Opinion ID: 1451220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the trial judge's role

Text: The majority's review of the record in this case is off balance. This is clearly demonstrated by the majority's word choices when describing the conduct of the trial judge and defense counsel. The trial judge's conduct is described as gentle and restrained. Majority, at 520. In contrast, defense counsel's conduct is described as boorish, contemptuous, discourteous, disrespectful, insolent, obdurate, obnoxious, offensive, rude and uncouth. Majority, at 522. A balanced review of the record, however, reveals that the judge's conduct contributed significantly to the hostility which plagued this proceeding. The majority glosses over this fact so as to further its real concern here  that defense counsel failed to show proper respect for the court. This focus of the majority is most succinctly summarized by its following statement: All judicial officers in this state are entitled to respect from lawyers admitted to practice in our courts. The trial judge in this case was entitled to no less. Majority, at 522. This monochromatic view of the dynamics involved in a lawsuit, and this one in particular, does neither the individuals involved, nor the legal profession at large, justice. Although distinguished from the attorneys who practice before them by black robes, judges and attorneys alike are no more than human beings of whom we expect professional conduct when operating in the sphere of the law. The human beings in this case lost sight of their professional responsibilities and allowed their personal feelings, frustrations, impatience, and anger to rule their conduct. Even though the conduct of counsel in this case was grossly unprofessional, this court must recognize the responsibility of the judge as well as counsel. Respect flows in two directions. The judge sets the tone in any proceeding. As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, the trial judge has an obligation to maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the court. Garrett, slip op. at 33 n. 14 (citing CJC 3A(2) and (3)). Moreover, judges should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom judges deal in their official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of the staff, court officials, and others subject to their direction and control. (Italics mine.) CJC 3A(3). It is the judge who has the power and authority in the courtroom. Irritation and impatience displayed by the judge will foster disrespect. If the judge fails to use appropriate measures to control and, instead, resorts to verbal exchanges, the tenor of the proceeding will necessarily deteriorate as clearly occurred in this case. The stage was set for this unfortunate drama at the omnibus hearing approximately 1 week earlier, when defense counsel asked the court to order the prosecutor to turn over items of discovery. The judge presiding determined that the prosecutor was not then in possession of the requested items and declined to set a date for completion of discovery. Among the items requested at omnibus were the victim's juvenile criminal record, photos taken of the scene, and a report prepared by store security. Defense counsel complained that he did not wish to receive discovery on the day of trial. When trial began a week later discovery had not been completed. Defense counsel attempted to bring this to the judge's attention at an in-chambers pretrial conference. The judge immediately became impatient and irritable. He repeatedly blamed counsel, particularly defense counsel, for not dealing with the issues earlier. He complained that counsel were wasting his time and that unresolved discovery issues were not his problem. When defense counsel explained that the issues were being raised to ensure a fair trial the judge took offense stating, [t]he implication is that I don't? Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 17 (Apr. 1, 1991) (incorrectly dated April 1, 1990). Thus, it was the judge who set the tone for this 3-day ordeal. [85] By the end of the first day the level of conduct by all the parties had deteriorated. Defense counsel wanted the court to recess the jury so that he could make a record of a sidebar ruling sustaining an objection to a line of questions on voir dire. The court declined to do so. Defense counsel then elected not to examine the last four venirepersons. Immediately following, in opening statement, defense counsel mentioned a portion of the victim's criminal history, a prior assault and trespass, despite the fact that he had not received the victim's criminal history. Pursuant to an objection by the prosecutor, the court recessed to chambers to discuss these developments. An accusation of unethical conduct was made by the prosecutor, countered by defense counsel's accusation that the prosecutor deliberately withheld the criminal record. Defense counsel also accused the judge of making disparaging remarks about a potential juror and complained about the judge's practice of conducting unrecorded sidebars. The judge took offense, responding that defense counsel should be awfully careful of his phrasing. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 1, 1991), at 133. Regarding the sidebar complaint, the judge said, I guess the inference I can draw, Mr. Smith, is that you think this court is pulling something shady or sneaky over here at the side bar and you're getting some bad rulings and you want to be able to appeal. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 1, 1991), at 158. The second day was worse than the first. The defense had subpoenaed the victim's probation officer to testify regarding the victim's criminal history. It is clear from the record that although the prosecutor had spoken earlier with the officer and was aware that she had these records he declined to advise her regarding disclosure to the defense. While defense counsel had subpoenaed the probation officer, counsel had not spoken with her prior to her appearance in court. The judge became irritated with defense counsel and said I think that is our problem. This record ought to be clear. You two lawyers have not prepared the case properly. Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 10 (Apr. 2, 1991). This remark is followed by many pages of transcript which can only be described as bickering between defense counsel and the judge. On the last day of trial, defense counsel told the judge that the Defendant would not be testifying. Among other reasons, defense counsel cited the following: The defendant believes that the tone of voice that the trial Judge has used to the prosecution has been much different than the tone of voice that has been used to the defense. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 4, 1991), at 33. Other concerns were that the judge had threatened sanctions against his attorneys, accused them of being unethical, and that the judge had not inquire[d] of the prosecution with the same vehemence ... why they did not provide [discovery]. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 4, 1991), at 35. The judge, in part, responded: I will say that if my tone of voice has been different, Mr. Garrett, it is because your counsel have baited me and to some extent prodded me, but that is not excuse for a court to use a different tone of voice and I will apologize if I have used a different tone of voice. It has, however, not ever been in the presence of the jury if it existed at all.... Yes, I think I did accuse you of unethical conduct, Mr. Smith, but that was after you accused me of judicial misconduct and that is no reason to respond in that fashion. But things got a little out of hand, there is no question. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 4, 1991), at 43-44. As the judge recognized, and the record confirms, the conduct of the judge and counsel was, indeed, out of hand. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Apr. 4, 1991), at 44.