Retired judge grades Trump's appointees —and finds some have 'lost their way'
It still chokes me up a little when I remember the moment when Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney swore me in, my right hand raised, as a Massachusetts Superior Court judge, saying, “Do you promise that you will defend and support the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution, so help you God?” This oath choked me up every time I took it over the last 22 years.
The Trump judges must have taken the same oath, yet some have lost their way.
The Trump cases are “political” cases, but I don’t use the word “political” here in a negative way.
I only mean that these cases have profound political implications. Scheduling political cases is different than scheduling other cases like significant criminal cases. Handle with care. The Constitution guarantees Psycho-Trump a fair trial. Yes, even him. Strange but true. Yet, some Trump judges have run the railroad at breakneck speed. They weren’t supposed to do this. They took an oath just like me.
In my 21 years as a judge at the Massachusetts Superior Court and the Boston Municipal Court, I have always tried to do the right thing. This can be harder than it looks, but the trial judge's primary obligations are well known. Protect the defendant's constitutional rights, provide a fair trial to the prosecution, and comply with the First Amendment by presiding over a public trial.
ALSO READ: Trump's 2024 strategy: A campaign about literally nothing
These are not lofty ideals but are attainable and accomplished daily in courtrooms across the land. But this toxic political environment can lead the best and the brightest astray, which seems to be the case with some Trump judges.
I’m leaving out Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, who doesn’t seem to know what she is doing. However, she cannot be accused of bias against Trump. In contrast, almost all Trump-appointed judges have displayed admirable judicial independence.
Thank you for that. We judges have committed our hearts and souls to this.
Let’s take the cases one by one. Former musician New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur F. Engoron never heard the phrase “sober as a judge.” Admittedly, there was no jury in the case, but these Trump cases are not TikTok videos. The nation is watching from the left to the far right. His well-intentioned jocular comments make it appear, to some, that he takes this case lightly. This is destructive of our justice system.
But scheduling is where these judges made bonehead moves or “lost their footing,” as appellate judges say. Judge Engoron’s civil fraud case took about 13 months to get to trial. This is a civil fraud trial of a former President of the United States. That’s a speedy trial. Judge Engoron might be proud, but he shouldn’t be. On schedule, Trump got railroaded (but there was no prejudice). Judge Engoron, you messed up. You should be neutral and non-political, “above the fray.”
You should have treated this case like any other. There was no hurry. It looks like you speeded things up to get Trump’s case done quickly because of its notoriety and the impending election. Both reasons are ridiculous. You should have done better. It doesn’t help that you occasionally aped for the press. Judges should not even pose for media photos. Let them scrape a pic off the Internet. (In fairness, small things constitute aping for a judge, but if you wanted fun attention, you should have gone into standup.) You get 1 star out of 4. Save the “lively judge” thing for another case. Remember: “sober as a judge.” Memorize it. Tattoo it on your hand.
New York Supreme Court Judge Juan M. Merchan was better. He didn’t overdo the posing for the media or make excessive jokes about the case. Judge Merchan, a colleague of Judge Engoron’s, understands that judges have to be boring and that to depart from that damages our justice system.
On scheduling, though, Judge Merchan tops Judge Engoron. It takes about one year to get to trial! That is amazing scheduling for these cases. In other circumstances, it might be a good thing. Justice delayed is justice denied, right? Well, sometimes not, not if the railroad is a bullet train. Judge Merchan prioritized this case because it was a Trump case and because the defendant was a former President of the United States. If this is true, it’s wrong.
This is a political case. He should have treated Trump like an average bloke who should wait his turn. How many people are sitting in hell hole Rikers Island awaiting trial that you could have used that trial time for? Trying to get the trial in before the election is verboten for a judge. You get 2.5 stars out of 4. You pushed it to trial too fast. But you did get the part in judge school that says that judges must act like they would be sleep-inducing at a party. Fear not. Folks who understand this grim business know that you are probably the life of the party.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has the federal election interference case, the J6 case, pending for about 13 months with no trial date set. Thankfully, Judge Chutkan understands this is a serious matter, and Judge Chutkan is not jokey in court like Judge Engoron. But Judge Chutkan said, “The electoral process and the timing of the election . . . is not relevant here,” referring to scheduling. Really? Now, maybe Judge Chutkan should not be held to this absurd statement.
The courtroom is tricky, and we can’t be held to everything we say under this pressure. Judges are human. But if Judge Chutkan meant it, it would show the blinders some Trump judges wear.
Psycho-Trump is running for President. He was dealing with primaries and the convention. He’s entitled to some leeway, the same leeway you would give a drug mule in your courtroom. You should have scheduled the case with plenty of leeway around primaries and the convention. Trump was entitled to a lot more scheduling courtesy than you provided. You should not be in a big hurry. A little hurry is OK because that’s probably how you handle all your cases.
But you’re making the United States District Court appear like the Norfolk Southern Railroad. You wanted a trial by now. This would have happened but for the complex constitutional issues in thiscase and the United States Supreme Court looking over your shoulder. But Judge Chutkan, I’ll give you 3 out of 4 stars with an asterisk—we don’t know if your relative reasonableness is due to the Supreme Court looking over your shoulder or your good judgment.
Any judge contemplating Trump court proceedings to take place in October before the November 5 election for a defendant running in that election would be diving into the theater of the absurd. If you did, it would be loony, and you would lose your perspective.
Finally, we have the Georgia state election fraud case. This is the case prosecuted by the office of Fani Willis. This case is 13 months old, and for now Judge Scott F. McAfee is handling it. It has been beset by numerous appeals too.
But Judge McAfee has not displayed impatience or distorted reality, thinking that the election does not matter to scheduling. And he does not appear to be a Jimmy Kimmel-wannabe in the courtroom.
When I think of you I have to stifle a yawn. Thank you. You get 4 stars out of 4. You win. May your brethren benefit from your example. Judge McAfee, your commitment to justice for all chokes me up a little.
ALSO READ: Dereliction of duty: How Merrick Garland failed America
Judge Jack Lu, ret. was a Massachusetts trial judge for 21 years and is an adjunct faculty member at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
