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!
« 331. Judicial indiscretion | Main | 329. Law in aspic »
Wednesday
Dec122007

330. Dead professor driving

I've long thought that one of the reasons judges are so concerned about traffic stops is the potential of a traffic stop to wreck a judge's career.  Just look at Ohio's Justice Resnick (see post 33), Arkansas's Judge Davis (see post 36) and New Mexico's own Judge Brennan.  (See post 38.)

But pretending that the Constitution prohibits police officers from pulling over distinguished-looking middle-aged men who like to dress up in black dresses is one thing (me, I prefer these Carnaby Street designs).  Pretending your car was driven by a dead person is something else.   From the Australian Associated Press:

Former Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld will face a jury and a possible jail term after being committed to stand trial on perjury and traffic offences.

The 69-year-old faces a maximum 14 years in prison for allegedly swearing false statements that other people were driving his car when it was caught committing traffic offences between 1999 and 2006. ...

He is accused of swearing, both via statement and on oath in court, that other people, including a friend he knew to be dead, and a seemingly fictitious person, were driving his car when it was caught speeding and running a red light. ...

His barrister, Ian Barker QC, said it was "preposterous" to suggest that signing false statements to avoid traffic fines amounted to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

He also stressed the issue of timing, saying there was simply not enough proof that Einfeld could have left Sydney's Freshwater beach, where he lunched on January 8, 2006, and made it to the Mosman speed camera where his car was photographed at 4.01pm.

The January speeding fine, which Einfeld claimed was incurred by a friend, Professor Teresa Brennan, sparked a high-profile investigation into Einfeld's driving history after it was revealed Brennan had died in 2003.

It was the second time Einfeld had claimed Brennan was driving his car, having previously blamed her for a speeding offence committed the day after her death.

Australia's Federal Court is the federal government's intermediate appellate court - would it have killed them to put the word "appeals" in the name? - so Judge Enfield was pretty high up the hierarchy when he started letting the ghosts get behind the wheel.  He was, indeed, the distinguished-looking gentleman whose stern-yet-wise-yet-compassionate-yet-arrogant-yet-learned-yet-ever-so-slightly-crackers visage you saw if you followed the link in the second paragraph.

I bet if he had to do it all over again, the judge would just declare red-light cameras unconstitutional ahead of time.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

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.