Dear Editor,
Recently, there was a Bar Journal article critical of the legislative process arising out of the appeal of a justice court traffic case: West Jordan City v. Goodman, 2006 UT 27, 135 P.3d 874. The appeal failed primarily because the “briefing on the constitutional claim was inadequate,” id. ¶1, and the defendant “failed to offer any probative evidence in support of his conflict of interest claim.” Id.
The perceptions raised in Goodman resulted in SB 72 in the 2008 Legislative session. Two significant and material changes came from SB 72. First, justice court judges are no longer subject to termination by their sponsoring entity (city or county), but are now subject to retention elections every six years. Justice court judges are now appointed in a manner very similar to district, juvenile, and appellate court judges. Second, there was a compromise reached regarding a formula for a justice court judge’s salary based on a weighted caseload.
With regard to the criticism that justice court judges don’t have to have a college degree, there are quite a few absolutely brilliant people who have only a high school diploma. Conversely, there are quite a few not-so-brilliant people with college degrees.
With regard to the conviction rates in justice courts, ninety percent or more of the defendants are self represented and make the determination of their guilt on their own, at the arraignment.
With regard to the fact that citations generate revenue, judges don’t write citations, police officers do. Traffic laws are going to be enforced and revenue collected no matter what form justice courts take. The bottom line is that justice courts continue to perform exemplary service to the State of Utah.
Joseph M. Bean
Syracuse City Justice Court Judge
Dear Editor,
Alicia Cook’s letter in the January/February Bar Journal is a good object lesson in the distinction between ethics and civility. Although in Salt Lake County the criminal bar enjoys a high degree of professionalism on both sides of the podium, no one who has practiced for long can deny that over the years there have been occasional ethical indiscretions by cops, prosecutors, and yes, even defense attorneys, which have prejudiced the opposition. Based on Ms. Cook’s letter, however, complaining about unethical conduct by your opponent after the fact appears to be considered a violation of the rules of civility.
In addition, it is important to note that Ms. Cook makes a significant logical error. She takes Mr. Dellapiana’s comment that “more than one” prosecutor has acted in a less than ethical manner, and then unjustifiably asserts that Mr. Dellapiana “chose to impugn an entire group” and “maligned” them all, including herself, and that they “did not deserve the treatment they received” in the book review. Ms. Cook’s glittering overgeneralization constitutes an unfair attack on a man who is as dedicated and professional as any attorney I know, and seems itself to violate the rules of civility. And, Ms. Cook’s suggestion that Mr. Dellapiana report those unnamed individuals to the bar for discipline will fall on deaf ears. Defense attorneys aren’t inclined to snitch, not even on prosecutors.
Finally, those who read Mr. Dellapiana’s book review will understand that his introductory commentary actually related to the content of the book. The book’s author is a former federal prosecutor, who admitted that he used threats and tricks to get convictions, but eventually grew disgusted about what he saw, and what he did, and so became a law professor who teaches his students about the importance of ethics and justice.
David Mack
Trial Attorney, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association