I have dedicated almost my entire legal career to service in Alabama’s appellate courts.  I have served as a Judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals for over 7-1/2 years.  Before that, I served over 16 years as a senior attorney with the Supreme Court – one year with Associate Justice Janie L. Shores and over 15 years with Associate Justice James Gorman Houston, Jr.   I have worked on thousands of cases at the highest levels in our state judicial system and have personally written hundreds of published opinions that are relied on daily by lawyers and Judges across Alabama.  I also have the privilege of serving as Chief Judge of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, which is a trial court that hears ethics complaints filed against Judges by the Judicial Inquiry Commission.  Having been unanimously appointed to this position by the Supreme Court, it is an honor for me to do my part in protecting the integrity and independence of Alabama’s judiciary.   Serving on both Courts puts me in the unique position of being the only Judge in Alabama who simultaneously serves as both an appellate Judge and as a trial Judge.  In addition, I am only one of three Judges in Alabama to complete the University of Virginia Law School’s Graduate Program for Judges, having participated in the program with 30 other state and federal Judges from around the country and earning the degree of Master of Laws in the Judicial Process (LL.M.).

I am a judicial conservative.  I believe that every judicial decision, especially at the appellate court level, must be based strictly on the law and the specific facts of the case under review.  A Judge must engage in a principled analysis and apply the law to those facts.  This principled analysis provides insight into a Judge’s thought process and assures the parties and the lawyers involved in a case that the decision was grounded in a core set of rules and procedures that are applicable to everyone.  A Judge must also reach the result that is logically dictated by the application of that process. I also believe that a Judge must have a firm grasp on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.  Under that doctrine, our governments at the state and federal levels are divided into three branches— executive, legislative, and judicial—and each is required to respect, and not interfere with, the power and responsibilities of the others.  Judges are prohibited from legislating. Legislatures, not courts, are best suited to debate and set long term public policy.  A Judge must exercise the personal judicial restraint necessary to avoid imposing his or her personal will in cases.   The law must be vindicated, not the personal beliefs and policies of an individual Judge.  A  Judge’s approach to decision-making must be grounded in one basic concept—fairness, and if a Judge, especially an appellate Judge, will take the approach that I have just described, then fairness will take care of itself.

I would define judicial independence as the ability of a Judge or a court to make decisions free from any improper outside influence or interference.  Judicial independence and integrity are essential to maintaining people’s confidence in our system of justice.  Decisions that are made by Judges, especially appellate Judges whose decisions act as precedent for future cases, can have a tremendous impact on people’s lives, liberty, and property.  Our judicial system acts as an internal “pressure valve” under our form of government, allowing for the peaceful resolution of disputes between individuals, between individuals and governments, and between governments.  People must believe that the process by which judicial decisions are made is fair and they must respect and adhere to those decisions, even if they may not agree with them.  People cannot have confidence in their courts unless those courts have the ability to act independently of external pressures and render decisions that are based solely on the law and the facts.

Probably the greatest concern right now for Alabama’s judicial system is adequate funding.  Budget shortfalls over the past few years have made it increasingly difficult for our courts, both at the appellate and trial court levels, to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.  Lack of funding has resulted in unfilled judgeships and a reduction in support personnel in both trial and appellate courts.  This makes it difficult for our courts to adequately prepare for the future and to provide swift and fair justice.  However, even with these daunting budget obstacles, Alabama’s unified judicial system accomplishes its constitutional mission year in and year out and is truly a model for the rest of the country.  This is, of course, due to the resilience, dedication, and hard work of everyone involved in this state’s judicial branch of government.  The Alabama Supreme Court has, and must continue, to provide the necessary leadership by working closely with the legislature in the budget process to secure the necessary funding for the court system and by continuing to find creative approaches to solving other funding issues, such as the Court’s recent efforts, in conjunction with the Alabama State Bar, to implement a mandatory plan providing for the use of interest on lawyer’s trust accounts to pay for indigent legal services to the citizens of Alabama.

 Public opinion can play no role in the decisions of a Judge.  Every decision has to be made based solely on the law and the particular facts of the case.  In the context of appellate court decisions, those facts are contained in a record certified from the lower court.  With few exceptions, an appellate court cannot go outside of the record to consider facts that could impact the decision.  As for the applicable law, constraints are placed on appellate courts by state and federal  constitutions, state and federal statutes, state and federal administrative regulations, state and federal case law, numerous standards of judicial review, numerous rules of statutory and constitutional construction, and a host of procedural rules.  However, the ebb and flow of public opinion cannot be allowed to dictate the resolution of a case.

In every case, a Judge has to remember that it is not what he or she wants, but what the law demands.  We are a nation of laws, and a Judge’s personal beliefs or personal policy preferences must give way to the demands of the law.  A Judge must have the personal judicial restraint to engage in a principled analysis of the law and the facts and abide by the result dictated by that analysis.  A Judge cannot start with a desired result and work backwards to mold the law and the facts to fit that desired result.  That kind of decision-making is contrary to the process of judicial review and infects the courts with the kind of arbitrary judging that destroys people’s confidence in our judicial system. 

| TOP |