subject: Chief Justice US Demands End to Legal Games [print this page] Chief Justice US Demands End to Legal Games
Judges and lawyers who are currently addressing workers compensation criminal cases, about thirty of them, were sternly warned by the US Chief Justice. The chief justice feels that for too long lawyers have used the courts as their own venue for tinkering with individuals' rights. This chief justice assembled these lawyers and judges to his courtroom in order to address these highly unorthodox methods of using delaying tactics and panic in order to sway public opinion to their side and told them that it was no longer tolerated.
The chief justice did not single out any particular party. The attorney general's comments about several local judges delaying justice in the state's cases of criminal worker's compensation spurred the chief justice to call for the conference. Lawyers soon fought back, saying that the attorney general's comments were entirely out of order and uncalled for.
The chief justice indicated that the idea behind his conference was to make sure that justice is served fairly, and to hasten the judicial process. He said each lawyer and judge should give worker compensation related cases top priority, and the courts should put them first on their calendars. Special jury terms were called for to help speed things up.
One lawyer, at the conference, suggested the order was void because it lacked three of the five justices' signatures. Only one chief justice signed the conference order, which also put a gag rule into effect. Any type of out-of-court statement made in order to alter public opinion mocks justice.
That type of offensive personality, in his eyes, was clearly in violation of their oaths of office, and he urged them to refrain. The justice reminded lawyers that if they had a problem with another lawyer they could address the issue in court, with the legal practice commission or the grievance committee. He instructed the judges to remember the fully mandate due process, but to also attempt to reach quick resolutions whenever it is possible. The chief justice invited questions from the floor, but clearly stated complaints or excuses about past actions or events were not allowed. There were other institutions that would deal with that.
One lawyer, who represented a person indicted by a grand jury, wanted the difference between media reporting and public comment by the prosecution to be noted. The lawyer said our first amendment to the constitution gave the media the right to report, but the Canons of Ethics made public comments by the prosecution inexcusable. One lawyer claimed to have taken legal steps to protect his client, not having violated the gag rule.
There was another lawyer who was counseling an indicted lawyer who insisted he wouldn't say inflammatory things just to get a vote. Another lawyer said that if he didn't speak out, it may look like his client was guilty. Yet another lawyer spoke about the ever amplifying rate of publicity these cases were being given. Finally, one last counsel noted the increasing difficulties that some clients face because of the ever growing influence that negative publicity can have on the judicial process.
