Jill, I think the Special Prosecutor also asked that very same question, although I can’t remember the exact words now. Halverson’s response was very strange, to say the least. She made a rather lame excuse that she was a new judge, and that she was relying on the lawyers to provide some guidance on procedures. Um…isn’t the JUDGE supposed to be providing the “guidance” and setting the rules?

Darn, I wish there was a way to get a written transcript of televised hearings, but I don’t think there is. Not for those not in broadcasting, anyway. This particular exchange happened in one of the hearings last week.

Come ON! Okay, I know I’m just an average non-lawyered citizen, but I find it very difficult — okay, impossible — to believe that a judge would expect us to buy that story. Don’t all states’ criminal procedures statutes have a specific rule against the judge and jury having any contact during criminal trials? In my state, the statute reads “Contact between judge and jury is prohibited.” That’s as blunt as it gets, and there’s no need for interpretation on this one. Would it be any different in Nevada? I seriously doubt it, although it could be. It is this type of conduct on the bench that troubles me. She admitted she did this, and blamed the lawyers for this obvious criminal procedures violation. How does ANYONE know — other than the jurors there — what she actually said, and whether her words had influenced the jurors enough to render the verdict Halverson may have wanted? I thought the Canons of Ethics for any judge included a requirement that a judge must be impartial and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It looks to me like this judge violated at least two of these canons.

That’s LOL material. By the way, I found your nemesis’ theme song too:

And here’s the Kings County Court theme song:

I support you in song even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKG5US_NVoY

Go, Smokey. Go.

Try practicing in the Kings County Court (Brooklyn).

I think Mespo can back me up on that one.

I really enjoy re-reading William Manchester’s multi-volume set on Churchill. The memoirs of his personal physician (Lord Moran)are likewise fascinating and both provide some insight into this complicated personality. He is a personal favorite, and I quote him often because he reminds me of no other person.

Personally, I am never discouraged since I have reason to hope every time I open this blog and read the thoughtful commentary of you and many others who clearly see the world for what it is.

Flower:

You’re right we usually agree. Like you, I can’t get over this mistreatment of ancillaries, and I am sure that’s what got my venom up. Your opinion is always interesting and read by me regardless of the topic.

We agree more than we differ. She probably is unfit. Causing mistrials & hacking the court’s computer system should be grounds enough. For my money, the abuse of subordinates speaks to judicial temperament, but likely doesn’t meet the threshold for removal.

You are in good company with your dilemma:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
—Winston Churchill

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
—Winston Churchill

Is this work makes lawyering fun?

I was referring to the newspaper article which was decidedly neutral about her weight. I agree the population is fat and I harbor no resentment against her for that. I don’t tar people in trailer parks, it’s merely a shorthand way to describe the conditions that are prevalent in SOME trailer parks. I rather thought the “Cops” reference was apt as well. I also agree that the living conditions within the home are better indicators, but I have to go with what I have and a junk strewn yard is of interest to me. All in all, no offense intended but you have to agree she doesn’t fit the stereotypical judicial lifestyle.

By classism I was refering to your trailer park remark. Why tar all people who live in trailer parks? They may not have the money to afford a house in the suburbs, but they can be perfectly decent people.

I agree with your remark about ethologists infering behaviour from living conditions, but I submit that the living conditions within the home are a far better indication of character than the state of one’s lawn; & by living conditions within the home I don’t mean the state of housekeeping either.

Many a well manicured lawn opens onto a domestic hell.

I agree that her behavior is egregious, as I outline above.

I saw no fat bashing in the article only a reference to her weight being the reason for her disability and need for care. She made no such complaint and her lawyer’s comment is laughable. This has all the underpinnings of a person hiding egregious conduct behind a disability and that is truly classless, and an insult to those who are discriminated upon based on disability.

As for my trailer park reference, you may not evaluate a public official on his lifestyle and consideration for her neighbors but I do. Honestly, tell me that if you were buying a house next to hers that such behavior would be irrelevant to you and an example of classism? If it matters in your opinion of her as a neighbor, why wouldn’t it enter your opinion of her as an elected official charged with obeying and administering the law — even the zoning laws. Zoologists look to the living conditions of their subjects for insights into behavior, why should we be any different?

Causing mistrials, browbeating her subordinates & hacking the court’s computer system are another matter.

The rest of her behavior is much less bizarre than Justice Scalia’s views on torture & a lot less dangerous.

“Halverson did not respond to an interview request. A shirtless man who answered the door at her home pointed to a “no trespassing” sign and ordered a reporter off the property. The yard is clean these days, after the city cited Halverson for leaving it strewn with junk and letting the water in her pool grow murky and stagnant.”

I am all for Judges with a broad range of life experiences, but I don’t think she has to live an episode of “Cops” to merit her position. Whatever the voters decide in Nevada is ok with me, but yeesh, do you really want a trailer park queen administering justice in Vegas.

I admire Professor Stemple adherence to democracy, but does he really mean to set the bar so low that the criteria for removal is ” reserved for corruption and complete incompetence or inability to do the job.” What is she were scrupulously honest, a brilliant jurist, but an out and out racist, or flaunted precedent in fits of ego? I think when you make life or death decisions you should be well above the measly standard set by our ivory tower colleague.