THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 26, 1996 TAG: 9610260228
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 102 lines
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 know 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 up 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 the commission needs to be changed.
These inquiries come after two highly publicized cases involving two area 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 withouttalking to two key witnesses.
In the Edmonds case, the commission has remained silent - as required by law - while the former 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 - Kenneth Stolle of Virginia Beach, Frederick Quayle of Chesapeake, Martin Williams of Newport News and Thomas Norment Jr. of Williamsburg - 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.''
Committee Chairman Joseph Gartlan, a Fairfax County Democrat, 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 confidentiality.
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 in an interview.
Quayle said he has been concerned about the commission's secrecy for years. He said he worries that the commission is unaccountable to the public or legislature, which appoints judges.
``I certainly can appreciate the need for some secrecy in the deliberations,'' Quayle said, ``but at some point, the public needs to know. I'm not sure what point that is.''
Stolle agreed: ``The judges are supposed to be responsive to the General Assembly, and the General Assembly is supposed to be responsive to the public. We just want to shed a little bit more light on the process.''
Meanwhile, in the House of Delegates, a subcommittee Tuesday asked its staff to draft legislation to open the commission's records.
Subcommittee Chairman Richard Cranwell, a Roanoke Democrat who is House majority leader, said this would keep commission hearings behind closed doors, but would open its records to the public.
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 up the commission. House Speaker Thomas Moss Jr., a Norfolk Democrat, 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?'' ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC
IS THE COMMISSION TOO SECRETIVE?
Two highly publicized cases, handled behind closed doors, have
prompted the inquiry into how judges are investigated.
Judge Luther Edmonds resigned last month while being investigated by
the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. The panel has kept
silent, as required by law, while the ex-judge and a Norfolk
legislator have issued conflicting statements about the case.
Judge Robert Gillette was cleared of wrongdoing by the commission
after threatening letters were sent on his stationery to a former
law client. Some observers of the case wondered why the commission
rejected a complaint against the judge after a brief investigation,
apparently without talking to two key witnesses. by CNB