In an opinion handed down today, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a D.C. Superior Court judge should have recused herself after receiving two e-mails that included information about a witness in a case she was presiding over. The panel of appellate judges determined that the e-mails created the impression of bias and ordered a new trial in the case.Ya' think? In the above case, the judge above received unsolicited emails. What about when a judge solicits ex parte material from one of the litigants, as it appears (from a response to a motion) that judge Mary Hamm (or Judge Arthur Markham) did? The former is not evil. The latter is.
It became evil when the judge in the above case said when asked to recuse for ex parte communication but didn't.
One day later, however, I.W.’s defense moved to have Broderick recuse herself due to the ex parte communication. Broderick denied that motion, saying it was “untimely” because no objections were made at the time of the announcement. She also said, “I am completely confident, 100% confident that I can keep these matters separate from the facts that are at trial.”And this my friend, is the problem when a man (or woman) sits in judgment of themselves. Just as no one in a cult knows they're in a cult, no biased judge knows they're biased.
Quoting Justice Kennedy in Caperton v. Massey "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause."
Unless, of course, they're a judge. (20 pages to explain? See Proverbs 10:19.)
No comments:
Post a Comment