Jurors are routinely told by judges and lawyers that they alone decide guilt and the parties will abide by their decision. That did not stop however Judge Amy Salerno who allegedly chastised a jury for finding a defendant not guilty in a recent case in Columbus. Salerno has now correctly been referred to the court for disciplinary action after four jurors complained about the tongue lashing.
It is one of the most important values in our judicial system is the neutrality of the judge in accepting the judgment of the jury. Yet we have seen more judges stepping from behind the bench to make public comments or lecture on the merits. This includes the improper comments in my view of the judge in the Casey Anthony case.
In this case, the jurors reported that the judge told them that 99 percent of the time jurors get the verdict right so that it was now down to 98 percent of the time. Even more worrisome is the alleged statement of the judge that the verdict did not matter because she was not done with the defendant. Jurors said that Salerno commented that the defendant had other charges pending and that she would see to it that he was punished.
The witnesses said that the judge was so incensed that she actually delayed a separate trial to vent at the jurors. The other judge reported dismissed the jurors of that trial out of fear that Salerno’s comments would prejudice them. The chief judge indicated that he would ask Salerno not to preside over future proceedings with the defendant. That much is obvious. It is really not her choice. She is clearly disqualified.
The question is whether, if these allegations are true, Salerno should remain as a judge. I would find it quite troubling to learn that she was allowed to continue on the bench after violating such fundamental principles of judicial conduct.
Salerno is actually up for reelection in November as a Republican. She is a former state representative. She earned her B.A. from Youngstown State University in 1979 and her J.D. from the Ohio State University in 1982.
This judge should be removed from the bench post haste.
It was an assault trial…..
Darren,
Even in nonpartisan states each party fields and endorses it chosen one….
First: What is up with a judge running under a political party? That should be a non-partisan position.
I agree it would be just for her to be sanctioned but I don’t have confidence any meaningful punishment will be levied.
Dan: Yes it would be a basis for a Motion to Disqualify if she doesn’t recuse herself. Generally, comments like that would be considered misconduct coming from an attorney and likely get you hauled in front of the judge if she heard about it. It is permissible to speak to jurors after a trial, and ask or answer questions. However, you are not allowed to say anything that would likely make a juror reluctant to serve again. These comments certainly fall into that category.
That judge is a reversal engine.
Due process requires an unbiased adjudicator.
Dan;
Your questions of recusal and appeals are valid.
That is, of course, in a “legitimate” realm of adjudication upon the merits.
Unfortunately, more often than not, legitimacy is in the trunk.
It is worthwhile that this bad faith justice haughtier emboldened her enough to blatantly divulge her intent. Otherwise, the defendant in question undoubtedly would’ve been railroaded.
Also germane is one more case documenting that judges need watchers too!
Simply has shown she is unqualified to be a Judge. This is what we get when Judges have to run for office. Yet I can’t think of another way to do it since appointments also are made based on political affiliation rather than as sense of enforcing the law and running a court with impartiality.
What was charge that the defendant was acquitted of? Just curious
Technical question:
Can’t defense attorneys use this sort of thing to request a different judge? And if refused use this as a basis of appeal?
After this, how could any trial she oversaw withstand a challenge based on judicial bias?
Republican huh? I seriously doubt that. A hell of a lot of Republicans are liars because they are really Liberals who register as Republicans so they can screw up the primaries. And many politicians are “Republicans” but are actually Liberals acting as RINOs. Judges are no different.
Justice, The vulgar comments about her appearance are inappropriate. However, the deterioration of her appearance looks to me to indicate some psych. or AODA issues. She just has that look. Her words are worthy of termination. I’m just trying to get more to her state of mind out of curiosity.
Certainly this behavior and these comments are unprofessional and seem to be a good basis to remove the judge from the bench however nasty comments about her looks are inappropriate and add nothing to this discussion.
Not only is this judge unfit to preside over any trial she is also a fat ugly pig
The apology is insufficient. She should step down as a judge as she too easily expresses her opinions in a role requiring discretion and apparent impartiality. Frankly shocked at her pretrial comments haven’t raised complaints too.
What’s w/ the hair? I don’t say that cavalierly. Look @ how her hair and appearance have changed. She has issues above and beyond this indefensible behavior. That said, what she did violates the cardinal rule of judicial conduct and temperament. Adios!
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
This woman has no business being in the profession…. Much less a judge, prosecutor or representative…. But then politicos run the system and game it…..
Wow.
That display was staggering in its lack of professionalism and detached impartiality. No. This woman has no business being a judge.