This blog is about workers' compensation, certainly. However, it is often also about the law, in that vein drifting periodically from its workers' compensation roots somewhat. The law is dependent upon predictability and transparency. Those who find themselves participating in legal decisions or proceedings are benefitted by clear statutes, the doctrine of stare decisis, and dedicated judges. Periodically, there are stories that may contribute to doubts in the system.
I have written about judges suspended after inebriated excursions, see Conferences and Consequences (November 2019). There was the judge who restrained a lawyer, Judge Handcuffs Attorney (August 2016). There is the more pedestrian, but always present risk of untoward communication, Judge Reprimanded for Ex Parte Communication (September 2016). There was The Sleuthing Judge (October 2017), the Judicial Witness (February 2018), and the one engaging in The Practice of Law (July 2021). There have been some good examples to learn from. Perhaps none received as much press as the Brevard County example in which the judge was accused of hitting a public defender, A Recap and Result of Judicial Viral Video (January 2016).
Over the years, there have been plenty of situations from which we might each take a lesson. As I read a recent MSN.com publication of a Newsweek story from Michigan, these and more came to mind. The situation described there is not as graphic as a fistfight, shooting, or even the practice of law. However, it is intriguing in its own right, and sufficiently significant to make the national news. The headline there proclaims that this judge "may be in the wrong line of work."
There is the implication that the judge stepped over some line with a ruling, reminding me of Brewer and Shipley crooning "one toke over the line" (Tarkio Road, 1970). They later explained that this lyric is intended to suggest that "too much of anything will probably kill you." An interesting perspective on stepping over a line.
The Newsweek story focuses on a "judge known for giving criminals higher sentences than what guidelines recommend." He also is alleged to have a history of "making controversial comments from the bench." The Michigan Court of Appeals recently considered an appeal involving a case over which this judge presided.
The case was challenging. A woman was accused of stabbing a man, "her boyfriend on Valentine's Day in 2015," though she insisted "she acted in self-defense." The Judge sentenced this woman "to serve a minimum of 35 years in prison, 15 years over the recommended guidelines." For more perspective on "minimums" see Mandatory Minimums (February 2022).
To make matters clearer still, the judge decided to editorialize during the 2017 sentencing hearing. He allegedly told the defendant "I hope you are haunted by the vision of you stabbing him. After this day, you don't exist." The judge also allegedly told the convicted stabber that the "major flaw" suffered by the stabbing victim was "that he stayed in a relationship with you."
The Court of Appeals took issue with the judge's comments and sentence in 2020. The case was reversed and remanded for the judge to enter a new sentence. MSN reports that the Judge "ignored" the appellate court on this second opportunity and sentenced the defendant to 30 years. At that time, there were apparently comments about premeditation, though the "defendant (was) not convicted of that crime." Thus, the Appeals Court had a second opportunity to review the case.
The Court unanimously reversed the 30-year sentence. In addition, however, it took a further step regarding the trial judge and "ordered he be removed from any future hearings related to the case." The Court characterized the sentence as "an abuse of discretion and a willful violation of controlling precedent from our Supreme Court."
The opinion reportedly notes that "If a trial judge is unable to follow the law as determined by a higher appellate court, the trial judge is in the wrong line of work." It reportedly also mentioned that the judge's "conduct in court 'may warrant investigation by the Judicial Tenure Commission.'"
As I read, I was also reminded of a workers' compensation case this century in which the appellate court had more than one opportunity to review. The Court noted there that it had initially
"reversed and remanded for additional proceedings because the 'JCC's final order [was] inconsistent in its findings of fact and conclusions of law....' Id. at 490. Because the JCC's order issued after remand contains many of the same internal inconsistencies, we again reverse and remand for further proceedings." 3 So. 3d 12, 1278, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009.
The message is clear, seemingly, "do as you have been told."
The lessons for judges from the recent Newsweek story are clear. First, and perhaps foremost, is that commenting from the bench is fraught with potential problems. The judicial comments in A Recap and Result of Judicial Viral Video (January 2016) illustrate this, even before that situation escalated. The comments in this Michigan case likely underpinned the Court's conclusion that reversal was warranted (twice). There is rarely any compelling reason for judicial editorializing from the bench. An exception to that is when compliments are appropriate for a well-tried case.
Second, and more important, is that appellate courts exist to bring consistency to the judicial application of the law across geographic areas. The law should be the same in Miami as it is in Pensacola. But, more critically, appellate courts are courts of error. Their main function is to interpret the law, and to correct misinterpretations. The trial judge's job is to listen to, and follow, the appellate court's decisions.
As Train noted in Drops of Jupiter (2001), this remains true "even when I know you're wrong." When the appellate court is wrong, the solution to that lies not in the trial judge, but in some higher authority such as an en banc consideration by that court, a supreme court review, or legislative correction. Those avenues are open to the parties or the community. But, the trial judge's job is to follow the law.
Of course, a judge might explain why some disagreement exists. A recent concurring opinion in Florida's First District Court illustrates that. An almost 60-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, resulted there in the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit. One judge concurred and wrote a lengthy explanation of why that outcome is perhaps troublesome or incorrect, concluding with "but as I am bound by New York Times, I concur." Thus, one might appropriately express thoughts, contrary perspectives, and questions, but in the end, trial judges are bound by the decisions of higher courts. That is the foundation of America's judicial process, and worthy of reflection.
