On appeals courts, where judges typically rule in groups, collaboration is the rule. But trial judges are seen as solitary actors, the captains of their courtrooms, answerable only to a higher court. That is what makes a trial judge calling another for advice seem unusual to outsiders....I couldn't find anything in the article about what was "game-show-like," but I think we're just supposed to remember that on the old show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," contestants were allowed 3 "lifelines," one of which was "phone a friend." So... calling a colleague for help with a question you find hard could thus be "game-show-like."
Judge Ronnie Abrams, a former prosecutor appointed to the bench in 2012, said she had been “at both ends” of such calls. As a judge, she said, “you can’t talk about your job to too many people, and so it’s nice to use the kind of experience and perspective of your colleagues when appropriate.”
May 19, 2015
Federal district court judges call each other up when they're "puzzled by legal questions" and they've "been on the receiving end of the game-show-like call for help."
The NYT reports based on interviews with "a dozen judges in Manhattan’s Federal District Court."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Alert: judges are human and sometimes don't have all the answers.
This is not news to anyone who deals with judges on a routine basis. For the most part, they do their best to get it right.
Why is something this obvious considered newsworthy?
Lawyers do that with their trusted friend lawyers all of the time. That is what a network of contacts from law school and social and golf activity is all about.
And Judges are just lawyers who got a boring job.
When I have a difficult legal issue to resolve, it often helps me to discuss it with a colleague. Why should trial judges be different, except they have a narrower pool of colleagues?
"A judge is just a lawyer who knows the governor." Bo Ginn, in a Georgia political contest against Judge Norman Underwood.
It's settled. Can we move to something else now?
Sounds like a good idea. I'd much rather have the judge call a friend than just wing it and hope the appeals court will fix things if they get it too far wrong.
I find that even tho I thought I had been sure of my opinion on issues raised in this blog, comments, in agreement or disagreement can (a) sharpen my mind & make me surer of my opinion, (b) make me modify my opinion, or (c) make me realize that I might be wrong.
The same with discussion with intelligent people.
Look, a trial judge reads proposed jury charges from both sides, no?
One thing I apparently cannot do is verify all images with bread in the robot test!
What's odd is not that district judges call each other up and ask for advice. On the court of appeals, the reality is that almost all of the communication between the judges is by memo -- they don't talk to each other much, at least about the cases they are deciding.
the old show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"
What's old about it? It's still in production.
I guess this is news to lay people.
Two personal experiences from jury trials in state court, where more decisions are made on the fly without written briefing. In one case the judge allowed use of extremely prejudicial surprise impeachment evidence over our objection. Immediately after lunch he declared a mistrial based on his conversation with a colleague over lunch. In another case, the judge agreed to exclude a key witness who wasn't on the other side's witness list. Later in the trial he accused me of having led him into error following a conversation with a colleague.
I have great respect for trial judges as a class. Obviously, there are lousy trial judges, just as there are lousy bloggers, but in my experience, and in the much wider experience of the many trial lawyers I've talked to, they are generally pretty good in a difficult job.
What makes a trial judge good is (a) running an efficient and fair trial, (b) resolving evidentiary issues correctly, and (c) explaining things clearly to the jury. In a bench trial, where the judge is the trier of fact, add (d) keeping track of all the evidence on both sides. Resolving difficult legal issues is rarely an important trial judge function -- it's more important to know and apply correctly appellate court rulings on the legal issues.
In those relatively rare cases where a trial judge has to decide difficult legal issues for which there is no definitive appellate precedent, conferring with other trial judges sounds like a sound practice. Trial lawyers may object to it because they thought they could put one over on this judge, but -- hey-- tough!
Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska is a good trial judge and maybe the only one in the nation with a blog. He only writes it because he is senior status.
No Althouse, but still quite good.
www.herculesandtheumpire.com
Althouse chose "game show like" rather than "captains of their courtrooms" to elucidate?
Ain't never been no captain of a ship who had an adversarial legal system running his crew, nor a panel of citizens deciding the truth of the mission before him.
"Captains of their courtrooms" was a wackily incorect metaphor.
Post a Comment