 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
During my 40-plus years in practice I never thought they did. Being in the presence of a judge, especially just after getting called to the Bar, generally left me awestruck. To me, the judge was Louis XIV-on steroids. The first time I ran across a judge in a restaurant, I said to myself, “Wow, he eats!” Which gets me to Oklahoma — and former judge Traci Soderstrom.
She recently resigned from the District Court after being investigated for sending hundreds of texts and otherwise being engaged on her cell phone while her court was in session.
In the midst of a murder trial she apparently texted the bailiff about 500 times making comments about a police officer being pretty, noting she could look at him all day, a certain juror’s wig and the prosecutor’s genitals. (No, I could not find the details!).
One would suspect Her Honour (as she then was) might have been a bit distracted. What really brought the matter to the fore was when a Domino’s delivery guy walked into the courtroom in the midst of the accused’s cross-examination and queried, “Who ordered the medium pepperoni?” OK, I am actually speculating about this one; the guy could have been from Little Caesar’s. Then again, nothing would surprise me anymore these days.
Given the judge’s apparent inattention, I think of the court registrar’s opening address. What would it have sounded like in this court? “Oyez, Oyez, Oyez, anyone having any matters before this court give your attention and you shall not be heard.”
Give or take an oyez.
There were likely tell-tale signs of the judge’s cell phone obsession while in court, before the cat got out of the bag. Maybe in a non-jury bench trial she may have tweeted, “I’m about to convict one Chuck McDonald for arson. Please feel free to like. And share.” Or perhaps while charging a jury, if the foreperson asked a clarification question, how did she reply? … “LOL”?
Most of us will agree that a judge who does not pay full attention is a lawyer’s nightmare. An appeal court justice addressing a seminar I attended on what judges like, or dislike, cautioned lawyers not to ask a judge whether he or she has read the materials. Well and good. However, I have come across a number of judges who at best likely just skimmed over great briefs I took hours to create and hone to perfection. At worst, they did not touch them or, even worse, they did touch them and took an immediate dislike to my case as the document gave them a paper cut. Ouch! Then again, maybe that would be justice.
When I visualize that Oklahoma judge not being all present as she should have been, I think of that Dickens Tale of Two Cities character, Madame Defarge. The madame kept busy spending time in the body of the court rooting for the prosecution and knitting. She actually may have been more productive than that Oklahoma judge. At least some good soul probably ended up with a fine sweater.
I also wonder about the recipient of those 500 texts in that one trial alone, i.e., that bailiff. What did he do with them? Did he think it was all OK? Did he condone the judge’s actions, or share the judge’s views? I suppose her comments must have provoked some wild thoughts, especially the one about that prosecutor.
Soderstrom did note that she upheld the Constitution in a fair and even-handed manner, adding, “However, being human, I have also faltered.” There go we but for the grace of …?” I guess judges just may actually have some human frailties. Amen.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon, (e-book) and paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.