ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, October 27, 1996 TAG: 9610280054
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARC DAVIS LANDMARK NEWS SERVICE
The commission that judges judges is now being judged itself by two legislative committees.
The committees want to know if the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, which investigates misconduct complaints against judges, is too secretive. The committees also want to know how they and the public can determine whether the commission is doing its job if all its work is done behind closed doors.
A House of Delegates subcommittee is considering a new law to open the commission's records for the first time in its 25-year history.
At the same time, a Senate committee will soon discuss the commission's work and whether it needs to be changed.
These inquiries come after two highly publicized cases involving two judges: Luther Edmonds of Norfolk and Robert Gillette of Suffolk. Edmonds resigned last month while under investigation by the commission. Gillette was cleared of wrongdoing by the commission after threatening letters were sent on his stationery to a former law client.
In the Gillette case, some observers wondered why the commission rejected a complaint against the judge after a brief investigation, apparently without talking to two key witnesses.
In the Edmonds case, the commission has remained silent - as required by law - while the judge and a Norfolk legislator have issued conflicting statements about why Edmonds resigned and the nature of the charges and testimony against him. Because the commission's work is secret, the truth may never be known officially.
Four Republican state senators from Hampton Roads have asked for a hearing by the Senate Court of Justice Committee to discuss the judicial commission.
In a letter last month, the senators said that news accounts of the Gillette case raised ``serious questions as to how complaints filed against judges are handled.''
``It is our opinion these questions merit investigation by the Courts Committee,'' the senators wrote. ``Regardless of what may be needed to correct a real or perceived problem, serious allegations have been raised, and we need to review them. A lack of public trust in our judiciary cannot be permitted in the commonwealth.''
Committee Chairman Joseph Gartlan, D-Fairfax County, agreed to discuss the commission's work generally at a meeting soon, probably in December.
Gartlan said the committee will not discuss specific cases handled by the commission because state law requires that they be kept confidential.
In general, Gartlan said, he believes the commission's secrecy is a good thing because it prevents good judges from being smeared by groundless complaints.
``The American justice system works, to a large degree, on the confidence the American public has in the integrity of judges,'' Gartlan said. If all complaints against judges were aired publicly, ``there would be a very, very serious risk of undermining that confidence.''
Meanwhile, in the House of Delegates, a subcommittee Tuesday asked its staff to draft legislation that would open the commission's records.
Subcommittee Chairman Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton and House majority leader, said this would keep commission hearings behind closed doors, but would open the panel's records to public scrutiny.
Asked what he expects to find, Cranwell said he doesn't know. The commission's records are secret even to legislators, Cranwell said. Even the number and types of complaints are unknown.
``Legislators are really in the dark about the information over there,'' Cranwell said.
Cranwell's subcommittee also asked the staff to find out how other states handle judicial complaints.
According to the American Judicature Society in Chicago, all 50 states keep initial investigations private. After that, 32 states make cases public when charges are filed against a judge, including neighboring North Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia and Tennessee. Thirteen states have systems similar to Virginia's. Six are more secretive, including neighboring Kentucky.
It is not known how far the House is willing to go in opening the commission. House Speaker Thomas Moss, D-Norfolk, said he generally opposes the effort.
``I will say to you the system does work, as was shown in the Edmonds situation,'' Moss said. He said he doubts anything will come of the latest efforts. ``Talking and doing are two different things. I don't see the Courts of Justice Committee doing much to change it now. Why should they?''
LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB