INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE

 They traverse the byways of Courthouses using restricted elevators (No Attorneys Allowed) and have a penchant for black, and feel insecure enough to have to sit elevated above everyone else (Except for the late, great Judge Jack Weinstein of the EDNY). 

The "They" we reference, are judges, and every now and then one decides to take a walk on the wild side and approach Rumpole for an interview. We decline most invitations, but accepted this one. The rules were simple- we would not edit or shorten answers, but we might decline to post an entire question and answer due to space. The final product would be approved by the Judge meaning the only negotiation was the inclusion or exclusion of a full question and answer. In this case, there were no disputes.  The Judge in question is currently a circuit court judge, but to protect their identity they refused to answer whether they had ever been a county court judge. 

R:How Long have you been a Judge?
J: More than a year, less than forever. I cannot give an exact date, which would allow my colleagues to narrow down my identity. 

R:Where have you served? 
J: Criminal, Civil, Family.   The list may or may not be inclusive for obvious reasons, and that also means I may just have substituted in one of those places for a shorter time than a full rotation. But I have enough experience in them to write about them. 

R:What  assignment did you like the best?
J: Like is not the right word. Where did I feel I had the most impact is a better question. Family.  I could hear motions and rule almost immediately on issues that directly affected real people. 

R: So I am assuming civil was not your cup of tea?
J: Not necessarily. The put-off in civil is the conveyor belt of cases all being handled the same way by the same group of attorneys. The same discovery requests. The same objections. The same rulings by the court. The same law firms suing and defending insurance companies. The built in costs of civil litigation to our society is staggering and concerning. BUT, and this is big, in a small percentage of cases the person being sued owns a small business or doesn't have insurance and the case takes on a potentially life altering outcome for them. I would look for those cases and do my best to move them along as efficiently as I could. The best I could do to help would be to bring finality sooner rather than later. I did the same for those cases where plaintiffs suffered catastrophic injuries or a loved one died. The plaintiffs, one way or another, needed an outcome to bring finality to their tragedy. The big dirty secret, which isn't a secret in civil court,  is how under staffed the system is. If you get sued today [Rumpole notes this exchange occurred in September] and your lawyer files a motion to dismiss, most judges do not have space on their calendar until January. And in this regard the legal system is failing our citizens. We need at least a half a dozen new spots in civil. Maybe more.  

R: Enough about civil. The best and worst of criminal court. 
J: The worst is easy- sentencing. It represents a failure in a human life. And it usually represents a failure in the person's family. A twenty year old who is going to prison for ten years represents a failure or breakdown of the family unit, the school system, and the absence of a support system to help them make better decisions. No child decides they want to be a thief or a drug dealer when they are growing up. I also see desperation in some people. Committing economic crimes because they do not see another way out- although my colleagues on the federal bench see that more than I do. 

Another part of the job is the mind-numbing number of violent crimes. They do not make the Herald, but there is a conveyor belt of murders and people being seriously wounded and I wonder about a society that produces such violence. I have met judges from around the world, and some countries- the Scandinavian countries come to mind-  just do not have the level of violence we have in the US. England and France do, but not nearly so much gun violence. 

The best part is two fold- when I see the system work and someone benefits from the chance PTI or probation offers. Or when I see (and this is very rare) someone exonerated. I also remember many of the victims that received closure from a case, but those memories are tempered because what brought them to the system was being victimized in the first place. But at least the system provided them justice and closure. 

I forgo to mention that the other worst part is working through the mountain of post conviction relief motions we get flooded with. I have to read the trial or plea transcript, get a response from the prosecutor and then write a detailed order usually denying the motion. What I worry about is the pro se handwritten motion that really has merit. Like, and not to get overly dramatic here, but what Clarence Gideon wrote to the Supreme Court from a Florida jail. Our system is not perfect, and some people do not belong in prison and I do not want to miss that handwritten motion that has merit. It keeps me up at night sometimes. 

I will not comment on death penalty cases because I just do not think I should. Sorry. 

R: Comment on the lawyering. 
J: Rocky waters here. First, the PDs are good to great lawyers. I always cringe when I hear a defendant say they want to hire a real lawyer, and then it gets worse when I see them show up with a lawyer who I know hasn't tried a case in over a decade. I think Miami has a great population of criminal defense attorneys who were trained as PDs or ASAs. But that is unfortunately the minority of the defense bar. There is an economics I am aware of that requires many good defense lawyers to run a "sign em and plea em" practice because that is the economics of the industry. It bothers me the same way the problems in civil court bother me. 

The prosecutors I see also run the gamut from good to great. For the most part the career prosecutors are people truly dedicated to their profession and standing up for victims and many of them are greatly skilled as trial lawyers. The problem with the SAO is simple and well known- it has become a large bureaucracy and the morale at the bottom is often quite low. I have been around long enough to remember when nearly every decision a prosecutor was asked to make was not met with "I have to obtain permission from a supervisor." That is no longer the case.  When I see a young ASA being forced to try a strong armed robbery that is really just a misdemeanor theft because a supervisor has refused to approve a reasonable plea because on some paper in their file someone wrote "vic wants max" I get very disillusioned with the system.  But the people in the system are dedicated and that gives me hope. In re-reading what I wrote let me explain that SAO supervisors will come to court. But since I have very limited options to get involved in plea negotiations without running afoul of case law, my frustrations must remain private. I work very hard to not reveal my views of the strength or weakness of a case. However I get my say at the JOA stage, as well as at sentencing and in ruling on motions. And if I do it right I can avoid a miscarriage of justice occurring. 

R: And lastly, comment on your colleagues. 
J. Ha! I knew you would ask that. I am not going to comment on personalities. Like lawyers, some judges are great, most are good to very good, and some are not so good. And for the most part we all know who the superstars are and who the laggards are. What you do not see and might not know is the number of times judges consult with each other on issues to make sure they are getting it right. There is a strong desire on the part of most of my colleagues to GET IT RIGHT and that is a good thing.  A few judges have what I would say are "concerning" or "difficult" views of what they do, and that worries me. Most, and I really mean this, most of my colleagues only have the agenda of trying to do a good job and getting it right. And that encourages me. 

R: Who reads our blog?
J: Every judge and not one judge. So that means a lot of us read it, less of us acknowledge that we read it, but we do. And btw that includes judges from around the state. I've gotten emails from Judges in Tallahassee or Jacksonville about something you have written that has made them laugh (usually this is the case) or has really gotten under their skin and they want to know how they should respond and if they should respond. But you know that, because you have their emails, because  I have been on some of those and I can tell your readers that there have been long and thoughtful email exchanges on significant legal issues and you never ever go back on your word to keep those private and this is to your credit. 

R: You get the last word.
J: This is the best job I could ever have. I should stop here. On my best days, on the best days, I am applying my skill and experience to difficult cases/issues and the matters are being fairly resolved and justice is done and when that happens I feel great because I played a part in that process. And that happens more than you acknowledge on your blog.  You like to make fun of judges and by now its just an eye-rolling process for us that read the blog. Rumpole making fun of our black robes again, being cheap, etc. But, in reading between the lines, I think you acknowledge the important role we play and that the very very vast majority of judges sought the position for the right reasons. That may not have always been the case, but it is the case now. These years on the bench have been the best of my professional life and I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to use whatever skills I have to help people. Now go ahead and mock me. 

R: Nope. You said it all and you said it very well. Thank you for doing this. I took my cheap shot with the title of the post.