Yesterday was arraignment day in Northampton County Courtroom #1. That's our historic and ceremonial courtroom, with portraits of scowling dead judges littered along the walls between colossal windows and a ceiling that rivals the Tower of Babel in size. The well of the court has plush carpeting and a mammoth mahogany bench for the court en banc, although there are now more judges than room for them all to sit there together. There's an ornate jury box with cushioned chairs. The well also includes a ring of cushioned chairs and a few benches at which lawyers can be seated. Everyone else is an untouchable and must sit in one of many hard wooden pews that make their way from the well to the back. It's very much like a church, except the priesthood consists of judges and lawyers. When a robed judge marches in, everyone must rise until told they may be seated. During yesterday's arraignment, 33 pages of criminal defendants were formally notified of charges against them and were asked how they intend to plead. It's a cattle call but can be very intimidating for people stepping foot inside a courtroom for the first time. Yesterday's call of the list (which is what arraignments are called) may have been intimidating for some lawyers as well.
Judge Sam Murray handled yesterday's arraignment. But instead of starting off by calling the names of the numerous defendants, he had an announcement. At the request of the President Judge, he wanted two people who are named as witnesses in a federal lawsuit to identify themselves.
This federal lawsuit in question is a civil rights action filed by former custody master Lissa Tresslar on April 5 against Northampton County Court alleging wrongful termination and retaliatory actions for her free speech in criticizing the way that custody matters were being handled. That matter is currently in discovery.
Tresslar is currently employed as an assistant District Attorney, but her role insulates both her and the courts. She handles the numerous appeals before the Superior and Supreme Court and thus has no contact with the county judges.
But yesterday, perhaps in an abundance of caution, the courts wanted two witnesses in Tresslar's lawsuit to identify themselves. Those two witnesses, like Tresslar, happen to be prosecutors. One of them was "devastated" after being publicly outed. Some attorneys, who themselves are potential witnesses, delt this was an attempt by the courts to intimidate them and make them less reluctant to testify.
More likely, the court was simply trying to determine if there are situations in which an individual judge assigned to a matter involving that lawyer might feel compelled to recuse himself or herself.
Frankly, I fail to see how a lawyer's involvement as a fact witness in a wrongful termination lawsuit has any bearing at all on the administration of criminal justice. Moreover, it appears that the court could easily have applied less intrusive methods of establishing who may have knowledge of facts in a totally unrelated matter. This could easily be accomplished via colloquies on the record between the judge, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney and defendant. There was no need to bring this out in a courtroom filled with hundreds of people.
Unfortunately, I do not have the transcript of what occurred and am going by reports from third parties. I'll have more details when I review it.
Basically, I find no fault with the court's attempt to determine whether there is a need for recusal. I just think it went about it with a buzzsaw.
1 comment:
Shame on Sam. He should have told Dally to do his own thuggery, no ?
Post a Comment