Prosecutors Unfairly Forced the Transfer of a Respected Judge
It is not uncommon for prosecutor’s to flex their muscles to advance their agenda. On the surface, they speak of “justice” as if the term belonged to them exclusively, seemingly forgetting that the term belongs to the citizens and not to the government. Unfortunately, the public has been misled to think that prosecutors only do “justice” and criminal defense attorney’s get the criminally accused off on technicalities. A quick scan of television programs, like Law and Order, seem to wrongly advance such concepts. What is often ignored in the media is that prosecutors from time to time persecute others, forgetting their real, true role in society. A prosecutor is bestowed with the duty to serve the public in general. This means that a prosecutor should not prosecute without just cause, should exercise reasonableness, and conduct all of its dealings honorably and fairly.
However, this month the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office flexed its muscle against a respected senior jurist, Judge Peter Nault of the King County District Court. The prosecutors forced his transfer by refusing to have Judge Nault preside over their cases. They claim that Judge Nault has failed to follow the law. A high-ranking official within the prosecutor’s office said, “Nault’s rulings also have involved other issues, such as sentencing, where mandatory minimum terms were not imposed, and evidentiary matters involving the admissibility of evidence.” Seattle Times, August 14, 2008.
These remarks are unfair and represent a departure from the ethical duties of a prosecutor not to make disparaging remarks about a judge. Behind all of this is the prosecutor’s dissatisfaction with Judge Nault’s independence. Prosecutors are used to getting their way and when they encounter an independent judge they have tantrums. Prosecutors realize that elected judges are vulnerable at election time when they are not endorsed by law enforcement agencies. It takes a strong independent judge to overcome the attacks from special interests groups, like prosecution advocates.
In this instance, the prosecutor’s office had a choice to make. They could either respect Judge Nault’s independence (accepting the fact that a healthy system requires checks and balances among the branches of government), or refuse to have their cases heard by Judge Nault, advancing disparaging remarks about his judicial conduct. Obviously they chose the latter. Sadly, Presiding Judge Barbara Linde, a former King County Prosecuting Attorney, decided to remove Judge Nault from his assigned post, acquiescing to the prosecutor’s pressure.
An independent judiciary is necessary for the preservation of justice. Judges are not elected or appointed to rubber stamp the prosecutor’s desires, actions, or will. Rather, a judiciary is there to ensure that the public is provided with a fair system. There are times when fairness requires a judge to make unpopular decisions, contrary to the wishes of prosecutors, such as in the recent rulings around the state of Washington suppressing the results of breath tests in driving under the influence (DUI) cases. The breath test evidence was tossed out of court due to governmental malfeasance and ethical lapses at the state toxicology laboratory. Why blame the judges for the misconduct of prosecutorial agents? Is a notch on the belt more important than fairness and integrity? I hope not!
