Transparency Wins; Did Justice?

I was able to watch substantial portions of the recent Court of the Judiciary hearing in Oklahoma. 

The above styled trial commenced in the Court on the Judiciary, Trial Division on August 31 to September 18, 2020, except for Labor Day on September 7th, and on September 14th.

Since I did not hear all of the testimony, I do not feel qualified to opine on the result.

The good news is the transparency of the proceedings. As reported by The Oklahoman

The unusual trial is being livestreamed on YouTube from the Oklahoma Judicial Center, the home of the state Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. The building, just southeast of the Capitol, remains closed to the public because of the pandemic.

The livestream — involving multiple cameras angles and high-quality sound — has become a mini-hit. Viewership last week regularly exceeded 400 every day and at times topped 600.

The most upsetting testimony in the hearing that I witnessed came in the defense of the accused from Judge Aletia Timmons, the thrust of which was a suggestion that the process was a product of racist and sexist double standards applied to a new judge who was learning the job.

Non Doc reported

Timmons testimony became a scathing indictment of her judicial peers, accusing them of pettiness and spreading gossip.

“Before she could even get her feet wet, they‘ve picked on her in ways that are petty, ignorant, racist and completely outrageous. It has been tough to watch,” she said.

Timmons testified that other judges assigned to the criminal dockets maligned Coleman at the judge’s judicial conferences.

“As my grandma would say, some are so low they could sit on a Kleenex and swing their feet,” Timmons said. She did not identify the judges by name.

I was surprised when the panel deliberated and returned a verdict shortly after testimony and argument to announce an order removing the judge. 

There are several dissents rejecting removal from office as the remedy.

There is a written dissent by District Judge Wallace Coppege.

In particular he notes the lack of factual findings to explain the conclusions of law, notes the disagreements among panel members on the conclusions and sanction and calls the result

 grossly unfair to Judge Coleman in this case; to all future elected and/or appointed trial judges and to the Appellate Division of the Court of the Judiciary to be required to essentially guess what conduct the six (6) members of the majority found to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

 (Mike Frisch)