brierebecca 0 #1 May 10, 2006 http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_85467.asp I actually saw this on Fark.com. I will never practice criminal law in Tennessee. I have several issues with this article. The judge obviously should recuse himself for calling the defendant "scum of the earth" and saying that he deserves the death penalty for his crimes. The defendant also seems to be insane. He is only competent to stand trial if he takes medication. Instead of having a competency hearing, the judge seems to be forcing the defendant to take medication. He seems to think that insane people should sometimes be executed. I know his crime is heinous. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a fair trial. Thoughts? Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 May 10, 2006 What I find interesting about these things is that had the judge merely shut his mouth and kept his feelings to himself, he could have harbored these feelings and not faced a challenge. Considering I don't do criminal law, I don't know the standards. I also don't know what Tennessee's standards are for disqualifying a judge. But here, one of the reasons for disqualification "for cause" is that the judge doubts his or her ability to be impartial, or a "person aware o the facts" might reasonably entertain doubts about the judge's impartiality. Here, if a judge refuses to disqualify himself or herself, there is a procedure for a hearing to be decided by another judge (if the judge and the other parties can't agree on a judge, the Chief Justice of the Cal Supreme Court will appoint a judge - usually from another county.) That judge's decision is not appealable, and can only be reviewed by writ of mandate. My guess is there is a procedure to deal with it. Politically speaking, the judge will probably recuse himself by saying, "I could have handled this fairly and impartially. But then the Defense counsel mounted a smear campaign against my character. Bearing in my that no human being can remain impartial after such activity, I am now recusing myself on other bases." It's a common judicial ploy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #3 May 10, 2006 QuoteWhat I find interesting about these things is that had the judge merely shut his mouth and kept his feelings to himself, he could have harbored these feelings and not faced a challenge. Yep. What experienced litigation attorneys know, but most non-attorneys (and law students) don’t is: biased judges are the rule, not the exception. Most of them just manage to maintain enough of a facade so as not to go off half-cocked on the record like this guy did. Judges like this are a gift to litigation attorneys, because they can’t restrain themselves from (and can be provoked into) shooting their mouths off while the steno is typing, so they get lots of recusal motions, and they tend to get spanked by the appellate courts more often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #4 May 10, 2006 Quote(and naive law students) Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 May 10, 2006 QuoteQuote(and naive law students) Brie Ack!! I edited out the word "naive" just as you were posting this because I didn't want you to think I was talking about you. (I just wasn't fast enough!) Actually, I was talking about me when I was a law student. Very naive & idealistic about what judges were all about. My first year (month!) of practice disabused me of that view. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #6 May 10, 2006 okee. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 May 10, 2006 QuoteQuote(and naive law students) Brie It's not necessarily an insult. I've always taken naive to mean lacking of worldly experience. This leaves the person who is naive as generally lacking in cunning. Face it - you're about to graduate law school. You are at the top of your game right now. In a few months, the game will change. Imagine and All-American college football star who moves to the NFL. He's always been the best. Now he's a rookie. It's a new game, and while he may be prepared, he's entry level and he's gonna get burned quite often. I've in my fifth year as a practicing attorney. It took me a year to really realize how little I knew. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't much of anything. I'll give it another 5 years to see whether I feel any real degree of comfort, but there is so much I have not experienced and simply do not know. I'd say I'm 75 percent naive right now. I guess loss of 5 percent naivete per year is a decent rate. But recognize it now - you don't know shit. Coming to terms sooner rather than later with that will make your next few years much more bearable. And since your employers will know what I'm telling you, the only thing you'll have to prove is that you can learn. To think otherwise is naive. You'll see what I mean. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #8 May 11, 2006 QuoteBut recognize it now - you don't know shit. I never said I think I'm a genius. I've been working directly under lawyers on cases for two years. I know how much I don't know. But thanks for the warning. Believe me, it wasn't condescending at all. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
