The legislature-approved salary increase of 4 percent over two years was in line with Governor Scott Walker’s recommendation, but far below the 16 percent increase requested by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack. The Wisconsin judiciary currently ranks 43rd nationwide in judicial pay.
What just happened? May 2017 roundup
The month in a nutshell: the interdependence between courts and their environment (legislatures, the bar, political parties, and the communities they serve) is on full display.
May 2017 was another busy month for courts and the public they serve. Throughout the month, we got a taste of the past, present, and future of state judicial elections. In Illinois, a judge elected last November refused to take his assigned seat on the traffic court bench, an unusual breach of internal norms that eventually led to his resignation. In Pennsylvania, voters went to the polls to choose their judges, resulting in at least one instance in a non-lawyer ascending to the bench. And in New York, judicial hopefuls rubbed elbows with the political party bosses who have de facto control over judicial selection at the trial court level.
Efforts to fill vacancies on the federal courts were slow but steady. President Trump named ten nominees to various federal courts, including three current state judges. But infighting among Senators raised the specter of revising the traditional “blue-slip” policy that gives home-state Senators effective veto power over nominees.
Internationally, both Israel and Jordan witnessed important reforms to their judiciaries. Venezuela’s Supreme Court was subjected to U.S. economic sanctions for their role in supporting their country’s corrupt government. In Ontario, one judge was reprimanded for failing to explain her decisions, while her counterparts pushed back against mandatory sexual assault training.
Courts worldwide made changes that had significant ripple effects on their communities, including courier services, bail bondsmen, and the local bar.
And external forces influenced courts as well. Judges in Oregon struggled with ways to enforce jury duty obligations, while courts in Kansas discussed whether shield the identity of jurors. Six state courts signed on to a regional agreement to combat opioid addiction. Texas judges benefited from two bills, one to increase court security and another making attacks on judges a hate crime.
Supreme Court suspends the wrong lawyer — how did that happen?
On Tuesday, Will Baude pointed out an unusual, unsigned order coming out the Supreme Court: “Due to mistaken identity, the order suspending Christopher Patrick Sullivan of Boston, Massachusetts from the practice of law in this Court, dated May 15, 2017, is vacated.”
The AP’s Mark Sherman soon followed up. It seems that the Court intended to suspend Christopher P. Sullivan, a Vermont attorney who is now in prison for DUI hit-and-run. Instead, it targeted another Christopher P. Sullivan, a prominent Boston attorney who is president-elect of the Massachusetts Bar Association. Everyone seems to agree that it was an honest mistake, that was resolved quickly. As the Boston Herald explained yesterday: “If you live in New England and have an Irish name, chances are someone else has it, too.”
But how did this happen, especially for an organization that, as Mark Sherman noted, “sometimes debates the placement of a comma”? Continue reading “Supreme Court suspends the wrong lawyer — how did that happen?”
North Carolina Court of Appeals update
Last month I reported on a fast-moving battle between North Carolina’s Republican legislature and Democratic governor over the state’s Court of Appeals. The legislature proposed a bill to shrink the size of the court in order to deny the governor additional appointments. In response, a court of appeals judge took early retirement so that the governor could make an interim appointment before the bill was passed. Literally fifteen minutes later, the governor appointed John Arrowood, a former judge who had lost his seat in a previous election, to the Court of Appeals for a second time.
Now it appears that the saga will continue for the next two years. Andrew Heath, a trial judge appointed last December by the previous governor, has announced that he will challenge Judge Arrowood for his seat in the 2018 election. Stay tuned.
San Francisco courts stop issuing warrants for “quality of life” infractions
Judges in San Francisco no longer issue warrants for unpaid fines or failure to appear in court when the underlying infraction is a so-called quality of life crime like loitering, sleeping in a park, or urinating in public. The courts characterize the change as a nod to the reality of the city’s homeless population: many of those cited simply lack the means to pay fines, and jail time is not considered a constructive punishment.
The decision has been criticized by many public officials:
The mayor’s office told local newspapers that judges were shirking their duty and throwing away opportunities to help the homeless.
San Francisco Police Officers Association President Martin Halloran said the court was sending a bad message.
“We get thousands upon thousands of calls a year about quality-of-life concerns by the residents of this city,” he said. “With no consequence now, with none whatsoever, there’s no reason why anyone has to obey the law.”
Cities have long struggled to thread the needle between public health and safety on the one hand, and the humane treatment of the homeless on the other. It will be interesting to see the effects of the approach taken here.
Jordanian King stresses judicial independence, competence, efficiency
Jordan’s King Abdullah has endorsed the recommendations of the Royal Committee for Developing the Judiciary and Enhancing the Rule of Law.
The King outlined the priorities of the council; namely, accelerating litigation and the execution of court rulings, establishing specialised courtrooms and better harnessing technology to serve the set goals of judicial reform.
His Majesty stressed that the economic and investment environment cannot be improved without an effective and independent judiciary.
He underlined the importance of supporting judges and improving their competence with continuous training.
Other Arab countries have similarly recognized in recent years that a stable and competent judicial system is critical to economic growth. But it is one thing to support judicial independence and the rule of law in principle, and quite another to maintain those values in a challenging political climate.
Ontario judge reprimanded for repeatedly failing to give reasons for her decisions
The Ontario Court of Appeal has formally reprimanded a trial judge for repeatedly failing to give reasons for her decisions in a timely manner. The reprimand came after an appeal for a new trial in a domestic violence case filed in 2014. The judge acquitted the defendant, stating from the bench that she had been left with reasonable doubt as to his guilt. But the judge never provided written reasons for her decision–as was required–even after being asked repeatedly for them as late as September 2016. Citing several previous violations of the same judicial responsibility, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]he trial judge’s failure to give reasons, despite her repeated promises to do so, has frustrated the proper administration of justice.”
Whereas juries need not provide any justification for their decisions, it is part and parcel of the judicial role. The legitimacy of a judicial decision rests less on its ultimate accuracy and more on its ability to state principled reasons for the result in a clear and comprehensible way.
Behold, the British law clerk
At the Faculty Lounge, Steve Lubet has a highly entertaining post about the world of the British law clerk — “a combination major domo, operations manager, and bill collector, whose function bears no resemblance to legal or judicial clerks in the United States.” The post, and the longer article to which it links, are both well worth the read.
Texas legislature passes bill designating attacks on judges as hate crimes
The bill would make attacks on judges and police officers–whether verbal or physical–a hate crime in the state. “Terroristic threats” could carry a two-year prison sentence, a simple assault could lead to up to 20 years in prison, and assault leading to serious bodily injury could be punishable by 99 years to life in prison.
The bill now advances to Governor Greg Abbott for signature.
Budget constraints will temporarily close Iowa’s district and juvenile courts
Iowa’s juvenile and district courts will not schedule any appearances this coming Friday, and all clerk of court and administrative offices will be closed. Court staff will instead take a mandatory, unpaid furlough day. The move stemmed from budget cuts by the state legislature.
The Interdependent Third Branch 