ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: What you need to know about state judges

David J. Dreyer
January 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidCherry Hill is an authority in the field of horsekeeping and horse training. Having not ridden a horse since the pony rides of pre-adolescence, I am nevertheless struck by Hill’s keen insights into the art of judging. In 2005, she published an online article called “The Profession of Judging” in which she discusses what makes a good judge – for horse shows. For example:

1. Must be a keen observer and make sound decisions

2. Able to work long hours

3. Must be punctual, have a good sense of time and be organized

4. Must thoroughly know the rule book

5. A judge should be stable, not moody. It is probably best for a judge to be somewhat reserved yet pleasant. Excess formality or “good-old-boy” casualness can be misinterpreted and counterproductive.

6. The judge dictates the mood, so personal feelings must be put aside.

7. All selections and decisions must be based on fair play. Problems will be minimal, questions can be answered straight-forward, and there will be no restless conscience.

8. A good judge is alert, knowledgeable, confident and ethical.

While there may (or may not) be a big difference between horses and humans, there may not be any difference between horse judging and human judging. After all, judging is a fundamental objective endeavor. It is always instructive to compare “judging” with “judgmental,” that is, a conclusory perspective borne from bias, stereotype or narrow subjective information. Columnist Cal Thomas once wrote that “judgment” is “holding people accountable to a standard we did not create,” and “judgmentalism” is “thinking ourselves morally superior because we haven’t committed the acts of others.” So for more than 17 years, I have been a judge, not a judgmentalist. And the same goes for practically every judge I know.

My non-lawyer friends spend almost all their time at social events with me asking about judging and judgmentalism. This is what I want them to know:

Judges work hard.

Last year, we state judges alone worked on more than 100 million cases, according to the National Center on State Courts. In Indiana, our Division of State Court Administration reports about 1.2 million cases last year. Our mortgage foreclosures are up 11.9 percent and Indiana murders up by 21.6 percent. No judge gets extra pay for working extra time. The judges do what the job demands, year in and year out.

Judges rule against people they like, and in favor of people they don’t like.

As our horse-judging list shows above, personal feelings must be put aside, or else the judge is not judging. As a normal person, I see people every day that are on my good list or my bad list. The essential quality of judging is to see one’s judgmentalism present all the time, and be perfectly fine with setting it aside. Lawyers do it with clients, businesses do it with customers, and neighbors do it with neighbors. I certainly like some lawyers much better than others – but I can honestly attest that it doesn’t make a bit of difference. It is this level of professionalism that is the currency of a judge’s daily practice.

Judges don’t have publicists.

Can you remember the last time you saw a judge on the cover of a news magazine (when we still had news magazines)? Have you ever seen a judge interviewed after a big trial? In fact, can anyone remember ever reading a quote from a judge not taken from a written legal opinion or from the bench? There are exceptions, fortunately, but judges, more than other branches of government, have to let their actions speak for themselves. They don’t take polls, have town meetings or hold press conferences. That is not the nature of judging. Our legal system is too important to risk losing public confidence by doing anything other than calling balls and strikes – and taking the boos and catcalls if they come.

Judges are connected to people and their problems.

What other job involves making everyday decisions about people with real problems like an estate, theft, mortgage, unpaid bills, business transactions, medical malpractice, bankruptcy, divorce, environmental cleanup, drunken driving, employment, child custody, insurance coverage, juvenile delinquency, or just plain old-fashioned murder? It may be safe to say that no elected officials solve more daily problems for people face-to-face than state trial judges. Beyond that, the community sees judges regularly involved in activities outside the courtroom. According to Indiana Judicial Center data, about 90 percent of all Indiana judges are involved in extra-judicial activities in bar associations, not-for-profit charities or judicial committees. You just can’t say we don’t care.

Judges are stewards of the law.

All of us are stewards of the legal profession. But only judges are stewards of the law. Inevitably, those of us who take the oath become a different sort of advocate. Our ability, ethics and fidelity are directed toward applying, interpreting and distinguishing. The human balance that unquestionably enters every human endeavor does not spare judges. But every judge knows he or she must seek to develop a keen instinct to recognize if, how, or when to let that balance enter any particular decision. This judicial discretion is the heart of the law and only a judge practices it.

Even the Pope now says “Who I am to judge?” when faced with the prospect of being a judgmentalist. So the next time you find yourself doing some horse-trading in the courthouse, chances are you can have a good judge who will help – even with a horse show.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT