*UPDATE* - Steve Feren led the jury room ceremonies Tuesday morning, May 27th. If you still don't think this is about votes, you're crazy ...
BrowardBeat.com'sBuddy Nevins wrote a nice piece over the long weekend concerning challenged incumbents swearing-in jurors, called Judges Being Allowed To Campaign In Courthouse. Buddy is strongly against the practice, calling it "unfair".
You can read the post here, with arevised ending, as follows:
"I’m told that Clerk of the Courts Howard Forman controls the jury room. If Forman is responsible, he should make sure that Richards, Rosenthal and Feren would be the last justices to swear-in jurors until after the election."
The article's original ending went like this:
"(Peter) Weinstein owes (JAABLOG) and the public an answer. It looks like the chief judge is trying to involve himself in the judges’ campaigns, which is strictly forbidden by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
If I were the chief judge, Richards, Rosenthal and Feren would be the last justices to swear-in jurors until after the election."
The reason for the change is unknown at this time, but as a fellow blogger, we can attest that posts are typically written quickly, without benefit of an editor, and often are followed by post-publication revisions, and in rare circumstances, phone calls requesting clarification. However, the change does serve to highlight a very important issue, as follows: who should be held responsible for shameless election season jury room practices?
The answer seems to be both the clerk of courts and the chief judge, together with the challenged judges, who ought to know better.
It's Howard Forman's jury room, after all. Swearing in the jurors is a clerk's function, which means he can do it personally, or have one of his employees handle the chore, just like in court. And if he wants to allow a challenged judge to lead the ceremony, the least he can do is give equal time to the other candidates. If equal access isn't feasible, then Forman should keep all the judges out of the jury room until the end of election season. Period.
On the other hand Peter Weinstein, as chief judge, is responsible for stopping errant behavior by 17th Circuit judges. We've personally brought the matter to the attention of Sharon Zeller, Weinstein's head of county courts. Additionally, although nobody will admit it, this blog and BrowardBeat are widely read in courthouse circles. If Weinstein doesn't know what's going on, then problems at the top are even worse than previously imagined. For while Weinstein may not be "trying to involve himself in the judges’ campaigns", his failure to quickly put a stop to the practice by speaking to either Forman or the judges in question directly could certainly be interpreted as an approving nod to an unfair election season gimmick.
So, who do you think is responsible, besides the individual judges? Forman or Weinstein?
You make the call ...
ETC. - Canon 7C(3) ... "A judicial candidate involved in an election or re-election ... may attend a political party function to speak in behalf of his or her candidacy or on a matter that relates to the law, the improvement of the legal system, or the administration of justice. The function must not be a fund raiser, and the invitation to speak must also include the other candidates, if any, for that office ... " (emphasis added)
and
Canon 2A(b) ... "A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge ... "
BrowardBeat.com'sBuddy Nevins wrote a nice piece over the long weekend concerning challenged incumbents swearing-in jurors, called Judges Being Allowed To Campaign In Courthouse. Buddy is strongly against the practice, calling it "unfair".
You can read the post here, with arevised ending, as follows:
"I’m told that Clerk of the Courts Howard Forman controls the jury room. If Forman is responsible, he should make sure that Richards, Rosenthal and Feren would be the last justices to swear-in jurors until after the election."
The article's original ending went like this:
"(Peter) Weinstein owes (JAABLOG) and the public an answer. It looks like the chief judge is trying to involve himself in the judges’ campaigns, which is strictly forbidden by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
If I were the chief judge, Richards, Rosenthal and Feren would be the last justices to swear-in jurors until after the election."
The reason for the change is unknown at this time, but as a fellow blogger, we can attest that posts are typically written quickly, without benefit of an editor, and often are followed by post-publication revisions, and in rare circumstances, phone calls requesting clarification. However, the change does serve to highlight a very important issue, as follows: who should be held responsible for shameless election season jury room practices?
The answer seems to be both the clerk of courts and the chief judge, together with the challenged judges, who ought to know better.
It's Howard Forman's jury room, after all. Swearing in the jurors is a clerk's function, which means he can do it personally, or have one of his employees handle the chore, just like in court. And if he wants to allow a challenged judge to lead the ceremony, the least he can do is give equal time to the other candidates. If equal access isn't feasible, then Forman should keep all the judges out of the jury room until the end of election season. Period.
On the other hand Peter Weinstein, as chief judge, is responsible for stopping errant behavior by 17th Circuit judges. We've personally brought the matter to the attention of Sharon Zeller, Weinstein's head of county courts. Additionally, although nobody will admit it, this blog and BrowardBeat are widely read in courthouse circles. If Weinstein doesn't know what's going on, then problems at the top are even worse than previously imagined. For while Weinstein may not be "trying to involve himself in the judges’ campaigns", his failure to quickly put a stop to the practice by speaking to either Forman or the judges in question directly could certainly be interpreted as an approving nod to an unfair election season gimmick.
So, who do you think is responsible, besides the individual judges? Forman or Weinstein?
You make the call ...
ETC. - Canon 7C(3) ... "A judicial candidate involved in an election or re-election ... may attend a political party function to speak in behalf of his or her candidacy or on a matter that relates to the law, the improvement of the legal system, or the administration of justice. The function must not be a fund raiser, and the invitation to speak must also include the other candidates, if any, for that office ... " (emphasis added)
and
Canon 2A(b) ... "A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge ... "