About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 232. Is there life on earth? | Main | 230. Bright lines »
Sunday
Jan282007

231. The hallways of power

This blog has frequently remarked on the enormous lengths judges have to go to in order to be removed from office.  It's just not easy to be fired, if you're a judge.  (See post 60 and post 185.)  Luckily, there will always be those intrepid souls out there willing to do whatever it takes.  Like Wendell R. Miller, from Louisiana (state motto: "New Mexico on the Bayou"):

A Jefferson Davis Parish judge was removed from office by the state Supreme Court for violations such as his handling his secretary's divorce while the two of them were having an affair and having sex at the courthouse.

(Note: Jefferson Davis Parish isn't the same as Jefferson Parish.  We're talking a one-judge district in far SW LA, 40 due miles west of Lafayette.  It has its own film commission, though.)

Querae: Would presiding over her divorce while sleeping with her have been enough to warrant the ax?  Or was having sex at the courthouse (the judge "stipulated that these encounters were 'in his chambers, in the conference area, or in the hallway outside of his office'") (the hallway??) a necessary part of elevating the offense to a level warranting removal? 

An appellate opinion in the once-and-future-husband's suit against the judge can be read here.   And here's LA-Legal.com's reaction to the order of removal.  

Judge Miller probably didn't help his case when he was held in contempt of court by a federal judge presiding over the sexual harassment suit filed against him by the ex-secretary, after both their sexual and professional relationships ended and he declined to get the message.  The finding of contempt was upheld by the Fifth Circuit.  One has to admit there is something a bit - is "unseemly" too harsh? - about a judge being in contempt of court.

Then there was the business of issuing press releases in "a thinly-veiled attempt to create a more sympathetic image of him in the minds of ... potential federal court jurors" - it must be said that some people might think that revealed an attitude toward the court system that, in a person entrusted with sole responsibility for running that system in his parish, was less than optimal.

As for taking travel expenses that he wasn't entitled to ... 

Nonetheless, Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll (who has a lovely singing voice) dissented from the removal order, finding Miller's conduct not nearly as bad as many of the true gangsters who have served on the Louisiana bench (true, true), and making this comparison:

In stark contrast to those removal cases, I draw attention to In re Harris, 98-0570 (La.7/8/98), 713 So.2d 1138, 1141, a case I find far more egregious than the present matter. In that case, Judge Harris not only associated publicly with a known felon, she entered into a extramarital affair with a felon who pleaded guilty in her court and was illegally sentenced by her for his criminal act, which allowed the felon to be paroled. [It was all one felon, apparently an exceptionally hot one.]  Additionally, this relationship became publicized in a lengthy article in the Baton Rouge Advocate which articulated the fact that Jones had been sentenced by Judge Harris for the felony he committed. Toward the end of their extramarital affairs, the convicted felon engaged in a crime spree in East Baton Rouge Parish, including car theft, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, and armed robberies of two fast food outlets and a shoe store before his parole was revoked. In the light of those facts, this Court only suspended Judge Harris without pay for sixty days.

Justice Knoll has a point.  However, she neglected to mention the name of the justice who wrote the opinion in Judge Harris's case.  So, to answer the big question, this is what you have to do to get yourself removed from the bench in Louisiana: get your opinion written by someone other than Justice Knoll.

Reader Comments (1)

Hi All,

This is jrajeshwai.
this site deals with divorce while the two of them were having an affair at the courthouse.

http://www.divorcelawyers.com
March 21, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjrajeshwari

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.