Judge Ross and the Distinguished Flying Cross

As Memorial Day approaches, I have been thinking a lot about my old boss, mentor and dear friend Judge Donald R. Ross.  Judge Ross served for many years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Judge Ross was a bombardier, and later a lead bombardier, during WW II.  He flew with the 306th Bomb Group.  Serving two tours, and flying nearly 50 missions, the judge was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.  In fact, he received that citation twice.  The Cross is awarded for ”Heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.”  The judge is a  genuine war hero.

Image Credit:

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

Although he is frail, Judge Ross remains with us today.  His service during the war and thereafter should be remembered.

Some things are more important than others.

RGK

On being a stranger in a strange land

Let’s say you came across the Mexican border illegally to find a job.  You have no criminal history.

You landed in the Midwest and found a job in a packing plant.   The work is hellishly hard, but you can send money back to your parents.  Then, you got hurt and lost your job.  So, several friends of yours from down south talk you into shlepping a bit of meth.  About the second or third time you do, you get rolled up by the feds together with a whole bunch of your amigos.

Luckily, you aren’t going to do a lot of time–only five years.  That’s because of your low criminal history score and the fact that the government can’t put a boatload of dope on you.

You have never been in a prison or a jail until the feds arrested you.  You are tired and worn out.  You simply want to go back to Mexico and your parents as quick as you can.  As far as going back to Mexico is concerned, you know you will be deported anyway when you have done your 60 months.  However, five years seems like a long time.

So, you decide to cooperate.  You testify at a trial.  Your sentence gets reduced.  ICE picks you up from the US Marshals and is ready to deport you.

That’s when you learn that your parents have been “visited” in Mexico by friends of your friends.  They tell your parents that they will be waiting for you to return.  You know they aren’t kidding.

RGK

Ugliest federal judicial truck contest

A career law clerk to one of the magistrate judges told me yesterday that my posts on toilets were beginning to trouble him on a deep and psychic level.  He asked me to blog about something else.  That got me thinking.

RGK's 1991 truck.  Blotches are from RGK's attempt to paint over rust.  Bed entirely rusted through at the gate.  On weekends, when RGK doesn't shave, soccer moms are truly frightened when RGK rolls up next to them at the Wal-Mart.

My 1991 truck. Blotches are from my failed attempt to spray paint over rust.  On weekends, when I don’t shave, soccer moms and their children are frightened when I roll up next to their minivan at the Wal-Mart parking lot.  For fun, I sometimes lean out of the driver’s window and tell the little kids to give me their candy and they won’t be harmed, but then I quickly add, “just kiddin.’”

If I can’t blog about judicial toilets, maybe I can blog about ugly federal judicial trucks.  So, here is the deal, (1) if you are a federal judge or law clerk to a federal judge and you truly and regularly operate a really ugly truck, (2) send me a photo of it and (3) I will post the photo of the ugliest one on this blog.  You must identify yourself and submit to such probes as I think best to satisfy myself of your identity and position.

Bonus points are given for trucks that have gun racks.  Bonus points will also be given for monster trucks but they must be ugly and you must really drive the monster.  Low-riders, even though ugly, are likely to receive fewer points.

Lawyers and lay persons are not allowed to participate.  They are real people and as a result would have an unfair advantage over those of us who are more elevated.

RGK

Going to Texas

As regular readers of this blog (all two of you) know, I am obsessed with toilets.  As a result of taking senior status, I no longer have my own personal Article III commode.  While sympathetic to my plight, a correspondent informs me that things could be worse.

My attention has been drawn to the courthouse for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  That building, located in Texarkana, sits on and is bisected exactly by the line that divides Arkansas from Texas.  I am told that there is a trial courtroom in Arkansas for the Western District and also a trial courtroom in Texas for the Eastern District–both in the same building.

Photo credit:  civilengtiger per Creative Commons license.

Photo credit: civilengtiger per Creative Commons license.

What concerns me is this:  My informant says that if you are in the courtroom located in Arkansas, and need to relieve yourself, you must walk over to Texas to do so.  If true, that’s plainly unconstitutional.  While I must walk three steps to use a common bathroom (ick, ick and ick), at least I can do so secure in the knowledge that I remain in Nebraska (with my judicial immunity intact).

RGK

PS For more on the general history of this unique federal courthouse, see the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program feature on this building.  For an interesting article about the cooperation between the two district courts, see the 2004 article in the Third Branch entitled A Split Court? Texarkana Sits on the Line.  For the potential constitutional problems of trying criminal cases in one courtroom rather than the other, see this 2008 post from the Volokh Conspiracy entitled Article III, Congress, and the Texarkana Courthouse.

Photo credit:  US Marshals Service

Photo credit: US Marshals Service

Judge “Buzz” Arnold, polymath, legal historian and former federal district judge

I am a big fan of legal history.   I spend a fair amount of time lending my meagre talents to the preservation of the legal history of the judges and courts in the Eighth Circuit as Chairman of the Board of The Historical Society of the United States Courts in the Eighth Circuit.

I am especially fond of legal history written by judges especially those who started their careers as federal trial judges.  How they find the time to do their legal work and turn out distinguished legal histories is beyond me.  So, today, I want to briefly highlight a great judge and a world-class legal historian.

While I am not generally a fan of portraits, this is one of my favorites.  It perfectly captures this gentle man.

While I am not generally a fan of portraits, this is one of my favorites. It perfectly captures this gentle man.

To say that Judge Morris S. Arnold (Buzz), of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, is brilliant understates the truth.  The word “polymath” is a perfect description of the judge.  In addition to being a highly regarded legal scholar, the judge is a historian of the first rank.

Like his brother (the late (and much beloved) Richard Arnold who served with Buzz on the Court of Appeals), Arnold attended Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, graduating in 1959. Thereafter, he received a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering in 1965 from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He then attended the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, having received the LL.B in 1968. He received master of laws (LL.M), and doctor of juridical science (SJD) degrees from Harvard University Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1969 and 1971, respectively.

He was a professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington from 1971-1977. He was then the university vice president and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School from 1977–1981, when he returned to Arkansas as a professor at the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock from 1981 to 1984.  In 1985, he returned to Indiana as Dean of the law school.

On October 23, 1985, President Ronald W. Reagan nominated Morris Arnold to a new seat as judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, based in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  The Senate confirmed his nomination on December 16, and he received his commission on December 17.  Arnold left the district court in 1992 to assume a judgeship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.*

Judge Arnold is the author of books, articles, book reviews, and speeches, mostly on the subjects of English legal history and colonial Arkansas. His research at archives in Spain and France allowed him to portray a colonial Arkansas previously unknown.  His book The Rumble of a Distant Drum: Quapaws and Old World Newcomers, 1673-1804 won the Booker Worthen Literary Prize and J. G. Ragsdale Book Award in Arkansas History. Arkansas: A Narrative History won the Arkansania Award.

In 2001 he was awarded the Porter Literary Prize for his body of work on colonial Arkansas. Most significantly, in 1994 the French government named him a Chevalier de l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques for his work on eighteenth-century Louisiana.

Buzz served as president of the American Society for Legal History and as vice president of the Selden Society (the only learned society and publisher devoted entirely to English legal history). As ASLH president, he helped establish the Law and History Review, which is recognized internationally as the leading journal in the field of legal history.  In 2012, at its annual meeting, the ASLH specially recognized Judge Arnold for his extraordinary contributions to the field of legal history.

Not bad for a really nice guy who started his federal judicial career trying cases in Ft. Smith.

RGK

*One of my few claims to fame is that my confirmation hearing to be a district judge in 1992 was held on the  same day that Buzz’s had his confirmation hearing regarding his nomination to the Court of Appeals.  That’s when I first had the opportunity to meet Buzz.  I have been in awe ever since.

Pulling aside the curtain to reveal how the wizard works

This will begin an intermittent series of posts regarding jury trials.   The posts will hopefully provide some food for thought on what really goes on with regard to jury trials in the federal courts.

Let’s start before the lawyers arrive to select the jury.  In virtually all federal courts, there is some sort of orientation, although how the orientations are conducted varies widely.  Over the last several decades, I have taken a very hands-on approach to jury orientation, and some might think my approach is unusual.   Anyway, here’s how I do it.

Initially, the prospective jurors see personnel from the Clerk’s office and are checked in.  They receive a briefing on practical things–like where to park–and sometimes are shown a video.  Then, they are brought to me.

I conduct my orientations in the courtroom where the trial will be held.   The lawyers are welcome to attend, but not participate.  The session is entirely informal and relaxed, and no recording is made.

I begin the orientation with a short talk.  I try to answer these questions:  What’s the constitutional reason for your being here?  How did you get on the list?  How is the typical jury trial conducted?  I explain voir dire, opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments.  I explain the burden of proof, who goes first and last and why that is so.  I tell the jurors not to worry about their safety, and explain that my name, telephone number and address are in the telephone book.  I explain what would happen if we had a security concern.  I explain how long they will serve, and our hours of work during trial.  I then have the jurors get up and walk with me into the middle of the courtroom.

We gather around the lawyers’ tables and peek into the computer hook ups, we examine the video screens, and push the “on” and “off” buttons on the microphones.  The jurors are told about interpreters and shown how the interpreters use the equipment situated next to the defense table.

The jurors will then see where the Marshals will sit if we are trying a criminal case.  We also talk about the roving Court Security Officers who will periodically enter the back of the courtroom and the fact that the CSO’s have earphones.

We show the jurors the camera that the United States Marshals Service uses to monitor the courtroom.  We also explain that since we are a pilot court for video recording, we have the capacity to video record trials.  Since the cameras are apparent, we tell the jurors whether the trial will be recorded or not.  If a video recording of a civil trial was expected, we would go into detail about camera angles, juror privacy and the uploading process.  We would turn on the video equipment and show the prospective jurors what a recording looks like.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, sits in the witness box to illustrate to the prospective panel how the equipment works.  The prospective jury panel members gather around her as she illustrates and I yap.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, sits in the witness-box to illustrate to the prospective jurors how the equipment works. The prospective jury panel gathers around her as she illustrates.  I yap.

Next, we walk over to and look into the witness-box.  The courtroom deputy (CRD) serves as a model and sits in the witness chair.  She manipulates the flat screen that permits the witness to draw things and display the drawing to the jury, the CRD explains the need for the witness to be close to the microphone, and she illustrates how the video presentation equipment (adjacent to the witness-box) can be used by the witness and a lawyer.

We then walk over to the locked door where the Marshals will bring in prisoners.  The jurors are told about the holding cells that are maintained in the middle of the building.

After that, we walk onto the clerk’s bench.  The CRD then shows the jurors her computer equipment, her timing equipment, her digital audio monitoring equipment and so forth.  Juror are told that we can provide them with battery operated headphones during trial to better hear soft-spoken people.  The head phones are demonstrated.  Digital audio recording rather than a court reporter is explained.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, shows prospective jurors the equipment she operates during trial.  This is pretty much the view that the prospective jurors get when the walk onto the clerk's bench.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, shows prospective jurors the equipment she operates during trial. This is pretty much the view that the prospective jurors get when they walk onto the clerk’s bench.

After that, 14 jurors are asked to sit in the jury-box to “test out the chairs.”   Use of the flat screens in the box as well as a large additional flat screen is explained.  The other prospective panel members gather around the jury-box.

We then walk up the stairs to the judge’s bench.  We can accommodate 17 jurors at a time.  The CRD sits in my seat and shows the jurors the computer equipment, panic alarm button, and toggle switches for the lights.  We talk about bench conferences, the reasons for them, and the “white noise” that will be pumped in when a bench conference occurs.

View from the judge's bench.   The prospective jurors go up on the bench during orientation and see what I see.

View from the judge’s bench.  All the prospective jurors go up on the bench during orientation and see what I see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all the jurors have gone up on the bench and looked around, we then go through the recessed door in the wood paneling where I enter and exit the bench.  We go down the steps behind the courtroom and into the jury deliberation room.

In the jury deliberation room, we talk about coffee, the refrigerator and the microwave, where the restrooms are located, the need for jurors to wear their identification badges while in the courthouse, use of the telephone and other practical things.  I explain why I don’t allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses during the trial whether orally or in writing.  We then proceed single file into the courtroom through the “jury’s door” just as they would go if trial were in session.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, sits in judge's chair on the bench.  She shows the"panic alarm" and other "secrets" to prospective jurors while I provide the narrative.

Colleen, our courtroom deputy supervisor, sits in the judge’s chair on the bench. She shows the”panic alarm” and other “secrets” to prospective jurors while I provide the narrative.  Every prospective panel member goes onto the judge’s bench.

During all this time, I provide a running narrative of what the jurors are seeing and why they are seeing it.  I try to keep the talk light, and humorous but informative.  My mission is to make sure that when jury selection and the trial begin that the jurors are concentrating on important stuff rather than their physical surroundings.

In short, that’s how I do a jury orientation.  Is it worth the time and effort?   I know this, after I discharge jurors following the trial, I meet with them privately.  I have conducted these interviews for every jury trial I have ever conducted over the last 26 years or so.  I always ask how I could do a better job.   Almost without exception, jurors tell me that the “walk about” was the highlight and I should never drop it.  They say it reassured them, helped them understand and visualize the process and made them feel comfortable.

RGK

An “old school” newspaper is a wonderful thing

The Omaha World Herald’s Erin Grace has a column on the sequester and its impact on the FPD for the District of Nebraska in today’s edition.  It is a nice piece of writing.  It tells a story while also educating the lay reader why he or she should care about such things.

The OWH is one of the few remaining “old school” newspapers.   Perhaps because it is employee-owned, the paper still devotes a lot of time and money to hiring great writers to generate fresh copy.  They are given the time to research and write about a wide range of subjects.

There are three “metro” columnists at the OWH.  Erin’s colleagues, Mike Kelly and Mathew Hansen are equally good writers.  Although I don’t know these three well, I know them well enough to say that they are funny, smart, objective, and tough-minded.  What’s more they turn out high quality material at remarkable pace.  I marvel at their skill and productivity.

I am glad to be in a  market where there remains vibrant local newspapers.   Electronic media like blogs are great, but consistently good writing by people with seasoned judgment remains a fixture at traditional newspapers.  How I wish there were more.

RGK

PS  Many years ago, Dave Thompson was a OWH writer who covered the courts in the Eighth Circuit.   When I was a law clerk, Dave scooped the Wall Street Journal, on a very high-profile business case, with national and international implications, that had been argued on an emergency basis in Omaha.  He got the scoop because the judges trusted Dave’s judgment and integrity.  But, Dave was not in the “tank” for anyone.  He could be a pain in the butt.  For example, he figured out where the grand jury held its meetings in the old federal building in Omaha.  He would hang out in the hallway to see who went in and came out.  This so annoyed the United States Attorney, that a special wall was built to shield Dave from seeing again what he had seen before.  If I remember correctly, the structure became known as the “Dave Thompson wall of shame.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers

%d bloggers like this: