You’re right, a lot of judges are “in between” the idealistic and the extreme example I gave. Ironically this is a judge who is lenient in sentencing, but punishes those who take up his time. IHe’s a judge who imposes a “trial tax” which is sickening but an unfortunate reality.

The fun part of that story is that just before the jury acquitted I had to listen to the judge tell me what a bad job I did. So it was fun to walk out with my client a few minutes later. I knew he was as lazy a prosecutor as he was a judge, so his advice meant nothing anyway.

It’s hard to know what makes a good judge, but the jury system is often maligned by the powerful because it affects their interests the most effectively! Without juries, they can install Alitos all over the place and not even bother with tort “reform” or worry about that pesky Constitution.

Keep asking questions and good luck getting into law school. The story I told might be depressing, but I love my job. It’s fun keeping people who think like this judge in check and I would have a hard time doing anything else!

I find it greatly unsettling to hear your story. I know a good number of the baltimore trial judges personally, and they tend to be a mixed bag. Some are bright and hard working types, and some are entitled pricks who put in 5 hour days. Most are in between.

I had meant, in my suggestion that judges might protect the innocent better, that juries may be more of a shotgun approach, screwing the innocent just as readily as they anoint the guilty. My limited experience has been of judges who at least bothered to pay attention, who usually knew the lawyers and trial tactics, and who could figure things out.

This prompted my next question of which judges actually turn out to be decent judges. If there were some method for determining, prior to giving them their pretty robes, which of them were going to perform justly. Around here all felony trial judges are elected, but they usually run unopposed after having been appointed to fill vacancies. If there is a good method for finding good judges, then the governor could choose to stock the bench with good folks, or at least pick the winners from the losers out of the larger pile of cronies.

On the other hand, I would be very curious if someone could come up with a reasonable estimate of whether a factually innocent person is more likely to be wrongfully convicted by a judge or a jury. It would not surprise me much to find that judges do a pretty decent job of protecting the innocent.

Even more interesting would be an analysis on which judges turn out to be the best. Like how much does experience improve a judge’s rulings? Are former prosecutors, defenders, family lawyers, academics, or private practitioners the best judges?