Andrew Wolfson has this article in the Courier-Journal centered on Facebook posts made by Jefferson Circuit Judge Olu Stevens regarding the racial makeup of juries, and the subsequent debate that erupted between him and Commonwealth's Attorney Tom Wine. The debate begs the question of whether or not it is proper for a judge, who has taken an oath to be impartial, to publicly blast attorneys or opine on legal issues on social media. Some background to the story:
The fiery dispute between Stephens and Wine arose when the judge dismissed a jury panel in November 2014 because it had no black members - even though the prosecution had nothing to do with that result.
Wine then asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to clarify whether judges have that power when there is no evidence minorities have been removed for discriminatory reasons. Stephens in turn took to his Facebook page to blast Wine as trying to "protect the right to impanel all-white juries" in a series of posts that suggested the prosecutor is racist.Here is some of what Judge Stevens had to say on Facebook:
Stevens said that while the panel was drawn at random - and the black juror was struck at random - the defendant was denied a right to a jury representative of a county in which about 21 percent of residents are black.
In one of his posts about Wine, Stevens said "history will unfavorably judge a prosecutor who loses a jury trial in which a black man is acquitted and then appeals the matter claiming his entitlement to an all-white jury panel."
In another post, the judge said "no matter the outcome ... he will live in infamy" and that Wine's petition "is poor form at the very least" and perhaps "something much more sinister."Experts agree that Stevens' public comments on Facebook are unethical, improper, contrary to the oath he swore to remain fair and, ultimately, a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
-"The cause may be worthy, but the judge has taken an oath to be impartial and has agreed to abide by ethics rules that require him to remain above the fray and not to become a part of it," said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor, later adding, "As sympathetic as I am to the judge's concerns, a sitting judge should not become a cheerleader for his own ruling .... If he does, he ceases to be the impartial adjudicator he has taken an oath to be and becomes an advocate for the cause."
-"If the judge struck the jury merely because of the final racial composition and not because of any discrimination in the selection process, that is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
-"If the judge had a problem, he should make it known in open court, before the parties and their lawyers, with a court reporter present to transcribe everything, word for word," said Chapman School of Law Professor Ronald Rotunda.
The modern legal system recognizes the importance of a jury representative of the community in which the defendant is being tried. This is why jury reform has taken place in America's history, including a landmark case out of the very county in Kentucky where this debate is happening today. A Louisville case led to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 29 years ago that prosecutors could not use challenges to exclude jurors based solely on their race. However Judge Olu Stevens feels about Tom Wine and his jury pool, as a judge that has sworn an oath to be fair and impartial, taking a public stance on social media brings his ability to be fair and impartial into question. If the jury pool does not represent a cross section, noted by Clatsop County, Ore., district attorney Josh Marquis, the issue should be addressed by the state legislator or court administrators, not an individual judge.
"Judge" Olu Stevens is a disgrace, and not only should he be removed from the bench, he should have his ticket pulled. Putting aside the fact that these posts show an absolute lack of commitment to judicial ethics, there is a more "sinister" side. Wine should have an absolute right not to have to practice in front of this judge. The judge has the contempt power, and it's clear he has personal animus. We in the legal profession are, I think, too desensitized to the contempt power. Should Wine's prosecutors have to worry that this out of control judge will unfairly administer the contempt power? The question answers itself. Olu Stevens has shown bias against white crime victims (Wine should have been far more aggressive about that.), and now Judge Stevens is showing his bias against white jury members.
What is all the more disgraceful--that the Ky. Supreme Court tolerated this order and ordered Wine and Stevens to mediate. Why in the world should Wine even have to talk to Stevens? Stevens insulted Wine publicly--why should Wine even have to be in the same room with him?