Praising a Judge that Does it Right: David Rippel

Making the World a Better Place

Judge David Rippel

Collin County Court at Law no. 4

As a people’s attorney (defense lawyer standing up for the citizen against the government in the defense of one’s constitutional rights) for 20 years, the wisdom I have gained in what makes the world a better place is truly invaluable. Here are a few nuggets and observations.

A court focused on their statistics (how many trials they have a year, how old their oldest cases are, the number of dispositions), is not one that is attentive to the needs of the citizen accused or society as a whole. You can’t force justice. Most of the time, it is like baking a cake. For all the parts to come together perfectly- it takes time. Courts that harangue defense lawyers by not allowing them some say in scheduling, do this to everyone’s (including theirs) detriment. This is a court concerned about bragging rights to their fellow colleagues. The fact is- hardly anyone knows the judges they are voting for, much less their court statistics. I applaud Dallas County courts for being efficient by not requiring citizens accused to show up to every court date when a lawyer can do it. Many Tarrant County courts (particularly felony courts) are not respectful of the citizen accused’s rights or time when they require a mandatory appearance for every court date which could be handled by the attorney. Judges and court staff need to remember rule number one: don’t treat someone like a criminal before they are convicted.  

The number one thing I observe wrong with the jury system is jurors not actually following the law. Jurors need to stop disassociating themselves from the case. The whole point of the jury system is to keep it real for the citizens. When jurors ignore reasonable doubt, issue guilty verdicts because they think they are suppose to, they render  the system meaningless. A trial is not a rubber stamp process, it is a due process evidential hearing. Follow the law, reasonable doubt means NOT GUILTY. Listen and respect the evidence and law as if your own child were on trial. I walk away from many a guilty verdict knowing that the jury would not convict based on the law and the same evidence had it been their loved one on trial. Unfortunately the last 20 years has been quite the age of hypocrisy. Most trials have serious factual dispute issues. We would not have jury trials if the police were always right, prosecutors always honest and reasonable, and judges beyond reproach. Not to mention, most cases are resolved by plea bargain so a trial is the first indicator of  serious issues at play that merit serious attention. When jurors don’t follow the law, they should know their verdict isn’t fooling anyone. They should not hope too hard if they should ever become accused, as repercussions breed a societal mentality. The general consensus of the last 20 years has been “tough on crime.”  It has bred the overcrowded jails, millions of broken homes, and billions in federal poverty subsidies. When a justice system is concerned chiefly with “the stick” approach (retributive “eye for an eye” mentality), solutions and improvements lag behind retarding society from progress. Love, compassion, mercy and understanding is a far more effective answer and approach in reducing crime, and the  civilized one.

Today I handled a few pleas in Collin County’s Court at Law no. 4. My repeated pleasant experiences with Judge David Rippel merits mention. The judge reminds me of what works in bettering society. Some may call his sentences given to my clients slaps on the wrist, but this is misdemeanor court where for many (a wise judge once told me), people self correct. Not only did he treat me along with  all the other defense lawyers with the utmost respect (defense lawyers are too often treated like redheaded stepchildren receiving the brunt of a court’s venom and frustration), he treated my  client with dignity, compassion and humanity. He even reached out to my client and asked caring questions (no, he did not preach or get on a soapbox about drinking).  His judgments were the kind that produce good effects.  Much akin to child rearing, the greater the love and positivity- the better the results. Inevitably, I have seen strict parents have the worst results. Life is about trust, respect, and encouragement. Who doesn’t make a mistake? The secret for those in power is not pleasuring in the negative (very indicative of low self esteem) or control, but gaining one’s happiness by encouraging and helping others. The justice system works when those caught in it want to turn it around for good by being good themselves. You just don’t do that when you fail to recognize basic humanity in the process. I would love to see  all the courts more full of positive, forgiving, hopeful and compassionate people (judges, their staff , law enforcement and prosecution). It’s time to trend positive and reject what has clearly not worked in this new age of record number prisons. We have ailed as a society when cops feel like they have to arrest every violator they see. There was a time when a cop would warn a DWI to call a ride and not do that again and they wouldn’t. We live in an age where people parked in parking lots intoxicated (because they don’t want to endanger others by driving) are arrested and convicted.  

Judge David Rippel, you change the world for the better. You focus on hope and the positive. You are a beacon and with heroes like you, others will follow. One day, cops will feel free again to let people who made mistakes call for a ride and they will be thanking people who pull over in parking lots to do the right thing. Good always wins over evil and society will be better for it.

Judge Chastises Jury After Verdict: Tells Them They Got It Wrong

Ohio Judge Amy Salerno is under heat now for approaching and chastising a jury after they found the defendant (name protected for expunction purposes the defendant may pursue) Not Guilty of Assault and Disorderly Conduct. She told them “99% of the time the jury is correct. Now it’s 98%. You got this wrong.” One juror, feeling berated, burst into tears and another juror requested an escort home for safety reasons as the judge’s outburst was made in the midst of the alleged victim’s agitated family and friends. The judge further went on to state she would have her chance to get the defendant regardless of the jury’s verdict because he had other cases pending in her court (which were later dismissed by the prosecutor).

Here is what is wrong with this picture:

1. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states in Canon 3: A judge shall perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. It further states under Canon 3 A (3): A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses and lawyers. The official comment states, “The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice, or bias.” We all have opinions. The difference is the jury’s opinion is all that matters in a court of law. Just because a judge may disagree, this does not open the floodgates of a judge’s first amendment right to free speech. The judge is acting in an official capacity and the ethical rules prohibit a judge from engaging in behavior under the cloak of a robe that disrespects a jury’s verdict in any way. The jury’s verdict is law.

2. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states in Canon 3 C (1) (a): A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including: the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a part, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. Clearly, without even hearing the evidence in the defendant’s other cases- which were eventually dismissed, she had formed an opinion of guilt. One cannot make a proper verdict without the evidence. This is law school 101 for judges.

3. The Ohio Supreme Court (whom Judge Amy Salerno answers to) has its own more specific ethical canons. In Canon 3 B (10) it states on point: A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding. This is cut and dry. The appending caveat exists for judges to legally address juror misconduct issues. It certainly is not a license for judicial misconduct.

Thankfully the jurors in this case filed a complaint. The Ohio State Bar has now filed a complaint with the Ohio’s Supreme Court’s disciplinary board. Following the hearings, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline will determine what if any punishment should occur from removal of the bench to loss of law license. This is more common than people realize and totally unacceptable. Last year it happened in Tarrant County, Texas. After a Not Guilty verdict on a DWI, visiting Judge Jerry D. Ray lashed out at jurors in a diatribe accusing them of deciding to “ignore the law and your oath” comparing the verdict to the O.J. Simpson trial. The presiding juror, an elementary school speech therapist, stated:

“It was horrible. He was horrible. I mean, we were absolutely chastised like children. Like we were total idiots.”

So how does this happen- and why? In all professions, there is a bell curve of performance. The problem is judges don’t answer to bell curves. They are in a unique position, in that their success isn’t measured by the strength of their abilities. This is further complicated by their professional isolation. Once in office, judges are independent. There are no checks or balances. They are rarely disciplined or admonished by state bars or state supreme courts for unethical or inappropriate behavior. As a matter of fact, in Texas the majority of the judicial complaint process is secret. Once they serve a term, they are rarely challenged at the polls due to an incumbent’s edge. A case in point, Judge Amy Salerno was elected in 2005. If she can’t control her temper and impropriety after ten years, the public has no reason to expect her to now or in the future.

As for isolation, you don’t have to learn how to play with the schoolchildren on the playground, or even understand schoolchildren, when you are the playground. It’s called the “God” complex. Lawyers are the first to tell you that a disproportionate amount of Federal judges (appointed for life) suffer this. One of the reasons why it is so rampant is because of how legally insurmountable it has become to have a federal judge impeached and thereby removed. As for accountability, rarely are judges ever reversed on appeal in today’s “tough on crime” world, where so many decisions are politically based. As for performance, judges don’t have to answer to a bell curve. They are the bell curve. For lawyers, those who are good do well. Those who are not, don’t and are forced to contend with the repercussions. Once judges get elected or appointed, they have no measuring scale because there is no need. Judges like Ohio Judge Amy Salerno don’t fear repercussions. They have been groomed to believe they are always right.

Does this apply to everyone? No. Recently, six judges retired from my county serving an aggregate 120+ years. A retirement reception was given by the defense bar in which each judge had the opportunity to make remarks. The old phrase of "we are what we think" gives a truthful window to the soul. What I discovered was the best two judges said basically the same thing. They emphasized kindness and doing things for the right reasons. Unlike Judge Salerno, they would never be caught chastising a jury. Moreover, those were the two (of the lot) that had the best work ethic. The only judge to receive a standing ovation (not one but two) remarked he agreed to serve as a temporary judge when the position came open and the local bar took a vote. That temporary position turned into 39 years and he serves the distinction as Texas’ longest tenured judge, a most beloved one.

These tidbits are insightful in that it makes sense to let lawyers (or those in the know as opposed to a general electorate) have some say in who serves on the bench. Ohio Judge Amy Salerno’s behavior cannot be categorized as a rookie mistake, yet she was reelected this fall despite the Ohio’s Supreme Court’s pending disciplinary case. Our administrative and appellate judges must do better in keeping the judges accountable, lest things spiral out of control like they did for Judge Amy Salerno and Judge Jerry D. Ray. The unacceptable actions of these judges only weaken the public’s confidence in our judicial system. The Judge Amy Salerno YouTube video (above) has her chastising citizens accused before they are convicted. The best judges in my experience are the ones who focus on good just as much as they try to right wrongs. They know people make mistakes. They know encouragement breeds change, hope and positivity. They know when discipline is necessary: “Just a spoonful of sugar, makes the medicine go down... in the most delightful way. “

Judge Punches Defense Lawyer- The Big Picture

What is wrong with this picture? On the surface of it, it looks like a judge challenged a defense lawyer to a fight and they both mutually agreed to duke it out behind the courtroom. However, this is NOT the case at all for MANY reasons. When you watch recent news clips, you don’t see defense lawyers telling news reporters that Judge John Murphy has “issues.” No, of course not ! How could they expect to get good plea bargains, rulings and judgments from the judge once they go on the news criticizing him? Let’s get real. So what does the public really know for those who don’t know the judge and who don’t practice criminal law. Here is why this is SO important.

First of all, the venue. A courtroom has rules of decorum. There to enforce the rules are bailiffs. One cannot yell, demean people, or physically fight in court. To make sure it is a safe environment, the public, including defense lawyers, must go through metal detectors. Judges do not. If a defendant, witness, prosecutor, defense lawyer or member of the public were to fight in court they would promptly be escorted out by armed law enforcement. There would also be assault charges if the fight was unprovoked or not mutual combat. A judge may throw someone in jail for contempt for unacceptable behavior. The judge in this case made the following comments to the public defender in open court unprovoked: “You know if I had a rock, I would throw it at you right now.”

“If you want a fight, let’s go out back and I’ll just beat your ass.”  

Anyone else making those comments would beheld in contempt, admonished or possibly be charged with terroristic threat. A judge is not above the law. All of this was in response to the public defender stating he would not waive his client’s right to a speedy trial. How can you maintain proper decorum in the courtroom when you can’t maintain proper decorum over yourself? This erodes public confidence in this judge’s courtroom.

Second, the assault. This was not mutual combat. Mutual combat is when two people determine under normal circumstances and on equal footing they will resolve their differences in a fight. Mutual combat is also an understanding that the fight will begin on fair grounds. Even in the duels of the 18^thcentury, ex. the Aaron Burr versus Alexander Hamilton duel, there were “seconds” (emissaries) designated to negotiate time, place and rules. Normally a duel involved a flipping of a coin to determine who chose sides, gun, position, etc. Here, as soon as Mr. Weinstock went through the door, the judge grabbed him by the collar and started punching him. His was a total cheap shot and underhanded.  There was nothing fair about waiting by the door to spring on him unexpectedly.

Third, the “mutual” element. It is common practice for judges and attorneys to iron out differences back in chambers. No lawyer goes to a judge’s chambers expecting a physical brawl despite any heated words or exchanges (in this case, the only heated words were the judge’s). Judge Murphy has even admitted there was “one” occasion he and a lawyer in chambers resolved such in a normal manner. There is a hierarchy in court much like in the military. When an officer or judge makes an order, the lawyer or enlisted man/woman must follow command. When a judge rushes off the bench and heads towards chambers threatening, it is rationale for the lawyer to expect he wants to talk in chambers, in private. Andrew Weinstock even said as much.  Mr. Weinstock is a veteran public defender of thirteen years. News reports confirm he does not have any type of bad reputation with judges. 

Fourth, the laws. Had the shoe been on the other foot and the public defender assaulted the judge he could be charged with a felony assault on a public servant. Furthermore, with Judge Murphy’s age, he could have been charged with a felony assault on the elderly. This rendered Mr. Weinstock powerless to defend himself. He could not strike back, lest he risk a felony and his law license. The judge knew this. Had the judge been hurt, with no cameras, the judge could have easily feigned being a victim, with his position and influence. Naturally the local district attorney’s office would stand to benefit by prosecuting the public defender. By causing a scene, the judge actually achieved his intended effect. Immediately after this, the Public Defender’s office moved Mr. Weinstock to another court. This is just wrong. It is virtually impossible for a defense lawyer to have a judge removed from his cases, yet so easy for Judge Murphy to get rid of the public defender not willing to waive his client’s rights. There is something morally wrong with taking advantage of power. That is why crimes of moral turpitude include an assault by a man on a woman and we penalize assaults on children and the elderly where there is an imbalance of power.

Fifth, the irony. It is clear that Judge Murphy is an elderly man. Yet it turns out that Judge Murphy served in the U.S. Army Special Forces. Despite his age, here is a trained fighter attacking a career, middle aged and out of shape defense lawyer.  I am sure Mr. Weinstock did not choose a career in the law to hone his jujitsu or aikido skills. Thankfully, the armed bailiffs  broke up the melee. Who knows how far Judge Murphy would have gone with his unsuspecting victim? After the fight, true to the nature of an Army Ranger or Navy Seal, he just shook it off and got right back on the bench declaring to the packed courtroom “I will catch my breath eventually. Man, I’man old man.” Talk about being the textbook example of how to resolve differences. Not a good influence in the least. I wonder how many defendants were in court that day for assault?

Which brings me to the last and final point: respect for defense lawyers. See the attached picture of a passage of a 1939 Principles of Criminology textbook by Edwin H. Sutherland, a sociology professor at Indiana University. In it, every part of the judicial system is explained. When it comes to the defense lawyer, it reads “Criminal lawyers are generally in disrepute in the legal profession… they make use of every possible subterfuge and trick to secure acquittal. These include bribery of jurors, intimidation of witnesses, instruction of witnesses in perjury,….” He later extols the public defender system because “technical motions  are seldom made." Yet sixty five years later, Judge Murphy exemplifies how little we have come. When I became a lawyer, I received the same training as all the other lawyers. When I took an oath to practice law, it was the same oath all lawyers, including prosecutors and judges took. Our American justice system was founded on principles of fairness and equality. The criminal justice system would be tyranny without defense lawyers. There would be no one making sure the rights of the accused were protected. It is not right to demean defense lawyers for the role we play. Despite the outlandish characterization of the 1939 textbook, defense lawyers uphold the law as much as the prosecutors and judges. The means in which we defend our clients are lawful and integral to the judicial system. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission should take immediate and authoritative action against Judge John Murphy to restore faith and confidence in the judicial system. No lawyer should fear going to court and being assaulted by a judge with improper judicial temperament. It is important that we set a precedent that this won’t be tolerated in the future. The defendants in his court or in any court should not fear being ruled upon by a judge unfit to serve. Every day Judge John Murphy administers punishment and holds people accountable according to the law. He too must too submit and be held accountable for unlawful conduct most unbecoming for a judge, otherwise confidence in the entire judicial system collapses. It is not an excuse nor is it acceptable for society to sanction such behavior on the basis it was directed at a defense lawyer or public defender, but this is not surprising given the clamor  to elect “tough on crime”prosecutors to the bench. It is time to honor not “tough on crime”judges but “smart on crime” judges who treat everyone in the courtroom with respect. Judges are not fit to serve if the refusal of a lawyer to waive his client's rights or any rights for that matter  results in improper rulings, much less an unprovoked physical assault. The assault just brings this judge's bad behavior to light. One wonders how much justice he has actually dispensed to those in his court.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/brevard-judge-accused-punching-public-defender/ngCGC/