judges
Judge Downey’s confirmation postponed
Aug 21st
The Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Downey’s nomination, which raised some hackles, was postponed to sometime before September 17 about 70 minutes into the proceeding so as to allow the committee members some time to digest new information that was brought to their attention.
Specifically, this transcript [pdf], in which the following statement is uttered:
“Only people who are legally here in the United States, in my opi—-are entitled to the rights and privledges that we extend to U.S. citizens. Why should a person become a U.S. citizen if they can otherwise enjoy the same rights as the rest of us especially after 9/11?”
He also said he would not hear a case in which one of the parties said they were “not legal”.
Other quirks:
At one point during the hearing Downey referred to himself in the third person like he did in the May 24, 2002 transcript and Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, asked him to refrain from making third party references to himself calling it “Seinfeldesque.”
Read the full report at CT News Junkie
Sleeping lawyers: Not just in Texas
Aug 21st
We all know the story of the Texas lawyer who fell asleep during a capital trial, but now Scott points to one in New York. Unfortunately, as was the case with the Texas appeal, the court in NY also found that it was not ineffective, because, in essence, the lawyer did some “lawyering”.
Here’s another *ahem* reason the petition was denied: the judge that heard the petition for a new trial was the same judge that presided over the trial itself.
Scott does a good job, as usual, of pointing out how stupid this decision is, but misses one important question: What was the same judge doing hearing the petition for a new trial? If the defendant had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the judge should have recused herself. Precisely for the reason that no judge will admit that there was a sleeping lawyer in the courtroom and they did not catch it, should this judge have not been presiding over this hearing.
I don’t know much about the NY post-conviction process, so maybe someone can clue me in. Was this a petition for writ of habeas corpus? If not, is that available to this defendant?
Either way, judges do the darnest things.
Judge Downey has lots of baggage
Aug 19th
After Governor Rell nominated Judge Barry Schaller to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Borden (Courant opinion piece here), she nominated Judge John Downey to replace him on the Appellate Court. Judge Downey has not been popular and has some problems. Aside from his endorsement of Throm Sturmond, he asked if a man killed in an accident was here in the US legally – after hearing his name.
Attorney Brenden Leydon, representing the man’s estate, told Downey he believed so and stressed that issue had not been raised by anyone involved in the case.
“Well, it might be an issue in Judge Downey’s courtroom,” Downey stated on Sept. 11, 2006. He went on to say, “I presume that he was duly authorized [to sue] as a person here having the appropriate documentation, because I think citizens and people here validly have a right to use the court system and those who are here illegally do not.”
But the courts disagree with the judge’s opinion, which is guaranteed to prompt inquiries at his confirmation hearing before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, who co-chairs the committee, said Downey’s statement was “alarming.”
“The quote contained in the transcript is a jarring proposition for a judge to make and certainly raises substantial questions about Judge Downey’s understanding of the law in Connecticut,” said McDonald, who is a lawyer. “The issue of whether someone is in this state legally has little or no bearing on a civil action, particularly in this case, where the person had died and it was their estate bringing the action.”
Indeed. Peter at Undercurrents has more.
recent comments