Televising the Trump trials

Last week, a number of Congressional Democrats wrote a letter requesting that the Judicial Conference of the United States make an exception from its longstanding policy of not televising federal criminal trials. The reason for the exception: the defendant is one Donald Trump, and Americans have a right to see the criminal proceedings against him in their full glory.

I spoke to several media outlets (including the Washington Post and NPR) about the prospect of a televised trial. A few additional thoughts follow. Continue reading “Televising the Trump trials”

ABA calls for mental health resources for the judiciary

At its annual meeting this week, the American Bar Association passed a resolution recognizing the many mental health challenges faced by state and federal judges, including exposure to traumatic evidence in the courtroom and increased threats against judges at their homes and workplaces.

The JD Journal reports:

The resolution sheds light on the psychological toll these challenging circumstances take on those within the judiciary and urges national court leaders to develop specialized training and processes. The goal is to provide judges, their support staff, and their families with access to professional, confidential treatment, working in tandem with court security teams.

The catalyst for this resolution has been the unsettling surge in threats and violent incidents targeting judges. Among the distressing incidents mentioned is the arrest of an armed individual outside the residence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The assailant was later charged with attempted assassination. Additionally, the tragic 2020 murder of the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, shot by a disgruntled litigant at her New Jersey home, underscores the gravity of the situation.

…

The National Conference of State Trial Judges Chair, Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla, submitted the resolution’s report. The document emphasizes the necessity of shifting attention beyond judges’ well-being and towards the broader group affected by traumatic events – including judges’ staff and their families.

In an arena where exposure to distressing scenarios is all too common, the report argues that these individuals are also at risk of experiencing trauma, whether stemming from explicit threats or the very nature of court proceedings. From complex sentencing hearings to divorce cases, abuse situations, and matters involving sexual crimes, the judicial staff’s exposure to distressing scenarios is extensive.

Yes.

State courts face staffing crisis

Pandemic shutdowns, “quiet quitting,” and other strains on workplace productivity have become increasingly common over the past few years. The courts are no exception. Law360 has a detailed article on the staffing issues that are affecting state court systems around the country. The article is paywalled, but here is a taste:

In many parts of the country, state court leaders are again raising the alarm about retirements, COVID-related resignations and a tight job market that is luring valuable staff members away. All the empty seats, along with an influx of less-experienced new hires, are slowing the gears of justice and threatening key court functions, from front-door security checks to final case filings at the clerk’s office.

Behind the scenes, administrators are scrambling, pressing lawmakers for more money to juice salaries and identify new recruiting channels, said Danielle Hirsch, managing director at the National Center for State Courts.

“In many courts around the country, vacancies are reaching crisis levels,” Hirsch told Law360 Pulse, referring to a gap between private-sector pay and salaries paid by state courts and other government employers.

“Recruiting and retaining talent is essential, and many courts are embarking on everything from working with state legislators, executive branch agencies and county boards on salaries to identifying new channels for recruiting staff,” she said.

It is probably to soon to say how this will shake out, but if staffing woes continue, it would not be surprising to see court systems start to turn to AI and other technologies to help with the workload.

Federal courts contemplate simulating cybersecurity breach

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is soliciting entities which can help run a simulated cybersecurity breach. The goal is to “identify levels of risk that may not be immediately apparent.” A sensible strategy, given the importance of security within the court system and its own historic vulnerability to attack.

Judges continue to face direct threats from the public

Three stories came across the wire today. A Washington woman was sentenced to nineteen months in prison after she left multiple voice mails for the judge threatening to “put a bullet in [his] head.” A South Bend, Indiana man was arrested at his home after making “disturbing threats” against two local judges. And a Minnesota man was charged after posting a Facebook video in which he threatened a judge and contemplated shooting up a courthouse.

Each of these individuals seems to have been angry about their own legal problems, and in some instances intoxication or mental illness may have been a factor. But they also made these threats in a modern political atmosphere that devalues judges and the court system, and makes personal attacks on judges–whether physical or verbal–almost ordinary. Just a few years ago, the vehemence with which Donald Trump attacked individual judges by name was shocking. Now that tactic has been embraced by the Democrats, who are doing everything they can to cloud the legitimacy of the courts and sully the names (and safety) of jurists who do not fall in line with the progressive agenda.

Do politicians want blood on their hands? They are not responsible for every lunatic who wants to harm a judge, but they could stop creating such fertile ground for lunacy to blossom.

Judges speak out about growing threats of violence. Should they be able to arm themselves more easily?

This week, members of the Idaho Supreme Court issued a statement claiming that they, their families, and their employees have been targeted with threats and harrassment: “when disagreement becomes personal, to the point of threats against personal safety and security … a line has been crossed.” Threats of violence are now commonplace for many state and federal judges. And all too frequently, real violence erupts with tragic consequences.

Congress passed legislation last year that would increase security for federal judges. And now a Republican legislator is proposing a bill that would make it easier for federal judges to arm themselves on their way in and out of the courthouse.

It’s a difficult policy question as to whether the security of judges and their families is enhanced by easing their own access to firearms. But plainly more needs to be done to build confidence that those in the judiciary are safe from threats of violence and harassment simply for doing their jobs.

North Dakota judges seek pay raise

North Dakota’s judiciary is seeking a 35% pay raise, phased in over two years. The state currently ranks 40th in judicial salary.

Many of the arguments are familiar: judges are already paid lower than many other state employees, they do not receive ordinary and consistent pay increases, and judicial work is difficult and sometimes isolating or dangerous. But proponents of the pay hike are advancing another, less common, argument: that a pay raise is needed to attract private litigators to the judiciary. Most applicants for judicial positions are prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers, for whom a judgeship represents a bump in salary as well as prestige. For successful civil litigators, by contrast, moving to the judiciary frequently involves a substantial pay cut, making the job less attractive.

An experientially diverse judiciary is essential for the administration of justice. And while raising salaries may not be enought to assure a proper experiential balance, it is indeed a meaningful consideration.

Indiana proposes to double jurors’ pay

A bill working its way through the Indiana legislature would double jurors’ pay from $40 to $80 per day. The move — which would be funded by increased court fees — would make the state’s jury pay one of the highest in the country.

Indiana, like all states, has struggled for years with getting adequate numbers of jurors, and adequate cross-sections of the community, in place for trials. The hope is that increasing the daily pay to the still very modest amount of $80 would make jury service economically feasible for more citizens. 

South Carolina faces internal dissent over its judicial selection process

New York is not the only state suffering though high-profile dysfunction with its judicial selection process. This week, the South Carolina legislature postponed its scheduled judicial elections, and several legislators as well as the governor called for changes to the state’s selection process.

South Carolina is one of only two states that chooses its judges by legislative election. Proponents of this approach have argued that it keeps judges more closely aligned with the values and sensibilities of the people. Opponents argue that it politicizes judicial selection (in that judicial candidates must win over legislators in order to secure their votes) and makes the judiciary subservient to the legislature. Indeed, many states moved to direct judicial elections in the nineteenth century because of concerns about legislative interference with the judicial process. Continue reading “South Carolina faces internal dissent over its judicial selection process”

Progressives win the LaSalle battle, but at what cost?

Last week, the progressives in New York’s General Assembly effectively killed the nomination of Justice Hector LaSalle to be the Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals. As I have documented previously, the opposition had nothing to do with LaSalle’s qualifications or experience, but rather a ginned-up power play over Governor Kathy Hochul. In doing so, they prevented LaSalle from becoming the first Hispanic Chief Judge of the high court.

Identity sure seems to matter to progressives — until it doesn’t.

More broadly, Albany’s progressives are joyfully gutting a coequal branch of government in order to engage in an intramural fight with the governor. The Court of Appeals, in need of a Chief Justice for months, remains without an administrative leader. And the entire state court system has been deprived of leadership with respect to their everyday work.

All New Yorkers should be outraged on this assault on their judiciary. The consequences will become evident soon enough.