- Quickdraw McLaw
- 51 Comments
- 359 Views
We see a lot of comments about the actions of judges and whether or not they are being judicial or have a judicial temperament. But what exactly makes up a good judicial temperament? If you haven’t been following the news, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, a Michigan state court judge, sentenced Larry Nassar, a doctor who assaulted US Gymnastics team members, to 175 years in prison. Her demeanor and actions during the sentencing are drawing both criticism and praise. What do you think about how she handled it? (Here’s an article from USA Today about it for those not up to speed.)
Nassar deserves to rot in hell. But this judge clearly reveled in her opportunity to grandstand and preen for a week. I'm 100% sure that she goes to bed every night wondering if this will make her the next Judge Judy. I definitely found the judge distasteful.
They interviewed her "literary agent" as part of an article on being judicial. Kudos to the Judge who stood up and said that it was disgraceful because it was disgraceful. Nassar should die in jail but no judge should revel in someone rotting and lives lost.
I keep waiting for one of the victims to stand up and tell the truth which is that nothing that Aquilina did makes them whole and makes them no longer victims. You don't have that power Judge. You aren't that powerful, no matter how much glee you get from presiding over my pain.
That judge is a Cooley Grad
Of course she is!
I for one am surprised she is a Cooley grad.
I thought she was Boyd '13.
This Judge was disgraceful. Horrible. She will be praised by the torches and pitchfork crew. She will be criticized by anyone who believes in being judicial.
Inappropriate in every way. That's how Trump would act if he were a judge.
Do your effing job and don't editorialize, your honor. That type on nonsense has no place in a courtroom.
Typical elected judge….
My favorite part was when she said she wished she could sentence him to gang rape, but we have that pesky 8th Amendment. No, I'm not being facetious.
“Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood, I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.”
And she signed his "death warrant", which could be interpreted as a tacit admission and endorsement of how often molesters in prison are murdered.
I agree – she wasn't very judicial but consider the possibility that she was a victim of sexual assault and it came across through her demeanor. I'd have to see her preside over other cases to make a judgment call about whether she's a fame seeker or is just passionate and crossed the line. I have to admit, if I was the judge (and I've been sexually assaulted) I may have said some of the same things. I really don't know. I'd like to think I'd be more professional. Hard to say – some of those girls stories were pretty gut wrenching.
Then let the victims be the focus. She didn't need to put on a show to make this about her. I was disgusted.
If you were a Judge having a history as a victim of the crime at issue and did not disclose and potentially recuse, you would be violating the judicial canons. There is nothing wrong with discussing the gut-wrenching nature of the victims. There is everything wrong with the Judge interjecting herself into the middle of their stories.
You think every female judge (or male I suppose) who was a victim of sexual assault is required to reveal that and recuse? Nope
Problem I'm having is that I agree with the comments here made from both sides of the aisle. I agree with 10:54 that once a judge goes well beyond the impact on the victims, and discusses how they themselves were devastated by being the victim of a similar crime, that does raise legitimate concerns.
But as 11:15 suggests, it does not trigger some automatic duty to disclose and recuse simply because a judge may have been a victim of a sexual assault years ago. That does not automatically impact and destroy their fairness and objectivity.
I guess the devil is in the details as to the judge's experience and whether it rises to the level of disclosure and recusal–how similar, how recent, to what extent did it impact them, is the judge representing that it unduly colors their perspective or whether they can still maintain complete objectivity, etc.
11:15: I think ever male and female judge who was a victim of sexual assault to the point that the Judge cannot remain unbiased and provide a fair sentence is required to reveal and recuse. And so do the Judicial Canons. Yup.
Here is the rule 2.11 from the judicial canon (doesn't say such a judge would have to recuse):
Rule 2.11. Disqualification.
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.
(4) [Reserved.]
(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.
(6) The judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or
(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.
(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary economic interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge’s spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge’s household.
(C) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.
Keep reading.
Preamble: “Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4, and Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
COMMENT
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
And since you cited to Rule 2.11, the very first comment to that rule states " [1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (6) apply."
What is the largest sanction you have seen a Judge levy against an attorney? We are all familiar with the Lioce sanction but that only ended up being like $19,000. There was the Watson Rounds sanction of $570,000 that Gonzalez leveled (twice) but got vacated by the Nevada Supreme Court. What is the largest sanction you have seen and for what?
Largest sanction is default judgment.
$30,000,000 default judgement in Bahena after the Answer was stricken.
Sorry I should have been more clear. My question was the largest sanction against an attorney or law firm. Bahena was a sanction against the party. The reason I was asking is that I was in front of Hardy this week and he leveled a $91,000 sanction against an attorney for a mistrial during voir dire. I didn't see who the attorney was but thought that was the largest sanction against an attorney I had ever seen, especially for a mistrial in what had to have been the first or second day of trial.
What is the largest sanction against an attorney or law firm and for what?
Wilson Elsor got banged and referred to the bar for hiding evidence. I think.the case resolved.
That Hardy sanction was not against the lawyer personally though. Steve Peak got personally sanctioned 25k in Sands case.
Years ago James Pengilly got sanctioned by Lohr for roughly $100k. The sanction may have been jointly issued against him and his client, but I don't recall. It was appealed and there is a published decision regarding the proper procedure for appealing a contempt sanction.
BAM
10:53– The Hardy sanction was against a lawyer who is the sole partner in the law firm so a sanction against the firm is the same thing as being against the lawyer.
To: 11:15. there has never been a Judge Lohr. There was a Judge Sally Loehrer(and I'm not even sure if I spelled it correctly).
Who cares?
Any judge not on the scotus wearing a lace collar gets the side eye from me.
Can we enable embedded reaction gifs? I had the perfect one for this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dozens accuse Steve Wynn of sexual misconduct: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dozens-of-people-recount-pattern-of-sexual-misconduct-by-las-vegas-mogul-steve-wynn-1516985953
There were comments yesterday regarding the Asa (Gabriel Ginapp) case. Today the Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order Dismissing the Case on what was previously a disbarment. If you ever have any doubts on the crap that OBC pulls, read this file. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=40232
Doesn't seem dismissed, they just set it for actually looking at it before instead of a default.
No the entire case was dismissed. There is a Stipulation that the State Bar will be allowed to file a new Complaint based on a single charge of failure to respond to a Bar Complaint (even though the underlying Complaint has been dismissed).
It was dismissed without prejudice. He has a formal hearing on 2/13/18 and the matter will be resubmitted to Supreme Court with new recommendations. Earlier pleadings indicate he may be submitting a conditional guilty plea at that time.
What did the attorney do to make Hardy grant a mistrial and a $91,000 sanction?
So I went back and read the pleadings on the Hardy case. Seems a juror mentioned or asked a question about "reptile theory" during voir dire. Hardy claims he said off the record to the attorneys that no one was to mention reptile and the attorney mentioned it again. Still $91,000 during voir dire seems harsh. I cannot see the NSC affirming that especially if there was no Order in Limine.
The name of the Hardy case, case number and info please. Link?
If those are the facts and there is no written order or anything on the record, then I have a hard time seeing how that holds up, particularly since it was so early in the case. If it was voir dire then they hadn't even seated a jury yet. Worst case scenario is you have to bring in a new panel.
Thompson v. Playland International. A697688. According to the pleadings, there is nothing on the record. Hardy apparently called a sidebar or took the attorneys in the hallway off the record during day 1 of voir dire and asserts that he told them to stay away from the term "reptile." But there is nothing in the minutes and no written order.
I am very familiar with the circumstances of this case (although not part of the firms that are involved in the trial). I know both the lawyers for both of the defendants and this one is a disaster. A juror brought it up first, who was dismissed for cause. Hardy claims he said when dismissing the juror for cause that he said "we are not going to go down that road." He didn't specifically what road or what could or could not be said. Sanctioned defense counsel claims he never heard that comment. The other defense attorney said that the judge mumbled it under his breath when the sanctioned attorney was almost to the door of the courtroom. None of these comments are on any record.
Hardy himself has described on the record subsequently that it was a "comment" not an order. Then at the sanctions hearing last Monday, Hardy said that he was offended and that the sanctioned attorney violated a "crystal clear directive" even though it is nowhere to be found in the record. $91,000 for judicial mumbles not on the record during day 1 of voir dire. That is a judge who does not know what he is doing.
I have a feeling the Plaintiff's attorney might have a different take…
Its very easy to determine if something is on the record or not. There doesn't need to be any arguing about it. It is either on the record or not.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The sanctioned attorney is not either of those people.
No issue with the info, just with the name-calling.
Looks like the reptile theory was the subject of a successful pretrial motion in limine, so at least something is on the record
8:51: Look again. There was a Motion in Limine filed in December 2017 AFTER the September 2017 mistrial and before the retrial. So there is something on the record now. The issue was there was nothing on the record during the September 2017 trial.
Anyone in the know – what ended up happening with this case?
$10,000,000 pain and suffering + $10,000,000 in punitive damages