-
Chapter 10. Judges Judging Judges
- University of Missouri Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 10 Judges Judging Judges The judiciary in every state and at the federal level is subject to an official code of conduct.1 The codes vary somewhat state to state, but they generally cover such areas as independence, impartiality, integrity, impropriety— and equally important, the appearance of impropriety—diligence, quasijudicial and extrajudicial activities, conflict—and the appearance of conflict —of interest, and inappropriate political activity. Of particular note for California judges so far as high-profile cases is concerned is a section of that state’s code that says, in part, A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. . . .2 Another section of the code that became significant during the Simpson case, says, A judge shall not participate in, nor permit the judge’s name to be used in connection with,any business venture or commercial advertising that indicates the judge’s title or affiliation with the judiciary or otherwise lend the power or prestige of his or her office to promote a business or any commercial venture.3 142 Although the vast majority of judges observe the code religiously, some had to be reminded during the Simpson case, and a few, apparently wanting a piece of the spotlight, seemed to just ignore one section or another altogether . The name of one, whose courtroom was right down the hall from Ito’s, became connected with a spoof that might have affected the public’s perception of the judiciary, had it not been foiled at the last minute. Before that, though, a federal judge in a courthouse a few blocks from the Criminal Courts Building started taking potshots.One flew in from left field when a USA Today reporter wanted the L.A. court’s reaction to criticism the judge had leveled in a speech that was reported by the Associated Press. With Simpson opening statements still three months away and before Ito’s Japanese internment camp interview on KCBS aired, the AP story said U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie, based in Los Angeles, asserted in an address in Idaho that Ito wasn’t handling the case very well.4 “One of the biggest pressures on him [Ito],” I wrote after court the day I learned about the story,“must be being second-guessed by colleagues.”5 That apparently was happening enough within the Los Angeles Superior Court for the court’s presiding judge, Gary Klausner, to send a memo to“All Active and Retired Superior Court Judges.” The month after becoming presiding judge on January 1, 1995, Klausner reminded his colleagues that they should keep their opinions to themselves. Citing California Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(9) (noted above) he wrote, Each of you knows the tremendous additional pressure media presence in a trial puts on the officiating judicial officer. It is surprising that we continue to find judges who are willing to preside over such cases.The least we can do is not undercut them. . . . Certainly I would not expect us all to be in agreement as to a number of the issues that gain media attention. Nevertheless, I would hate to think that any of us would make statements criticizing a sitting Judge just for our own personal recognition.6 Klausner issued the memo about two months after the planned spoof that appeared to have the tacit, if not the actual, approval of one of Ito’s superior court brethren. George W. Trammell III, a longtime judge and techno-whiz, reveled in showing off a revolutionary real-time court-reporting system he had recently Judges Judging Judges 143 [3.21.100.34] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 06:48 GMT) had installed in his courtroom,which was on the same floor as Ito’s.The system created an instant electronic transcript that trial participants could read on computer screens as the trial progressed. The equipment was similar to the system Ito’s court reporters planned to use in the Simpson trial.When Ito turned down the media’s requests for a demonstration of the system in his courtroom, Trammell gladly agreed to show them his. Ito’s loss, so far as endearing himself to the media was concerned, was Trammell’s gain. They flocked to Trammell’s courtroom and quoted him extensively as he held forth about the wonders of his new system.7 One December morning, a local...