Even though in a city that prides itself on “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” Elizabeth Halverson has achieved national infamy for conduct as a judge that allegedly ranges from having a bailiff rub her back to sleeping in the courthouse to making her husband swear under oath that he has done the chores at home. Now the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission is starting a week of hearings to remove her from the bench.
I have spoken to Nevada judges and lawyers who tell stories about Halverson, 50, in disbelief that she ever made it to the bench. She certainly cuts a notable figure. Obese and propelled on a motorized scooter, she had surrounded herself with private guards and has been seen sleeping in court.
She has been suspended from work on the bench but doggedly holds on to the job.
Halverson vehemently denies the allegations. However, while some statements to a bailiff like “do you want to worship me from afar?” sound like jokes, other actions are harder to explain like calling 911 when court administrators tried to get into her office and falling asleep in court.
She has been accused of creating a hostile work environment, misusing her authority, hiring a hacker to penetrate the court computer system, causing mistrials by meeting with jurors and other acts that led the commission to declare that she posed “a substantial threat to the public or to the administration of justice.”
Nevertheless, to be fair to Halverson, some attorneys have defended her and Jeffrey Stempel, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has suggested that these acts are not sufficient for removal: “Judicial removal should generally be reserved for corruption and complete incompetence or inability to do the job. One question you have to ask is, `Is this judge so bad we have to remove her before the voters have a chance to do so?'” Professor Stempel has a good point and, to his credit, is not following the mob. However, it seems to me that some of this conduct does indeed cross the line, particularly the use of court personnel and hiring of the hacker. However, it is certainly true that past cases of strange behavior (assuming the hacker charge fails) would be handled with a reprimand rather than a removal — particularly given her elected status.
For her part, Halverston is seeking reelection and has offered a report from her therapist who diagnosed her with an adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression. She also submitted a report from her medical doctor that she is a diabetic, requires the wheelchair because of arthritis, and needs an oxygen tank to counteract the effects of sleep apnea. He notes that the sleeping in court may have been the result of a drop in blood sugar.
For the full story, click here.
Jill wrote:
That is pretty amazing stuff Susan! When does a judge do something because the lawyers said so!!!
*******************
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.
That is pretty amazing stuff Susan! When does a judge do something because the lawyers said so!!!
I was able to catch part of Judge Halverson’s testimony last week on the “IN SESSION” channel, and one of her responses to a question asked by the Special Prosecutor was quite difficult for me to believe. She had been asked about her going into the jury room during one of her criminal trials (I forget the name of the case) when they were deliberating, and why she had done that. She basically said, and this is a loose quote, not an exact one, “the lawyers said I should go into the room.”
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.
precedents in fits of ego? Sounds like a presidential candidate.
Bob,Esq:
That’s LOL material. By the way, I found your nemesis’ theme song too:
Thanks Mespo.
And here’s the Kings County Court theme song:
Bob,Esq:
I support you in song even:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKG5US_NVoY
Go, Smokey. Go.
You want judicial lunacy?
Try practicing in the Kings County Court (Brooklyn).
I think Mespo can back me up on that one.
MichaelSpindell:
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.
Mespo:
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.
Mespo,
Funny that you should quote Churchill. I just finished a biography of him that gave me a greater appreciation for his
stature. He was constantly torn between being convinced of his being right on the issues and his feeling that the will of the people should prevail, even against his own. There are times when I become discouraged by the events I’ve lived through and the fact that the greedy, ego-driven and tyrannical seem to prevail. I only draw comfort from the realization that the battle for freedom and equity is an historic one that will continue long after I’m gone. Currently, I am warmed by the fact that 2/3rds of Americans are against the war despite the overwhelming pro-war propaganda from the MSM. Sorry folks, I get wistful on Saturdays.
MichaelSpindell:
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
Lots of energy here. Packaged with all the goodies that jump starts phobia and is a maelstrom for a hostile environment in the work place.
Is this work makes lawyering fun?
When I read this it actually made me think of Mespo’s comment on another thread to the effect that election of judges is a poor method for choosing them. The damned problem with this, while I agree with the premise, I can’t think of another method that wouldn’t be fraught with the same problems as judicial elections. On the face of it, removing the personal qualities alluded to, this story indicates to me someone who is not worthy of the bench. I do not agree with the argument that her removal would undermine the power of the people. I know that as a pretty informed voter there have been only a handful of judgeships I voted on where I had any idea of the candidates judicial suitability other than the party affiliation. While practicing lawyers presumably would be a much more informed electorate regarding judges, they too can and would be influenced by issues other than good judicial standards.
Flower:
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.
No fat bashing? Then why is her weight part of what makes her a “notable figure.” After all, a good chunk of our population is obese.
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.
Flower Child Gone to Seed:
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?
Fat bashing is over the line. So are classist remarks about “trailer park queens.”
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.
I divide this story into 3 parts: 1. irrelevancies such as obesity and using a scooter, 2. behavior that may be caued by medical problems, which if fully acknowledged could be accomodated and not interfere with her duties and 3. abuse of authority and position. It is the third catagory that would be grounds for dismissal. A sick person should have every right to try to work. A sick (or well) person has no right to abuse others for any reason.
A little paragraph in the article caught my eye:
“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.