|
I could hardly disagree more with Stephen Kelson's premises, perceptions, fears, and recommendations in "Judicial Independence and the Blame Game," Utah Bar Journal (Jan/Feb
2002). It is not the role of the Bar to defend individual judges. We do not need a new committee to evaluate or censor criticisms of Utah judges. As a member of the Utah Bar since 1979, I
have seen no flood - indeed, hardly a trickle - of "baseless and vindictive attacks" on Utah judges. Not every item of judicial criticism results from a misunderstanding of the
legal system or simple displeasure with a judge's ruling. Not every criticism of a judge is an "attack."
It is too easy to invoke the mantra of "judicial
independence" to shield judges from legitimate public questioning of their perceived biases or incompetencies. Media stories about the conduct of the trial judge in the Weitzel
criminal prosecution, Judge Kay, aired legitimate concerns. Accordingly, I found it professionally and ethically inappropriate for Bar President Scott Daniels to jump in and - based on
who knows what - publically side with Judge Kay about pending complaints by the prosecution and the victims' families before they could be evaluated and resolved (ultimately, in the
complainants' favor). And is it just coincidence that author Kelson is a law clerk for the Second District Court bench on which Judge Kay serves?
Utah judges are rarely criticized
in public, although every practicing lawyer is well aware of several who are unfit for the bench. Moreover, the elaborate conduct rules, fancy performance evaluations, and unopposed
retention elections touted by Kelson provide the illusion, but not the substance, of judicial accountability.
Ultimately the more dangerous threat to judicial independence comes
from too little informed scrutiny of our judges and courts and too little accountability, not from occasional publicized questioning of their decisions.
Annina M. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
Salt Lake City
|
