And they don't even have to tell you why.
"Judges needn’t reveal thoughts behind rulings, SJC declares" by Andrea Estes and John R. Ellement |
Globe Staff, August 09, 2012
The state’s highest court barred ethics investigators Thursday from
asking embattled Boston Municipal Court Judge Raymond Dougan how he
reached individual decisions during his 21 years on the bench, ruling
that judges cannot be forced to explain their inner thinking to anyone.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court created an
absolute “judicial deliberative privilege” for the first time in
Massachusetts. It will allow judges to keep their notes secret and to
refuse to answer questions about how they arrived at their decisions....
The commission and its appointed special counsel J. William Codinha
have been investigating allegations by Suffolk District Attorney Daniel
F. Conley that Dougan, first justice of the court that covers much of
downtown, is biased against police and prosecutors....
Well, the whole system is biased in favor of them so this looks like a case of sour grapes.
A 2011 Globe review found that prosecutors challenged Dougan’s
decisions more often than those of any other sitting Boston Municipal
Court judge. In addition, appeals courts reversed or modified Dougan’s
rulings more than those issued by other judges.
See: You Be the Judge
I'm sorry, I didn't review any of those cases.
In one case, Dougan dismissed drunken driving charges against Daniel
Quispe, a native of Peru, even though Boston police said his
blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit. Dougan said he was
serving “public justice” by dropping the charges because Quispe faced
possible deportation if convicted.
The SJC struck down Dougan’s decision, finding that Dougan’s
personal views on immigration law “are irrelevant and undermine the
principle of separation of powers.”
In all, the commission sought to review 51 cases decided by Dougan,
24 cited by Conley, four additional cases described by the Globe, and
23 others the commission uncovered during its yearlong investigation....
The Dougan case had sparked intense interest among other judges and
defense lawyers, who rushed to the judge’s side, accusing Conley of
trying to intimidate judges who ruled against him. They argued that
Dougan was simply exercising his judicial discretion.
“If we have to explain why a decision was reached, at the risk of
alienating this group or that group, this will impact mightily on
independence,” said J. Owen Todd, a former superior court judge who
wrote a brief in the case on behalf of several retired judges.
Martin W. Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar
Association, which also filed a brief supporting Dougan’s stance, said
the decision will “help prevent parties from going on unnecessary and
burdensome fishing expeditions.”
“Judges must be free from overly broad intrusion and unnecessary pressure from disgruntled litigants,” Healy said.
Paul F. Walsh, Bristol district attorney from 1991 to 2007, predicted
the ruling will make it much more difficult for the commission to prove
its cases.
“The commission can inquire into all sorts of matters, but when they
need evidence, they meet a stone wall,” Walsh said. “Why even have a
commission then?”
Judges shouldn’t need any special protection and should welcome an opportunity to defend their decisions, he added.
“If you have nothing to hide, then don’t hide anything,” said Walsh.
What's that? A totalitarian mindset from a Massachusetts public official? Couldn't be, not here in liberal, Democrat Massachusetts!
--more--"
Related: Complaint that judge shows bias dismissed
Also see: Judging the judges in Mass.: Protect independence
Judging the judges in Mass.: Pursue accountability
Other SJC decisions:
"Change urged for drunken driving cases" by Jonathan Saltzman and Marcella Bombardieri |
Globe Staff, November 02, 2012
A special counsel urged the state’s highest court Thursday to embrace
measures, including tougher laws and changes in courtroom policy, to
help erase the “appearance of leniency’’ in drunken driving cases
decided by judges instead of juries.
Judges in some Massachusetts courts, particularly in Worcester
County, acquit nearly all
drunken driving defendants who waive their right to a jury trial,
according to a yearlong study of the court system that recommends
curbing “judge shopping.’’
The study, commissioned by the Supreme Judicial Court last year
following a Globe Spotlight series, recommended that defendants be
required to choose a bench trial earlier in the process, instead of
waiting until the last minute. Some defendants decide to waive their
right to a jury trial on the day of the trial when a judge with a
reputation for leniency appears on the bench....
--more--"
Related: Plymouth is a Party Town
You might want to get a designated driver to take you home.
"Court lets police search phones without warrants" by John R. Ellement and Travis Andersen |
Globe Staff, December 05, 2012
The state’s highest court, in its first decision on cellphone privacy
for criminal suspects, ruled Wednesday that police in Massachusetts do
not need a search warrant to examine the cellphone of someone they have
arrested to see who has been in recent phone contact.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling was limited in scope, giving
police access only to the cellphone call log; it did not address
constitutional rights to privacy for other cellphone content, such as
texts and e-mails. The court will leave that broader issue “open for
another day,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford....
Despite the narrow scope, prosecutors praised the ruling as one that
will make their jobs easier. But defense lawyers expressed concerns
about an erosion of suspects’ rights....
Well, there is secrecy and then there is secrecy here in liberal Democrat(?) Massachusetts.
--more--"
Yup, judges can keep their legal reasoning a secret but the cops can go through your phone logs if you are detained in any way.
"SJC adds protection for young defendants" by Peter Schworm and John R. Ellement |
Globe Staff, December 14, 2012
In a far-reaching decision, the state’s highest court upheld the
dismissal of a murder indictment against a Lynn teenager, reflecting a
growing legal consensus that juvenile defendants’ youth makes them less
culpable of their crimes.
The ruling sets forth new law, requiring prosecutors to tell grand
juries that juveniles indicted on murder charges will be tried as
adults, information that might prompt jurors to instead consider lesser
charges.
“This allows the grand jury to consider the defendant’s status as a
juvenile,” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote in an opinion in the 4-to-3
decision.
Lenk described the required instructions as an added protection for
juveniles in a grand jury process that typically favors the government
and said they would serve as a gatekeeper between the adult and juvenile
justice systems....
--more--"
Also see: Mass. high court: Teacher can’t sue religious school for discrimination
Another group that always seems to be favored when it comes to court.
SJC moves to protect ID of police informants
