Judicial immunity

Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.[1]

An example of applying judicial immunity: a judge is not liable for a slander or libel suit for statements made about someone during a trial, no matter how corrupt that act was.[citation needed]

Judicial immunity is stated as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".[2] The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion". Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959). Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justified.[3] For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts -- thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims.

Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent."[4] In 1997 West Virginia judge Troisi became so irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose.[5] He pleaded no contest to state charges but was acquitted of federal charges of violating the defendants civil rights.[6] He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.[7]

Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King."[8]

Cases

United States

Stump v. Sparkman

Main article: Stump v. Sparkman

One of the leading decisions on judicial immunity is Stump v. Sparkman. In 1971, Judge Harold D. Stump granted a mother's petition to have a tubal ligation performed on her 15-year-old daughter, whom the mother alleged was "somewhat retarded." The daughter was told that the surgery was to remove her appendix. In 1975 the daughter, going by her then-married name of Linda Sparkman, learned that she had been sterilized. She sued the judge. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the judge could not be sued, because the decision was made in the course of his duties. In that regard, it was irrelevant that the judge's decision may have been contrary to law and morally reprehensible.

Harris v. Harvey

Judges usually but not always receive immunity from being sued. One exception is Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979)[9] Sylvester Harris was an African-American police lieutenant in Racine, WI, attacked in a variety of ways by Judge Richard G. Harvey. Harris sued Harvey because of (a) comments Harvey made to the news media, (b) threatening letters Harvey wrote to city and county officials who attempted to defend Harris, and (c) parties Harvey held for ranking state officials during which he attempted to get Harris removed from law enforcement. The jury concluded that Harvey was not eligible for judicial immunity for these actions, as such acts which were not part of the judge's normal duties (i.e., were "outside his jurisdiction"). The jury awarded Harris $260,000 damages. Another judge later added $7,500 legal fees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concurred with the jury's decision. Judge Harvey petitioned the Seventh Circuit court for an en banc rehearing, which was denied. His petition to the Supreme Court was also denied. Harris v. Harvey is a binding precedent in the Seventh Circuit and is persuasive authority in the other circuits.

Mireles v. Waco

On the other hand, misbehavior while performing judicial acts is immune. In the case of Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9, when a defense lawyer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, the judge not only issued a bench warrant for his arrest, but instructed the police sent to arrest him to "rough him up a little" to teach him not to skip court dates. Although this was entirely unprofessional and possibly criminal, the judge was held, by the Supreme Court, to have absolute immunity from a lawsuit arising from the resulting beating, because done entirely within his activities as a judge presiding over a court.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Shaman, Jeffrey (January 1990). "Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability". San Diego Law Review. 27: 1.
  2. ↑ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/193/case.html
  3. ↑ http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1987/11/cj7n2-13.pdf
  4. ↑ Jones, Ashby (November 12, 2009). "New Lawsuits Try to Pierce Shield of Judicial Immunity". The Wall Street Journal.
  5. ↑ "Judge Who Bit Nose of Defendant Faces Prison". Los Angeles Times. October 11, 1997. Retrieved September 25, 2013.
  6. ↑ "Judge Is Acquitted in Nose-Biting Case". Lost Angeles Times. May 7, 1998. Retrieved September 25, 2013.
  7. ↑ Meiners, Roger; Al. H. Ringleb; Frances L. Edwards (2008). The Legal Environment of Business, Tenth Edition. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-324-65436-3.
  8. ↑ Floyd & Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607).
  9. ↑ Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979).

External links

The Supreme Court "legislated from the bench", usurping the three-branch "checks-and-balances" by doing so, and established a self-serving "free-for-all" system where lawyers, judges, and nitwit judicial assistants can LITERALLY commit DOCUMENTED felonies like fraud and extortion without the FBI ( Executive branch ) checking-and-balancing such RAMPANT judicial misconduct. Presently, ethical lawyers and citizens are demanding "Qualified Immunity", which permits honest judges and judicial officers to "rule with vigor", but not commit felonies unchecked. The situation is simple: What honest professional requires "absolute immunity" to perform their job serving the public? So, "judicial immunity" represents the #1 con game in America. A con game that permits the lowest "civil" lawyer swine to steal client fees, commit fraud, defame innocent victims, abuse children, and extort legal rights by UNDUE PROCESS - all while being Scott-free from criminal prosecution. Guess what? Then these swine BUY elected offices to perpetuate this vestigial tail of British tyranny well past 1776. ANYONE who suggests "judicial immunity" is required for OUR courts to function is either an idiot or a liar. Qualified Immunity is the solution to this serious problem, however, that would require A MAJORITY OF LAWYERS to vote against their self-interest, with the best interests of citizenry at-heart, which clearly, isn't happening. So, you understand the entire "Liberty and Justice for All" mantra is nothing more than a cheap "sales pitch" to encourage innocent youth to enlist to defend that illusion. As a result of judicial immunity, innocent civilians are bankrupted and have their kids emotionally-abused. Then, these bankrupted victims are told to "file an appeal", on which the first page of MOST appellate rules of civil procedure (ARCP) clearly warn Pro Se ( self-represented victims ) "Pro se? Expect to pay opposing council's legal bill." So, there IS NO DUE PROCESS IN AMERICA. It's a lie. Under judicial tyranny, you either can afford to OUTBID your opponent to steal or enforce legal rights. To that extent, "Judicial Immunity" is the head of the snake" as to why our courts fail us on a daily basis. Judicial Immunity has established a criminal enterprise. Worse, a dishonest judge, or compromised judge, can serve as a "immune proxy" on behalf of ANYONE wishing to harm someone without criminal indictment. That, in and-of-itself, should be enough to encourage Americans to DEMAND "qualified immunity". Until then, our government is being held siege by dishonest, immoral, cunning, and ruthless lawyer swine. This is irrefutable fact. Should Wikipedia remove these FACTS they will be subject to a class-action lawsuit predicated on well-established Staris Decisis ( case precedent law ) regarding online publishers "editing" content. STOP CENSORING THIS CON GAME. LET THE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/5/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.