Opinion ID: 1727217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Publicly Commenting about a Pending Case

Text: The Court of the Judiciary found that Judge Sheffield violated Canon 3 A(6) by failing to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding. Indeed, Judge Sheffield did talk at some length with Mr. Lewis, the editor of the Dothan Eagle, about the pending Cox hearing. However, not all public discussion by the judiciary of a pending case is an ethical violation. Canon 3 A(6) specifically states that it does not prohibit judges ... from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. Moreover, the State Trial Judges' Committee on News Reporting and Fair Trial has suggested that [j]udges should encourage representatives of the news media [to] inquire of them for background information relating to the operation of the court system. While judges may not comment on the merits of a pending case, a judge may and should explain legal terms, and concepts, procedures, and the issues involved in that case so as to permit the news representatives to cover the case more intelligently.... Often there is no one, other than the judge, who is in a position to give a detailed and impartial explanation of the case to the news media. National Conference of State Trial Judges Committee on News Reporting and Fair Trial, Judicial Guidelines for Dealing with News Media Inquiries and Criticism (5th Draft, June 5, 1984). Thus, on the one hand, a judge is strictly prohibited from public comment on the merits of a pending case. On the other hand, a judge is encouraged to explain a pending case in abstract terms. Obviously, judges walk a fine line between the duties and prohibitions of Canon 3 A(6). Indeed, the risk of being misquoted, albeit honestly, may enter into the consideration and tilt the balance in favor of no comment. Judge Sheffield argues that his comments to Mr. Lewis were merely abstract legal explications of the pending contempt hearinga part of his judicial duty. The Court of the Judiciary found otherwise; and we agree that the evidence is clear and convincing that certain of his comments to the news reporter were on the merits, and thus were prohibited by Canon 3 A(6). We affirm the Court of the Judiciary's finding of an ethical violation as to Canon 3 A(6).