Sometimes, Judges are Idiots.
In case you are unaware of the news from the large city across our nothern border, a police officer was killed Friday night, the sixth police officer to be killed in the line of the duty in 15 months. Tensions between the police and other segments of the city government, whether they be the CJC (Criminal Justice Center) or the Mayor’s office, are at the boiling point. Cops are understandably angry over yet another loss of a fellow comrade.
And yesterday, an idiotic and insenstive Philadelphia Muncipal Court Judge may have caused that boiling water to rise up out of the pot.
In early afternoon, union officials said, Municipal Court Judge Craig M. Washington sought to have the pictures of Pawlowski, 25, taken from his courtroom in the headquarters of the 35th District, at Broad Street and Champlost Avenue, where the officer had been stationed. District officials denied that order, and Washington stepped down from the bench and placed both pictures facedown on the table where they had stood.
…
Washington could not be reached for comment, but Municipal Court President Judge Marsha Neifield backed his actions.“Photographs are not permitted directly on the bench when court is in session,” Neifield said. “While photographs placed in other locations are permitted, the courtroom must avoid any appearance of bias.”
McNesby disagreed, saying that district headquarters is a police facility first and a courtroom second.
“It’s a mourning period, and everybody is human,” said McNesby, noting that the district has lost two officers – Charles Cassidy and Pawloski – to gunfire in the line of duty in the last 15 months.
The slain officer’s photograph was not on the bench, but off to the side, McNesby said. “It was out of view, and it was proper. It was on a smaller table, not on the judge’s bench.
“How many judges have we seen shot and killed in the last year? None. We had four police officers killed last year.”
Through a spokesman, Neifield said that Washington would not be in the 35th District for the rest of the week but that court hearings in the district would not be suspended.
Could there be a more disrespectful action than for a person to take two pictures of a hero who died in the line of duty and put them face down, in the same room where that hero reported for duty every day? I understand the Judge had a reason, to protect impartialiality of the court room. Well, that reason is bullshit.
First, where is the courtroom in the first place? In the fucking roll call room of a police station! Where is the impartiality in that?
Second, it is a preliminary hearing, not a trial. No final decisions are being made. You are simply reviewing a case to see if there is enough evidence to hold it over for further prosecution.
This judge should be ashamed of himself. All he had to do is show a little common sense and respect. He could have addressed the court and told the members and the audience that the display, while technically not allowed by court rules, will stay up out of respect for the fallen officer, but the display will in no way affect his impartiality. That would have covered Washington’s ass. And that is why this started in the first place, because Judge Washington was trying to cover his ass.
Well Judge, you don’t cover your ass by kicking a fallen hero while he is down.
Oh man. This is gonna get ugly.
I’m glad you wrote this DD. I wasn’t sure how valid Washington’s action was until you called bullshit on it.
What an incredibly tacky move by the judge. Surely he could have found a compromise if he was so worried about appearances.
As of this morning, I thought that, while being a total insensitive eff, he had a legal point. With your explanation DD, I think my opinion is now with you. What a jagazz that judge is.
Are you saying that this room is always a courtroom and always a rollcall room? Or is it the case that once a week a judge comes in and it becomes a courtroom?
While I understand your point and am certainly sympathetic towards the policeman and his co-workers, what if there was someone brought in on suspicion of the murder (let’s assume for a second that the person is actually innocent of the crime) and the photo of the man that he is accused of killing is sitting on a nearby table?
For me, it is akin to bringing in a Muslim on suspicion of terrorism and he sees the 10 commandments and a crucifix on the wall. Also, is there an argument for a mistrial if something like this were to happen in a “real” courtroom? If so, doesn’t allowing this set a precedent?
Here is a picture of the room.
It is a room in the police station where prelimary hearings in front of a judge are held, and it is a room where roll call for each shift is held.
LG is right. You can’t have pictures of crime victims in a courthouse were criminal defendents are brought for hearings, tried, etc. The judge is not insensitive, he is a disinterested party… and should be. Put you big boy pants on and get the tissues. Aren’t you an attorney or something?
The judge should have requested to speak with the precint captain privately and settled it without drawing attention to it.
I agree X. I think it is probably right not to have that picture on the bench when it is used as a courtroom, however, it was incredible insensitive to turn the picture facedown. I certainly understand why people are upset about this. I think the judge could have handled it more sensitively, and there wouldn’t have been an issue at all.
Whoa…hold on, then. DD, that pic you have is incredibly less decorated than the video shot for TV news (KYW3), during the argument. You should see the difference. Plus, that picture is indeed “on the bench.” The judge sits behind that wall, where the picture is located in your pic. Maybe there is more to the total understanding, then.
X – per KYW3’s news, the judge DID go to the precinct captain and was flatly denied even the consideration. I can see why as this is an extremely sensitive time, but to at least give the judge a tiny bit of leeway, he did make that request.
The picture does affect the impartiality of the courtroom. But turning the pictures over was inconsistent with judicial temperament.
A better way to handle it would be for everyone appearing in that courtroom to move for a change of venue and for the judge to grant it until the picture was removed.
Sorry, but most of this thread reads like an unedited draft of a Dennis Miller rant. The Philadelphia police have suffered through a terrible year, with one cold-blooded killing of an officer after another. Yet, the judge was right. It was the police supervisors, refusing the judge’s request to remove the photos, who caused, indeed escalated, the problem. A courtroom is not a shrine, even to the recently-deceased, even to valiant victims.
Even in its more enlightened, post-Rizzo era, Philadelphia police have a reflexive habit of judge-baiting. The Pennsylvania judiciary is indeed fraught with problems, as the recent Luzerne County bribery scandal illustrated starkly, and sometimes Philly law enforcement has a good gripe, but this one is way out of bounds.
No the way to handle it is to take the picture down.
Can we display pictures in the courtroom of people who were found guilty and later proved innocent?
Maybe the courtrooms in California should display a picture of the guy the police held down and shot in the back.
Right now, after being persuaded one way (away from my original take) via this post, and then back after seeing the pic above, this looks like a total lack of sensitivity (on the judge’s part via the way he handled it) versus a hyper-sensitivity (albeit completely understandable) environment that is clouding big-picture judgement.
Smitty – was that a parody of a Mike Castle statement?
It sounds to me that the judge attempted to go about this the right way. The police got defensive and refused to follow the judges order. At some point, if at an impasse, the judge must act.
If a church was using the same building as a strip club, would it be appropriate to take down the strippers pole before the service?
The FOP is just like the GOP — they hold great power yet manage to portray themselves as victims whenever possible.
I’ve just read through this thread, and I agree that the photo does not belong there when preliminary hearings in front of a judge are being held. Impartiality trumps all.
Should the judge acted the way he acted? By getting up off the bench and turning the photo down?
I understand the concern for impartiality, but it seems to me to ring hallow when you are conducting preliminary hearings in police stations in the first place. Talk about homefield advantage.
Given the situation, the Judge could have easily done as I suggested in the post, and gave an instruction, especially considering that all the officers in the courtroom, the precinct captain, and the head of the FOP refused his request to take the picture down. That should have given this idiot some clue that it was an emotional issue.
That is the idiotic part of it.
I call bullshit on the impartiality comment. What if the judge in Alabama had said, “I know that I have a 2 ton granite edifice with the 10 commandments here in the courtroom, but I will be completely impartial to my Muslim defendants.”
… or my atheist defendants.