Benchslap of the Day Last Week: Judge Walton Smacks Some Academics
Last Friday, in the Scooter Libby case, Judge Reggie Walton delivered quite the benchslap. Some brief background, from Ana Marie Cox:
A group of exceedingly prominent law professors (including Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork) filed an amicus brief to Judge Reggie Walton [on Friday], arguing that the Libby verdict could possibly be overturned on appeal because of the "close question" about the constitutionality of the special prosecutor....I was struck (as were others) by the footnote Judge Walton appended to his agreement to have the brief submitted:
Here's the feisty footnote:
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
Judge Walton, feel free to call upon The Dersh for help in future cases. He's more than happy to offer his opinion on any subject under the sun. In fact, you may quickly come to regret your "call for such assistance" from that loquacious luminary.
(But you might want to give Judge Bork a break. He's a little preoccupied right now....)
Update: The WSJ Law Blog has more here, including the names of additional celebrity professors on the brief.
Shorter Reggie: I Will Remember Your Interest in Public Service the Next Time Someone Really Needs It [The Next Hurrah]
Libby's Last Stand [Swampland / Time.com]
Law Blog Footnote of the Day: the Scooter Libby Trial [WSJ Law Blog]
(Gavel bang: Several email correspondents, plus a commenter.)
(20) Comments
Volokh has a good post about this one. Amici file briefs in cases that, for whatever reason, they find important. They don't generally do so in cases that have little interest to them. This brief was largely about the independent counsel and whether his actions were legal. If Walton was inviting these professors to file briefs in other independent counsel prosecutions, it would be one thing, but it seems clear he's not limiting his comments to those rare occasions.
This judge is a tool. There is a difference between submitting a brief on a constitutional question and handling individual pro bono cases. Something tells me Douchewitz and Bork couldn't handle a pro bono case by themselves if they had to--they are "big picture" guys, doncha know. Although I guess Bork is learning the intricacies of litigation of late...
Having said that, legal academia is full of tools, too. One semester of law school is enough for the average student to learn that.
Walton got it right. I didn't see any of these Amici volunteering to help Paris out of the clink!
i think what he did made good sense. You've got a bunch of "famous" law profs stepping up to protect Libby from 2 yrs of jail, how bout they gather their legal wit and save some of texas's death row inmates?
Academia devotes huge amounts of resources to representing death row inmates.
11:48 -
I take it you haven't read the motion in question. It is all of 4 paragraphs, and simply indicates that the issue of the constitutionality of the independent counsel is "a close question" that deserves some attention. Walton's snark was completely over-the-top.
11:48, Dershowitz defended the Tison brothers, among other death row defendants:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=case&court=us&vol=481&invol=137
I wonder whether Judge Walton's pre-bench pro bono record (especially in the area of indigent criminal defense) exceeds that of *any* of the lawyers he snidely accused on the public record.
I don't blame him. There's not much that gets a judge's robe more in a bundle than a litigant offering a law professor or some other allegedly accomplished legal mind as an expert to help the judge in his or her analysis of the law. Why doesn't Libby's defense team just tell the judge that he doesn't have the capability to understand the complexities of the implicated law, and that he'd better listen to Dersh & Co. instead?
Walton is far from a tool. I love this footnote. Despite his reputation for toughness, I have never found him anything but fair and willing to listen to a well made argument.
Walton has always been one of those rare judges unafraid to grant MJOAs in criminal cases. As some of you may know, not a frequent occurrence.
His invitation to these "eminent scholars," for sure is tinged with sarcasm but, on another level, it speaks to the problem of the legal profession's failure to step forward where they are most needed. As you would discover, if you took the time, criminal cases are loaded with constitutional issues.
12:45-
I think Walton primarily worked as a prosecutor before becoming a Judge.
This profile on Judge Walton (from last week's Post) talks about his other activities:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401601.html?nav=emailpage
But 12:46, isn't Walton attempting to coerce speech? Seems like a little constitutional issue of his own there. And wholly apart from the fact that these professors probably devote effort to a great deal of cases, it seems like the nature of an amicus brief is to allow someone to address an issue of particular interest to him or her: in this case the issue being whether the independent counsel is constitutional. That issue simply doesn't arise too often. And simply because they are current or former con law professors doesn't mean they have a particular interest in the 4th Amendment, or in Miranda, such that they would ordinarily be inclined to get involved in cases involving those sorts of constitutional issues.
11:34 - you have no idea what you are talking about. The Dersh and Bork both do lots of pro bono
HOW can you not love this Judge? He rocks!
" . . . of well-respected schools"
Tierist.
1:00--coerce speech? A little far fetched my dear. All the judge is really saying is that he sees through the Libby defense's strategy of getting these preeminent scholars to go to bat for him. Lets not look to deeply into this. The judge is far from a tool.
11:48 -
These law profs are addressing a constitutional question and possible violation of it. The texas death row inmates you speak of got a fair trial, and numerous appeals, and continued to be found guilty. Not sure what you want these profs to do for them.
4:05,
I never called the judge a tool, but thanks for insinuating that I did. Also, thanks for calling me "my dear." It really makes your comment hit home, you know?
I realize the coerced speech reference may be a little over the top, but I think you miss the broader point. Does Walton think that Libby's lawyers are paying these scholars to write an amicus brief? Does he think their proposed argument has no legal merit? I realize he may be stung by the criticism he's gotten in this case (and perhaps some of it is well-deserved), but he did so in a way that is more than a little unseemly.
If he's the one who decides whether Libby stays out on bond pending appeal (and he is), then he can feel free to discount the arguments of these professors when he makes that ruling. Why the snark in a simple order granting leave to file the brief? As the judge, he should be above that kind of behavior.
Bork is such an ass suing the Yale Club.... If my club dues go up because of his ridiculous lawsuit, I will take back anything nice I have ever said nice about the guy. Wait, I have never said anything nice about the guy... Never mind....
1:00--wasn't insinuating that you had called the judge a tool. Previous posters had.
Can Dershowitz get Walton's tenure denied or are his powers in that arena limited to assistant professors at second-tier Catholic universities?