15 December 2005
The following reflections of then-Missouri Chief Justice Michael A.
Wolff made up his December 2005 Law
Matters column.
When courts make decisions, about half the persons involved will be
disappointed, or perhaps even angry, because they lost or did not win as much as
they had hoped. In high-profile cases, some of the public may share that anger
or disappointment. Protecting parties – and the public – from such
disappointment is not the role of the courts, however, as in every dispute a
court must decide, someone inevitably will be unhappy with the decision. So how
are courts – and their judges – held accountable?
Federal judges are appointed for life; they are accountable to the law and to what the U.S. Constitution calls “good behavior.” All Missouri state judges, by contrast, face the voters periodically in elections. Missouri judges are accountable, therefore, both to the law and to the people.
Most of Missouri’s judges – those who serve in the trial courts in all but four of Missouri’s counties and the city of St. Louis – are elected directly by the people. Judges in St. Louis, certain urban counties and the appellate courts serve under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Although the governor initially appoints these judges from a panel of applicants selected by a nonpartisan commission of citizens, attorneys and a judge, they are subject to a retention vote after serving one year in office and periodically afterward, ranging from four to 12 years. So, even those judges who are appointed remain accountable to the people through elections.
One of the hallmarks of the American judicial system – and of any good judicial system – is judicial accountability. Accountability prevents corruption and abuses of power; it also helps to ensure that governmental policy reflects the community’s values and interests in ensuring everyone a day in court, in protecting individual rights and, perhaps most importantly, in a stable rule of law that is free from undue influence by politicians and special interests.
Judges are accountable to uphold the rule of law through their decisions. This means that, just as juries are asked to set aside their personal beliefs and decide a case based only on the law and the evidence, judges also must set aside their personal feelings, beliefs and attitudes and decide each case according to the facts and law in that case.
Accountability to the law sometimes comes at a high price – a judge must follow the law even when doing so would be extremely unpopular. A good example of this is Judge James Horton, of Athens, Alabama, who presided over the second trial of Haywood Patterson, one of the nine young black men – known as the Scottsboro Boys – accused of raping two white women on an Alabama train in 1931.
From the beginning, the Scottsboro Boys’ trials were overshadowed by racial prejudice. The National Guard had to be summoned to prevent the Scottsboro Boys from being lynched before the trial even could be held. Patterson’s first trial yielded a quick guilty verdict and death sentence. The United States Supreme Court threw out his conviction, however, because he had not received effective counsel.
Patterson’s second trial was held in Judge Horton’s court in 1933. As in the first trial, the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony did not support the testimony of the first alleged victim, Victoria Price. The second alleged victim, Ruby Bates, testified that she was not raped by any of the boys and that the two women, who apparently had crossed state lines for illicit purposes, had made up the charges when the train was stopped so they would not get in trouble. Despite all of the inconsistencies and evidence supporting Patterson’s defense, the jury again found Patterson guilty and sentenced him to death.
After hearing the evidence and the inconsistencies in Victoria Price’s story, Judge Horton became convinced that – under the law – Patterson could not be found guilty. Judicial doctrine requires that any verdict that is contrary to the evidence must be set aside. So when the defense filed a motion for a new trial, Judge Horton knew what he must do. He announced that he was setting aside the jury verdict and granting Patterson a new trial in accordance with judicial doctrine.
Because of the popular support for convicting the Scottsboro Boys regardless of what the evidence showed, Judge Horton also knew that this likely would be the end of his career as a judge in Alabama, and maybe even as a lawyer.
When told he should not set aside the verdict because it would be political suicide, Judge Horton is said to have responded, “What does that have to do with the case?” In granting young Patterson a new trial, Judge Horton said that he had tried to live by his family motto: “Let justice be done though the Heavens may fall,” a quote thought to have originated with the 18th century English jurist, Lord Mansfield.
The heavens did not fall, but Judge Horton lost his bid for re-election in 1934, even though, in his previous election in 1928, no one had run against him. Judge Horton later said that, despite the personal costs, setting aside the Patterson verdict was the right thing to do.
Judge Horton was a product of his time – he believed that racial segregation was proper. But he also knew that Haywood Patterson was innocent and believed he should not be convicted, on legally insufficient evidence, simply because of his race.
He also knew – although this evidence never was presented to a jury – that medical evidence proved the women had not been raped by anyone. Judge Horton had been sought out by Dr. John Lynch, who had examined the two women shortly after they got off the train and who strongly believed they were lying. His examination indicated that neither of the women had been raped. When Dr. Lynch had told the women so, they laughed. Although Judge Horton encouraged him to testify, Dr. Lynch was afraid to do so; he was a young doctor and knew that if he testified for Patterson, he would have a slim chance of continuing his career in Alabama.
Judge Horton was less afraid of public sentiment, and he rightly chose to be accountable to the law. He easily could have bowed to public pressure and preserved his career by allowing the verdict to stand, hoping that the United States Supreme Court again would step in and reverse the sentence. Given the choice between doing what was politically expedient and what was right, however, Judge Horton chose to do what was right.
Each day, Missouri judges make decisions based on the law. Few are as costly or unpopular as Judge Horton’s. Sometimes decisions courts make are criticized in the media and by politicians. Despite their personal feelings, and whichever way the political winds are blowing, these judges remember that they are accountable – to the law above all else, and to the people’s interest in preserving the rule of law. Judges following this duty are not necessarily popular, but they make our society better.
Federal judges are appointed for life; they are accountable to the law and to what the U.S. Constitution calls “good behavior.” All Missouri state judges, by contrast, face the voters periodically in elections. Missouri judges are accountable, therefore, both to the law and to the people.
Most of Missouri’s judges – those who serve in the trial courts in all but four of Missouri’s counties and the city of St. Louis – are elected directly by the people. Judges in St. Louis, certain urban counties and the appellate courts serve under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Although the governor initially appoints these judges from a panel of applicants selected by a nonpartisan commission of citizens, attorneys and a judge, they are subject to a retention vote after serving one year in office and periodically afterward, ranging from four to 12 years. So, even those judges who are appointed remain accountable to the people through elections.
One of the hallmarks of the American judicial system – and of any good judicial system – is judicial accountability. Accountability prevents corruption and abuses of power; it also helps to ensure that governmental policy reflects the community’s values and interests in ensuring everyone a day in court, in protecting individual rights and, perhaps most importantly, in a stable rule of law that is free from undue influence by politicians and special interests.
Judges are accountable to uphold the rule of law through their decisions. This means that, just as juries are asked to set aside their personal beliefs and decide a case based only on the law and the evidence, judges also must set aside their personal feelings, beliefs and attitudes and decide each case according to the facts and law in that case.
Accountability to the law sometimes comes at a high price – a judge must follow the law even when doing so would be extremely unpopular. A good example of this is Judge James Horton, of Athens, Alabama, who presided over the second trial of Haywood Patterson, one of the nine young black men – known as the Scottsboro Boys – accused of raping two white women on an Alabama train in 1931.
From the beginning, the Scottsboro Boys’ trials were overshadowed by racial prejudice. The National Guard had to be summoned to prevent the Scottsboro Boys from being lynched before the trial even could be held. Patterson’s first trial yielded a quick guilty verdict and death sentence. The United States Supreme Court threw out his conviction, however, because he had not received effective counsel.
Patterson’s second trial was held in Judge Horton’s court in 1933. As in the first trial, the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony did not support the testimony of the first alleged victim, Victoria Price. The second alleged victim, Ruby Bates, testified that she was not raped by any of the boys and that the two women, who apparently had crossed state lines for illicit purposes, had made up the charges when the train was stopped so they would not get in trouble. Despite all of the inconsistencies and evidence supporting Patterson’s defense, the jury again found Patterson guilty and sentenced him to death.
After hearing the evidence and the inconsistencies in Victoria Price’s story, Judge Horton became convinced that – under the law – Patterson could not be found guilty. Judicial doctrine requires that any verdict that is contrary to the evidence must be set aside. So when the defense filed a motion for a new trial, Judge Horton knew what he must do. He announced that he was setting aside the jury verdict and granting Patterson a new trial in accordance with judicial doctrine.
Because of the popular support for convicting the Scottsboro Boys regardless of what the evidence showed, Judge Horton also knew that this likely would be the end of his career as a judge in Alabama, and maybe even as a lawyer.
When told he should not set aside the verdict because it would be political suicide, Judge Horton is said to have responded, “What does that have to do with the case?” In granting young Patterson a new trial, Judge Horton said that he had tried to live by his family motto: “Let justice be done though the Heavens may fall,” a quote thought to have originated with the 18th century English jurist, Lord Mansfield.
The heavens did not fall, but Judge Horton lost his bid for re-election in 1934, even though, in his previous election in 1928, no one had run against him. Judge Horton later said that, despite the personal costs, setting aside the Patterson verdict was the right thing to do.
Judge Horton was a product of his time – he believed that racial segregation was proper. But he also knew that Haywood Patterson was innocent and believed he should not be convicted, on legally insufficient evidence, simply because of his race.
He also knew – although this evidence never was presented to a jury – that medical evidence proved the women had not been raped by anyone. Judge Horton had been sought out by Dr. John Lynch, who had examined the two women shortly after they got off the train and who strongly believed they were lying. His examination indicated that neither of the women had been raped. When Dr. Lynch had told the women so, they laughed. Although Judge Horton encouraged him to testify, Dr. Lynch was afraid to do so; he was a young doctor and knew that if he testified for Patterson, he would have a slim chance of continuing his career in Alabama.
Judge Horton was less afraid of public sentiment, and he rightly chose to be accountable to the law. He easily could have bowed to public pressure and preserved his career by allowing the verdict to stand, hoping that the United States Supreme Court again would step in and reverse the sentence. Given the choice between doing what was politically expedient and what was right, however, Judge Horton chose to do what was right.
Each day, Missouri judges make decisions based on the law. Few are as costly or unpopular as Judge Horton’s. Sometimes decisions courts make are criticized in the media and by politicians. Despite their personal feelings, and whichever way the political winds are blowing, these judges remember that they are accountable – to the law above all else, and to the people’s interest in preserving the rule of law. Judges following this duty are not necessarily popular, but they make our society better.