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
Fan!

Become a Facebook fan to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 307. Gibberish watch | Main | 305. The Romantic Age »
Sunday
02Sep2007

306. No comment dept.

This is a New Mexico story, so I'll omit all comment except to say that I don't know any of the people involved and have no inside knowledge.  Like Will Rogers said, all I know is just what I read in the papers, in this instance the Valencia County News-Bulletin.

(Though in the interests of saving my readers the trouble of Googling a rather obscure medical term contained in the article, I will add this link to a MedLine article about hepatic encephalopathy, a very unfortunate condition, symptoms of which can include "Changes in mental state, consciousness, behavior, personality" including confusion, delirium and dementia, each of which could be considered disadvantageous in someone exercising a judge's power over other people's lives.)

The State Supreme Court denied a motion this week filed by the Judicial Standards Commission seeking the removal or retirement of Valencia County Magistrate John "Buddy" Sanchez from office.
...
In June 2006, Sanchez agreed to undergo an evaluation for independent physical and psychological fitness for duty by a panel of four doctors, including a psychiatrist. The medical panel concluded in June that Sanchez was at that time both psychologically and physically unfit to perform the duties of a judge.

Sanchez was placed on indefinite paid administrative medical leave by the Supreme Court in July 2006.

In February, [Judicial Standards Commission counsel James A.] Noel told the Supreme Court during an open hearing that Sanchez was being treated for a number of ailments including alcohol dependency in early remission, severe alcoholic liver disease with cirrhosis, multiple organ failure (liver, renal and pulmonary), portal hypertension, persistent hepatic encephalopathy (a complication of liver failure) with elevated ammonia levels requiring ongoing therapy, and a bacterial infection associated with E. Coli.

The commission's executive director told the court that Sanchez was also diagnosed with chronic prescription opiate use for muscular skeleton pain, personality traits including denial and defensiveness affecting recovery from underlying illness, having a history of brief, reactive psychosis, psychosocial and environmental problems. He said the panel of two medical doctors, one psychiatrist and one sociologist, who evaluated Sanchez twice maintained that he suffers from a chronic alcohol problem and is in severe denial.

In January 2007, the same independent medical panel completed a second fitness for duty evaluation of Sanchez, and again concluded that he was unfit to perform the duties of a judge, Noel said.

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.