Court Opinion

ID: 9604580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:23:47.978911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:22.802522
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Judge,
specially concurring.
I join in the Court’s opinion, but I write separately to comment on two ancillary questions posed by this appeal. The first is how to interpret certain remarks made by the district judge at the probation revocation hearing. The judge stated that Phillips did not have “any spine whatsoever” in testifying that his wife had filled out the food stamp report. The judge further declared that Phillips would be remanded to the Board of Correction “because I have had it, as they say, up to here with this character.” After examining the full record, I believe these remarks reflect a capable judge’s sense of frustration over Phillips’ pattern of conduct. Nevertheless, derogatory ad hominem statements are inconsistent with the requirement that judges be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants. In a closer case, such statements could have called into question the reasoned basis of the judge’s decision.
The second question is how much reliance courts should place upon statements of fact by counsel. This case was submitted to us on briefs. The appellant’s brief contains statements which, although not literally false, are so selective and incomplete that they misrepresent the true nature of the case. In its depiction of facts pertinent to the decision to revoke probation, the brief mentions only the inaccurate food stamp report. It is silent as to Phillips’ preceding conduct. The brief further states that a probation officer recommended jail time for the probation violation. It fails to acknowledge that this officer was relieved of his duties by the Department of Correction and that the Department’s intensive probation supervisor recommended sending Phillips to the penitentiary.
Attorneys are expected to be diligent advocates for their clients — a thankless task in many criminal cases. However, they also are officers of the court. They have a duty of candor toward the tribunals in which they appear. Counsel may emphasize facts favorable to a client’s position, *179but care still must be taken to assure that the material facts are accurately presented. Justice is best served, and advocacy is most effective, when a court can repose confidence in counsel’s presentation of the facts.