|
Contact: Rachel Decker, Media Coordinator, HALT
rdecker@halt.org or 202-887-8255
Washington, DC—
Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems
that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Maryland 17th in the
nation and issued the state's program a C grade. To shine a light on the
typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive
and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT,
Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing
programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.
"Maryland's system of judicial oversight gives too many disreputable judges
a free pass," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder.
In 2005, Prince George's County District Court Judge Richard Palumbo
inexcusably refused to renew a protection order for Yvette Cade, a woman
who pleaded for safety from a husband with a long history of violence and a
criminal record. When Ms. Cade told Palumbo that she wanted an immediate
divorce, the judge responded, "I'd like to be six-foot-five, but that's not
what we do here." Without a protection order, the estranged husband was
able to douse Ms. Cade with gasoline and set her on fire, disfiguring 60
percent of her body with burns. Despite the judge's long-standing pattern
of abuse, Maryland's Commission on Judicial Disabilities shrugged off
Palumbo's offenses and permitted him to retire quietly. Palumbo was even
able to receive his pension.
"When one of our most powerful government officials abuses his power, we
count on regulatory bodies like the Commission on Judicial Disabilities to
impose swift and meaningful discipline," stated Blonder. "Sadly, the
outcome of the complaint against Judge Palumbo seems to be the rule, rather
than the exception." HALT's study found that Maryland judges may not be
fined or suspended for a transgression and often receive little more than a
slap on the wrist.
While Maryland law requires judges to annually disclose their financial
holdings, the reports omit critical data and are not available online,
forcing interested citizens to go to the courthouse during business hours
to retrieve information about a judge's potential conflicts of interest.
Moreover, Maryland rules fail to place meaningful limitations on the
reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with
trips funded by corporate and special interests. "Maryland's laws include
massive loopholes that allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined
on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.
HALT found that Maryland's system of judicial oversight is not entirely
flawed, however. Unlike requirements in many states, Maryland rules do not
prohibit individuals from disclosing information about their complaints
against judges.
None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona
and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More
than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's
to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.
"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and
fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective
system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder.
Information about the Judicial Accountability Report Card, including Maryland's Report Card and a detailed grading scale, can be found at www.halt.org. Founded in 1978, HALT, Inc. is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group that challenges the legal establishment to increase accountability in the civil justice system.
|
