HAS A U.S. JUDGE EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF OBSTRUCTION?

Florida Law Review, Vol. 35, Iss. 2 [1983], Art. 5

1983: Indictment of Federal Judges: Chilling Judicial Independence. William Hamilto -

INTRODUCTION In the past decade federal grand juries have criminally indicted' two article III federal judges for impeachable offenses. 2 These events are unprecedented in the history of the American Republic, 3 and bring into clear contrast the impeachment 4 and criminal processes.

Federal Judges. Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges. These judges, often referred to as “Article III judges,” are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The indictments pose the issue of whether an article III federal judge5 may be indicted, tried, judged, and punished according to law6 on charges of official misconduct prior to impeachment and conviction by the Senate of the United States.8 The recent indictment of the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings presents the jurisdictional dispute in its most justiciable form. 9 Three days after Judge Hastings rendered a decision adverse to the government, a federal grand jury was convened to hear evidence of alleged judicial improprieties unlawfully affecting the contested decision.

On December 29, 1981, the grand jury issued an indictment against Judge Hastings. Count I alleged that the promise of a bribe affected a judicial decision, and count II accused the judge of obstructing justice by releasing prematurely the content of the forthcoming decision."

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=flr

2019: Judge Convicted of Bribery and Obstruction.

A state district judge has been convicted of bribery and obstruction, announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick

“Corrupt judges can harm a community’s confidence in our judicial system,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski. “Today’s verdict takes an important step toward restoring that confidence, and affirms that no one – especially not a judge – is above the law.”

Following a six-day trial, Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado, 65, of Edinburg, Texas, was convicted of one count of Conspiracy; three counts of Federal Program Bribery; three counts of Travel Act Bribery and one count of Obstruction of Justice.

“The bribery of a judge may be the worst break of the publics’ trust in government,” said U.S. Attorney Patrick. “Rudy Delgado used his position to enrich himself. He didn’t just tip the scales of justice, he knocked it over with a wad of cash and didn’t look back. Delgado’s actions unfairly tarnish all his former colleagues.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-convicted-bribery-and-obstruction

About Impeachment.

If the Judicial Conference finds possible grounds for impeachment, it submits a report to the House of Representatives. Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. Has a Justice ever been impeached? The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.

SEC. 2381. TREASON.

2382. MISPRISION OF TREASON.

2383. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION.

2384. SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY.

2385. ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT.

2386. REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS.

2387. ACTIVITIES AFFECTING ARMED FORCES GENERALLY.

2388. ACTIVITIES AFFECTING ARMED FORCES DURING WAR.

2389. RECRUITING FOR SERVICE AGAINST UNITED STATES.

2390. ENLISTMENT TO SERVE AGAINST UNITED STATES.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim

Judge Cannon “presiding” over the Mar a Lago criminal case against Trump, just got caught with her hands in the cookie jar by failing to disclose her long standing relationship with the Federalist Society and accepting tens of thousands of dollars of all expense paid luxury retreats that attack the democratic and progressive legal agenda.

Michael Popok puts a spotlight on the judge and what prosecutors may do next as they look at her adverse rulings against them including the recent one delaying the trial yet again, with new eyes.

There's a remedy for incompetent judges.

IN THE MATTER of William Rehnquist vs. Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, et al., I'll take my stand with the politicians.

Speaking at American University last week, the chief justice delivered a sermon on the subject of judicial independence. His remarks were meant as a rebuke to the president, the Senate majority leader, and the speaker of the House, all of whom had gone so far in criticizing a federal judge – the Hon. Harold Baer Jr. of New York – as to suggest that he be expelled from the bench. Since federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments, the only way to remove Baer would be to impeach him or to pressure him to resign. Dole proposed the former; Clinton and Gingrich (along with 150 House members), the latter.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist

For shame, scolded Rehnquist. Such threats amount to an assault on "one of the crown jewels of our system of government," namely, the confidence of federal judges "that their judicial acts – their rulings from the bench – would not be a basis for removal from office by impeachment and conviction." In Rehnquist's view, the only justification for forcing a judge to step down is "criminal conduct such as tax evasion, perjury, and the like."

In other words, if a judge lies or steals, he can be stripped of his robe. But if a judge is incompetent -- if he exercises unsound judgment or perverts justice or endangers the public with scandalous rulings – he should be immune from discipline.

This is "one of the crown jewels of our system?"

Recall what Judge Baer did to ignite this firestorm: He ruled that $4 million worth of cocaine and heroin seized from a woman's rented car in a high-crime section of New York was inadmissible as evidence against her, since the police had searched her car without reasonable suspicion. And why was their suspicion not reasonable? Because all they saw were four men stuffing duffel bags into the trunk of her car – and running away when they spotted the police. Nothing suspicious about that, said Baer. Boyz in the 'hood just don't like cops. "Had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them," he wrote, "it would have been unusual."

That wasn't all. If the search was illegal, the woman's subsequent arrest was illegal, too. So Baer also threw out her videotaped confession that she was an experienced drug courier who regularly made the run between Detroit and Manhattan and was being paid $20,000 for this trip. Bottom line: Evidence suppressed, charges dropped, professional criminal given a pass.

There followed an eruption of criticism, complete with the impeachment rumbles; in due course, Judge Baer saw the light (read: felt the heat) and reversed himself. But the question remains: Does this man belong on the federal bench?

And if the consensus is that he – or any other judge – does not, how do we get rid of him?

You don't, say Rehnquist and the judicial fraternity. Judges may be impeached only for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Absent that, the only remedy for an intolerable judge is to await his death or retirement. This, in Rehnquist's words, is the sacred "doctrine of judicial independence."

It is also nonsense.

Nowhere does the Constitution decree that judges shall be untouchable gods, exempt from the checks and balances that bridle the other branches of government. In the system the Framers devised, the people – not the judges – are sovereign. Just as the executive and legislative branches are controllable by the people, so is the judicial branch. And the tool for dislodging judges who have lost the public's confidence or abused its trust is impeachment.

Not only for "high crimes and misdemeanors," either. That phrase comes from Article II of the Constitution, which deals with the presidency; it is the standard set forth for removing "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." But Article III, which covers the judicial branch, expresses a far more flexible standard: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." What is "good behavior?" That is for the House and Senate to decide.

Were there political motives in the attack on Baer's ruling? Sure there were. The Republicans wanted to score points against Clinton, who appointed him; the president wanted to deflect their criticism by coopting it. Moreover, Baer is widely reported to be a conscientious man; I've no doubt he firmly believed in the rightness of his ruling.

Nevertheless. If a Democratic president, the Republican leaders, of Congress, 150 members of the House, numerous local officials, and a great swath of the public all agree that a judge's ruling was an abomination, that's a fairly good indication that it may have been an abomination. A judge who issues abominable rulings, however sincerely, breaches his constitutional obligation of "good behavior" – and the people have the right to get rid of him.

The impeachment tool has grown rusty with disuse. It ought to be resorted to more frequently. When judges make blunders that shock the conscience, calls for their removal aren't cheap shots. They are healthy and honest, and just what the Framers intended.

https://jeffjacoby.com/7793/theres-a-remedy-for-incompetent-judges

NCJ Number 17832

Journal LOS ANGELES BAR BULLETIN Volume: 49 Issue: 10 Dated: (AUGUST 1974) Pages: 416-419,433-436

Author(s) T M BOYD Date Published 1974 Length 8 pages

REMOVING FEDERAL JUDGES - AN ALTERNATIVE TO IMPEACHMENT

Abstract:FOUR JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT CASES ARE DISCUSSED WITH RELATION TO THE CHARGES FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPEACHED. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT IMPEACHMENT IS NOT THE ONLY METHOD BY WHICH FEDERAL JUDGES CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THE MEANING OF THE 'HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS' AND 'DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR' PHRASES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARE DISCUSSED. IT IS ARGUED THAT FEDERAL JUDGES CAN BE REMOVED FROM ACTS OF MISCONDUCT AND/OR MALADMINISTRATION. THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS THAT LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED THAT WOULD REDUCE THE ABUSES INHERENT TO A JUDICIARY WHICH IS APPOINTED FOR LIFE AND MAKE IT EASIER TO REMOVE UNFIT OR INCOMPETENT JUDGES.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/removing-federal-judges-alternative-impeachment