Subscribe via email

Grab our RSS Feed

Chief Scott Continues to Strike Legal Nerves

by Bill Dusty

The counter-offensive against Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott has continued into the heat of August with a feature story that appeared in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly this past week.

Scott has been the target of the Hampden County Bar Association (HCBA) for the past couple of months for his outspoken criticism of rulings handed down by judges in Hampden County. Scott also supports new legislation being passed around the Statehouse by state Senator Michael R. Knapik (R-Westfield) proposing a 6-year initial appointment of judges in Massachusetts, with their re-appointment thereafter being decided by voters.

While the HCBA has focused on Scott’s criticism of judge rulings – saying his criticism casts an ill light on the judiciary, it is the latter cause that is perhaps the more motivating factor for the Association’s verbal reprisals. A 6-year term, followed by the performance-based re-appointment process that elections pose, would sweep away the comfort zone judges currently enjoy by way of life-long appointments.

In the Lawyers Weekly story, entitled “Judiciary Under Siege,” retired Holyoke District Judge W. Michael Ryan is quoted as saying, “Chief Scott’s attacks on judges are lessening the public respect for law and order.” He went on to say that Scott’s statements are “imperiling the safety of the community…”

Harsh words for a man whose views are probably shared by most people in law enforcement and a good percentage of the population at large. The Hampden County courts have long had a reputation of being lax on sentencing – a reputation that far preceded Scott’s arrival in Holyoke. The Pioneer Valley is steeped in liberal tradition and perspectives, and so it should be unsurprising that its judges would also tend to lean in a more permissive, forgiving direction toward those who appear before them. Yet the judiciary and their progressive backers have, historically, persisted in the belief that their rulings are completely unbiased and based purely on state constitutional law.

Rather than critically examine the judiciary’s own body or work, court backers have instead targeted the work of law enforcement as the real cause of judicial wrist slaps and criminal walk-aways. In the Lawyers Weekly story, Ryan accused the Holyoke Police Department of having a “dismal tract record” – thus making it harder for cases to succeed in court.

“The courts are finding that their arrests are illegal, that they violate constitutional rights regarding search and seizure, and evidence is suppressed and the case is thrown out,” said Ryan in the Lawyers Weekly article.

Also in the article, former HCBA President Thomas A. Kenefick III insisted that there already was an effective mechanism in place for holding judges accountable. “What people fail to realize,” said Kenefick in the article, “is that judges are accountable. We have a [Judicial Conduct Commission] that is extremely active.”

Yet the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, an oversight body made up entirely of judges and attorneys, is only set up to review alleged misconduct by judges. It does not review the overall job performance of judges. As an analogy, that would be like saying voters should have re-elected Herbert Hoover back in 1932 because, after all, even thought his overall performance was decidedly poor (e.g., the Great Depression), he never actually misused his office.

Furthermore, what Kenefick means by “extremely active” may also need to be clarified. As of May 1, 2002, according to the Judicial Conduct Commission’s own Web site, only two formal hearings have come before the Commission. Judge Maria I. Lopez was forced to resign in May of 2003, and Judge Ernest B. Murphy was publicly reprimanded in December of 2008.

Earlier this year, the HCBA invited Chief Scott to a forum where, according to HCBA President Mark J. Albano, the two sides would debate their opinions. Albano stated both in the HCBA’s newsletter announcing the invitation and in the Lawyers Weekly story that he hoped to meet with Scott so that both sides could openly discuss the Chief’s proposals. “And if they’re good ideas,” said Albano in the Lawyers Weekly article, “then reason will prevail and we’ll come to the conclusion that, yeah, maybe we should be in the majority of jurisdictions that elect judges.”

That is unlikely. In the HCBA newsletter that announced the Scott invitation, Albano roundly condemned the election of judges, saying, “there has been a distinct tendency towards money and special interest driven judicial races, complete with sound bytes, attack ads, spin and all of the other indicia of common partisan politics.”

Left unsaid was that it would also make such judges more accountable to the people, and the comfort of a guaranteed, life-long job would also come to an end.

Regardless of how the HCBA vs. Scott contest pans out, the infighting between law enforcement and the local judiciary is unlikely to end any time soon. For despite what some might want others to believe, Chief Scott himself is not the original source of the oftentimes harsh disdain that is held towards the Hampden County court system. He is merely the latest spokesperson for what thousands of others have been complaining about for decades.

* *

Posted by Bill Dusty on Aug 21st, 2009 and filed under Holyoke. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.