Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill appealed a reassignment of cases in Hinds County by Senior Circuit Judge Tomie Green to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Judge Green issued an order last month assigning all criminal cases to her and Judge Bill Gowan and all civil cases to Judge Weill and Judge Winston Kidd. The order is effective August 1, 2012. The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered Judge Green to submit an answer by May 16. Judge Green also decreed she will personally assign all requests for emergency relief instead of using the current method of random assignment.
Judge Weill said the order will bog down the "wheels of justice" and the docket "will move at an unacceptable pace without intervention" from the court. Judge Weill provides the caseloads for all four circuit judges if Judge Green's order is implemented (without any cases filed after August 1):
Judge Green: 1,792 criminal cases and additional mental health cases.
Judge Gowan: 1,438 criminal cases and additional 2nd District civil cases
Judge Kidd: 3,679 civil cases and additional drug court cases
Judge Weill: 1,296
Thus Judge Green will have 354 more cases than Judge Gowan and Judge Kidd will have 2,383 more civil cases than Judge Weill. Judge Weill then points out the amount of dispositions per judge in 2011 according to the Office of Administrative Courts:
Judge Green: civil: 312, criminal: 323 Total: 635
Judge Gowan: civil: 333, criminal: 540 Total: 873
Judge Kidd: civil: 295, criminal: 505 Total: 800
Judge Weill: civil: 524, criminal: 548 Total: 1,072
The petition also cites the OAC in stating Judge Green presided over five criminal trials since last year while Judge Weill presided over fifteen. Judge Weill stated Judge Green "provides no numerical or statistical support for her division assignment, for obvious reasons." He claims Judge Green will have a criminal docket of 1,792 cases and Judge Kidd will have civil 3,679 cases under the reassignment, both a clear majority of cases. Judge Weill argues the "fairness in the apportionment of cases" was not even considered by Judge Green (Editorial note: Isn't this disparate impact?)
Judge Weill filed his appeal on May 2. Judge Weill argued Judge Green's order violated Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure #27. The rule states:
"(g) Motions Regarding the Setting of Term and Assigning of Causes in the Trial
Courts. Orders entered and other actions in the chancery and circuit courts setting terms of
court and assigning causes and dockets under Miss. Code Ann. § 9-5-3 and § 9-7-3 are
subject to review by the Supreme Court on petition of any judge of the district wherein such
orders have been entered or such action has been taken. The setting of terms and assigning
of causes and dockets in the chancery and circuit courts shall be done fairly considering the
relative work loads of the judges and the right of litigants within the district to fair and
reasonable access to all of the judicial officers as well as reasonable accommodation of the
requests and needs of all judges within the district...."
Judge Weill said Judge Green's order is "an unilateral attempt to expand the limited authority of a senior circuit judge." The appeal states Judge Green's order is to be implemented 105 days after it was issued. Judge Weill points out Judge Green protested when then-Senior Judge Swan Yerger attempted to remove criminal cases from Judge Green.
Judge Green responded by quoting the statute and arguing it gave her the proper authority to divide the docket pursuant to her order. Judge Green said all circuit judges but Weill signed the order:
"2) While there shall be no limitation whatsoever upon the powers and duties of the said judges other than as cast upon them by the Constitution and laws of this state, the court in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, in the discretion of the senior circuit judge, may be divided into civil and criminal divisions as a matter of convenience, by the entry of an order upon the minutes of the court."
Judge Green stated the purpose of the reorganization "was to create a more effective and efficient justice system" for Hinds County. No statistics were cited in her response. She said there were no objections by the Circuit Clerk or District Attorney. Judge Green accused Judge Weill of pandering directly to his constituents: "No court should be bound by campaign promises unwittingly made to voters" and that there is no law that allows a candidate to promise voters he "will preside over either of civil or criminal cases." She claims Judge Weill should have known Judge Green could split the docket when he ran for office.
Judge Green then took another shot at Judge Weill. Judge Weill argued Judge Green took the opposite position when then-Senior Judge Swan Yerger attempted to remove criminal cases from her docket. WDAM reported in 2008:
"Two black Hinds County Circuit Court judges are contesting a plan to exclude them from handling major
criminal cases, with one labeling the move as racist. Under the plan by senior Circuit Judge Swan Yerger, black judges Winston Kidd and Tomie Green would only handle sex crimes, drug cases, aggravated DUI and white-collar crimes.
White judges Yerger and Bobby DeLaughter would handle murder, robbery and assault cases, and property crimes and burglary cases. Two special judges employed by the court would also handle these kinds of cases.
Kidd said Friday he doesn't agree with the plan to leave him and Green out of cases that involve violence. Kidd said he didn't want to call the plan racism --quoting-- "but that's what it is."
Yerger said there was no discriminatory intent behind the plan, which will take effect in January.
He believes the plan will speed up the justice process as judges focus on certain kinds of cases."
Judge Green said "Petitioner wasted much time and energy outlining and misrepresenting the facts of the earlier case. This is to be expected since the matter occurred years before Petitioner was elected to the bench. His rendition of the alleged facts are inaccurate and self-serving." She then states "I respectfully decline to participate in hurtful attacks that go beyond disagreement over case assignments to conduct that borders on the realm of being both distasteful and destructive to the judiciary in general, and to the Hinds County judiciary."
Disclosure: This correspondent created a website for the Weill campaign in 2010.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Circuit Judge FOOD FIGHT!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Weill brought this upon himself by going completely over the top with his "tough on crime" act. He forgot that you can be truly tough on crime AFTER CONVICTION, but you still have to be fair to all defendants and all attorneys during the process.
What I find wanting in Judge Weill's petition is some explanation of why the statute doesn't mean what it says, or appears to say.
Here's the subsection:
"While there shall be no limitation whatsoever upon the powers and duties of the said judges other than as cast upon them by the Constitution and laws of this state, the court in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, in the discretion of the senior circuit judge, may be divided into civil and criminal divisions as a matter of convenience, by the entry of an order upon the minutes of the court."
If what Judge Green has done is contrary to the statute, then what *does* it allow her to do?
Anderson, I haven't read Judge Weill's arguments, but it seems as though the statute is an unconstitutional procedural rule. Random rotating assignment of civil cases among all judges in the district is mandated by procedural rule. This statute contradicts the rule.
Procedural statute vs. procedural rule = statute loses.
At least that's my own unresearched analysis.
Tomie Green's case closure numbers are disgraceful. She is dead last among the circuit judges, running 135 cases behind Judge Kidd (and Judge Kidd has the added responsibility of drug court).
Judge Weill has closed nearly twice as many cases as Judge Green.
What, exactly, is Tomie Green doing to earn the 6-figure salary she is taking from the taxpayers? Perhaps Tomie Green should spend a little more time doing the job she was hired to do and a little less time meddling in the sheriff's affairs.
Agree that's the way to go, Curt - at first glance, Judge Weill didn't seem to be arguing that, which I thought was a mistake. The subsection's got to be shot down, not argued around.
Pages 9-10, 26-28 of the Petition make this very point Anderson.
You're right, 1:27 ... kind of. They make that point obliquely, like a pro-se prisoner trying to make sure he can't be held not to've briefed something.
Just as you don't hide your light under a bushel, you don't mask one of your two leading arguments. There are really two issues here: does the statute authorize what Judge Green has done, and if so, then is the statute constitutional?
The statement of issues, the argument headings, and the text of the argument make murky what should be clear. Judge Weill's petition is not particularly well done, though I will give him a break for evidently working on it "off the clock."
Free tips on legal draftsmanship, worth what you paid for them ...
P.S. - to "prove I'm not a robot," I have to type "assobey"???
Weill's "brief" could be a succinct 7 to 9 pages if he didn't spend over 20 "bragging" about his performance in office in trying 15 criminal trials in his first year. He presided over those trials, the DAs office tried the cases along with the defense counsel. Weill sounds like a child crying because their favorite toy got lost.
The Ogden zombies are emerging.
The Mississippi Supreme Court haven't much engaged the old "rules v statutes" fight of years past (the early 80's). Leaving aside the statistics and personalities, it's an interesting question how the current members of the Court will line up on that issue.
After I finally spent 5 consecutive minutes thinking about it, I believe I figured out the problem: by giving exclusive authority to the senior circuit judge, the statute bypasses the MSSC.
In the absence of the statute, one would expect a division of the circuit court to be done by local rule, which would have to be approved by the MSSC. It seems that's how Green first proceeded, resorting to the statute when Weill objected.
So even tho the statute doesn't limit the power of the Hinds circuit court (tho implicitly it limits every *other* circuit court), it does limit the MSSC's power, which is why I've moved from leaning in Green's favor to expecting the statute will be stricken.
Post a Comment