Arkansas Blog: Jury's in on the judge -- UPDATE

The state Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission today voted 5-3 to have a full hearing on whether to punish Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen for speaking publicly about such matters as racial discrimination and the Bush administration handling of Hurricane Katrina. (The vote is taken in private and only the tally, not the individual votes, is disclosed.)

At that hearing, a full case will be presented and Griffen will be allowed to mount a defense. The commission then can decide to 1) dismiss the case 2) issue a reprimand or censure 3) recommend a suspension with or without pay to the Arkansas Supreme Court or 4) recommend removal by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The hearing could take place late this summer.

The decision followed a closed session. That followed a probable cause hearing at which a complaint developed by commission director James Badami was presented to the commission. Griffen was not allowed to present a full case or call witnesses, though he did have an opportunity to say the allegations were unproved and, that even if they were true, his speech was protected by he First Amendment. He wanted to call five witnesses, including Badami. He argued that, because the Commission could vote at the conclusion of the morning session to dismiss the complaint or issue a mild admonishment that he should have an opportunity to present a full case.

The question is whether Griffen, or any judge, is strictly bound by the state's code of ethics for judges not to comment on such matters, even if they are not issues in any way related to cases in his court. Griffen argues (and we agree) that U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibits the state's abridging of the First Amendment rights of judges.

The commission has had a long vendetta against Griffen. He successfully overturned one prior admonishment on account of his public speech. The latest case includes the allegation that he violated ethics rules by writing a guest column for the Arkansas Times. No good deed goes unpunished.

Griffen's determination to protect his free speech rights -- and his vigorous exercise of them -- will undoubtedly be an issue in his bid for re-election next year. Juvenile Judge Rita Gruber is planning to challenge him.

Comments

To quote, Clarence Thomas, who I depise.

"This is a high tech lynching for an uppity black."

I hope that some light is put on this problem and it goes national. The attention is needed!

Posted by: Poetry In Motion | March 16, 2007 01:42 PM

If Gruber's going to run, someone should ask her why the juvenile justice system in Pulaski County, where we have judges specifically dedicated to juvenile issues, runs so much more slowly than juvenile proceedings in other counties, where such matters are handled by the same judges who handle civil and criminal matters in addition to juvenile cases. According to social workers with whom I have spoken, a Family In Need of Services petition in Pulaski County typically takes several more months for adjudication than the same petition would take if filed in another county. If Judge Gruber cannot handle the caseload in her current position, why should we believe she'd do any better as an appellate court judge?

In addition, what is Judge Gruber's qualification for the appellate bench? Being a juvenile court judge with such a limited array of issues to decide is nothing like being a regular circuit court judge, and her credentials (six years of private practice, if I recall correctly) are nowhere near as impressive as Griffen's. Cashiering an intelligent, effective jurist like Griffen for an inexperienced kids' court judge would be a huge mistake. Arkansas appellate courts really do not need yet another jurist who cannot engage in basic legal reasoning and write a clear, concise opinion.

Posted by: Gaddis | March 16, 2007 02:22 PM

Can you provide us with a link to Judge
Griffen's "guest column?"

ARK. BLOG: It's done. Ignore the erroneous byline. The tag at the end properly identifies it as Judge Griffen's work.

Posted by: Lwood | March 16, 2007 03:22 PM

PIM
Your blog echoes my sentiments precisely, the commission's continuing to hassel Griffen is tantamounnt to a high-tech lynching of yet another black. Being interested in the hearing, I was in attendance today and the proceedings were remindful of old-time hate in the south in the 40's and 50's. Especially the Jonesboro chairman's behavior. My observation is that actually he would vote for the old-fashion lynching.

Posted by: nothing new | March 16, 2007 03:28 PM

This entire situation boggles the mind. How on earth can we restrict the speech of those we entrust to protect it? I completely agree that if there were a snowball's chance that these topics would end up in Griffen's court, he shouldn't comment on them. But that is vastly unlikely. If a citizen can no longer have opinions on issues of right and wrong, who exactly, will our judges be??

Posted by: EY | March 17, 2007 01:17 PM

Arkansas Blog

Jury's in on the judge -- UPDATE

Comments

Post a comment