Your Right to Disqualify One Judge May End Soon!

 


Unknown to the general public is the right, in Idaho, to disqualify one judge without stating a reason.  This can be done in a criminal or civil case.

During the pandemic, this right was suspended, as were many rights. Trials were shut down.  When trials were once again set on the calendar, somewhat bizarre rules were set in place to minimize the chance that a person sitting on a jury panel might cause or be the victim of a "super-spreader" event in which the entire panel would threaten to spread Covid-19 throughout the population.  

With the COVID threat now having passed, the Supreme Court of Idaho has gone back to allowing litigants to disqualify one judge on a case without stating a reason.  However, the judges around the state have decided they like having their respective caseloads unburdened with having to either take additional cases or find them repeatedly disqualified from cases with the litigant having to identify a specific reason.

In this issue, both the criminal defense bar and the civil defense bar find themselves opposing the judges who decide their cases. It is very unusual to find judges and lawyers who practice before them on opposite sides of an issue, but that is exactly what faces the Idaho legal system at this time.

This is no small matter and it greatly affects your right to a fair and unbiased trial.  If you are involved in a lawsuit or have been accused of a crime, your lawyer may have a good idea what side of an issue a particular judge favors.  The more experienced the lawyer, the more likely he is to know if the judge assigned to your case harbors a personal bias against the issues in your case.  

How do I feel about this issue?  All people are biased, and judges are people.  When I started practicing law, I believed that all judges would decide an issue in the same way.  40 years later, I do not believe that.  

There are a small number of judges whose biases can be the death knell of a case before it even starts. One judge in Idaho is well-known for being extremely harsh on sex offenders.  Another judge is well-known for refusing to grant continuances when needed.  There is one judge who routinely rules against plaintiffs in personal injury cases.

Limiting a litigant to one dismissal per case is appropriate, I believe. Taking that right away will deny justice in many cases.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec...
Read more

OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT

Image
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 protests, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to pay over $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers named by the former New York mayor.  What has not been explained to the general public is that there was never any trial concerning whether Mr. Giuliani had actually slandered or libeled these two persons.   In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud.  They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense. These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats.  They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C. They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge....
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs...
Read more