments. Why, was this charge ever processed and why are tax dollars still being used to prosecute this case?
5. For 16 1/2 months while Sharif sat in the Dallas County Jail, he was court-appointed two different attorneys and neither of these attorneys filed any motions on Sharif's behalf. These court-appointed attorneys also "NEVER":
a. Conducted any investigations, to prepare a defense.
b. Requested any subpoenas to obtain security footage available that could of proven that Sharif was not anywhere in the area at the time alleged in the Stalking complaint.
c. Requested any subpoenas to obtain telephone records, pawn store receipts, and other financial statements of the victim and Sharif, which would of discredited Ms. Hawkins claims that she had broken off her relationship and she was not intimately involved with Sharif after mid 2004 and all of 2005. Why hasn't the DA's office verified this?
5. Ms. Hawkins wrote a letter stating Sharif is "innocent". Why, has the judges, the DA's and even Sharif's court-appointed attorneys suppressed this evidence? Why hasn't a handwriting expert been sought if the letters authenticity is in question? Why hasn't Ms. hawkins herself been questioned about this letter if truth and justice is what these proceeding are actually about?
6. Sharif has been denied his Constitutional right to a speedy trial on a 2004 misdemeanor charge involving Ms. Hawkins. Why despite numerous request from Sharif has the judges and his court-appointed attorneys refused to grant him his day in court on this charge? He has more than enough time served, so why is the DA's office wasting tax dollars by prosecuting it?
7. Sharif was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon(to wit: a car) causing serious bodily injury. First, the alleged vicitm Ms. Hawkins suffered "NO" injuries, repeat "NO" injuries.
Next, Ms. Hawkins ran into Sharif with her car knocking him onto her hood and causing Sharif to have to be hospitalized. Why wasn't Ms. hawkins charged by the DA's office for this crime. After Ms.Hawkins assaulted Sharif, she alleges that Sharif hit her cars rear end when she abruptly slammed on brakes to avoid striking the exit gate at their apartment complex. Why is Sharif charged with a criminal offense?
There are many more red flags and unethical behind-the-scene activitives inn the case of Sharif. If we continue to deprive citizens of their legal and Constutioanl rights then we will be no better then the Nazi's. each of you receiving his email have a stake in the quality of our justice system and the perception that the nation and world has of the State of Texas.