Comment: Judical Misconduct and Immunity from Civil Suit
Student Comment by Candice Deaner, 3L
PA: Judicial Corruption and Immunity
Recently, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, learned a tough lesson in what can happen when judges become corrupt. Former Luzerne County Senior Judge Michael Conahan along with Justice Ciavarella, a juvenile court judge, corruptly and fraudulently "created the potential for an increased number of juvenile offenders to be sent to juvenile detention facilities," federal court documents alleged. Children would be placed in private detention centers, under contract with the court, to increase the head count. In exchange, the two judges would receive kickbacks. The two secretly received more than $2.6 million. In order to accomplish their goals, harsh punishments were given for minor crimes.
Minors charged with nonviolent crimes were often given harsher sentences than what probation officers recommended, court documents say. Hundreds of these children appeared without attorneys. All of this done in order to ensure the judge could send the child to one of the private facilities lining the judges’ pockets.
The judges have been disbarred and have resigned from their elected positions and agreed via plea bargain to serve 87 months in prison. What proves to be more interesting than the criminal portion of the matter, is that fact that they have been held to be IMMUNE from civil suit.
The plaintiffs, led by the Philadelphia Juvenile Law Center, and brought a class action, arguing that neither judge should be granted immunity because their acts were so far outside the norm. The Plaintiffs’ alleged the actions were “so egregious that he was not acting as a judge while he was adjudicating juveniles delinquent and sentencing them.”
In rejecting the Plaintiffs’ allegations, U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo has ruled, in Wallace, et al. v. Powell, et al., that the Judges are protected by immunity from facing legal action for their courtroom acts. Judge Caputo used both historical principles, as well as public policy in defending his ruling, which he noted would likely be against popular will.
The doctrine of judicial immunity, he wrote, is grounded in the notion that all judgments are final, judicial independence must be protected, sincere judges should be protected from continual legal action and the justice system is to be protected from falling into disrepute. Caputo founded his decision on long held principals of immunity, from the days of Lord Coke, the former chief justice of England, from 400 years ago.
In further rejecting the Plaintiff’s arguments that the degree of corrupt behavior should weigh in the decision to allow a civil suit, Justice Caputo wrote, "the degree of corrupt behavior is not the touchstone of the immunity doctrine's application." Judges with good intentions, as well as bad intentions are immune from civil suit, and Judge Caputo refused to make a distinct with regard to intent. The test, Caputo said, is an OBJECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE standard, which is whether the alleged action is one that traditionally a judge would perform or that the parties expected would come from the judge in an official capacity.
As for the public policy argument, Judge Caputo said that "Subjecting judges to a determination of the existence of good faith on a case by case basis is not desirable," "It would create chaos and undermine judicial independence. It would eliminate the finality of judgments and destroy public confidence in the judiciary. Every decision by every judge would be subject to attack on the basis that it was not an honest mistake."
Judge Caputo noted that the judges wouldn’t be free from liability entirely. They would be held liable for non judicial actions, such as coercing probation officers. He reiterated his knowledge that the behavior of the judges was egregious in nature, however he stressed his commitment to upholding the law. "It is about the rule of law in the face of popular opinion which would seek a finding directly contrary to the result the rule of law dictates."
Editors Note: Comments, Please.
They actually mirrored an episode of Law and Order on this case and back when I saw the episode, i questioned, how can it be determine whether a judge acted in good faith or not. I believe the best way to do this, is to look at patterns. If there is a pattern of say, juveniles being sentenced to go to juvinile facilities that is consistently and extremely above the average in a jurisdiction, I think a red flag should be raised. I think to question a judges motive in every single case would lead to chaos, and too many overturned decisions and convictions. I think a "shock the conscience" test would probably be a good benchmark.
While "Subjecting judges to a determination of the existence of good faith on a case by case basis is not desirable," I think that exceptions must be made. This particular case represents a severely egregious wrong that was committed by two judges. I do not see how anyone would condone their behavior and allow them to be free from civil liability! While it would be imprudent to examine the existence of good faith in every case, there is no need for an examination here. The facts allege clear proof of the judges' wrongdoing and based on that alone, they should be liable for their actions.
Furthermore, in regard to public policy, this ruling is an abomination. Children suffered from the judges' greed and because the judges were not acting in their "judge capacity" they are "let off the hook." Also in terms of setting a precedent, I think that the judges should be held civilly liable.
I agree with Ms. Neuman's opinion. While judges' immunity from civil action regarding their acts in the courtoom is deeply rooted in public policy, I still believe that this precedent must be swayed from its course in unusually compelling situations such as this. Perhaps there should be a threshold consideration: for instance when a criminal and ethical punishment has not been entered into, judges remain unequivocally immune from civil actions. However in situations where criminal and ethical punishment has taken place, as it did here with the disbarrment and prison sentances, I believe civil suits, if applicable, should be allowed. If such actions have already occured, a certain threshold has been crossed because there really is no question as to the malice of the judges' subjective intent.
I agree that these judges should absolutely face civil liability. I'd argue under the theory of false imprisonment perhaps.
I also agree that there should be an exception applied in a case such as this one. These two judges put themselves, their own greed and selfishness, ahead of justice. Some standard maybe like what Ms. Goldberg mentioned a "shock the conscience" test should be considered in cases where the judge’s degree of corruption has gone too far. I agree that the test should not be based on the existence of good faith but just the fact that these judges in order to accomplish their personal goals ordered harsh punishments for juveniles for minor crimes should be enough for the court to set a new precedent. This makes think what is the likelihood that other judges will do the same or are doing the same acts because they are immune from civil liability.
I concur with Ms. Neuman's opinion that this ruling is an "abomination" with regards to public policy. Granting per se immunity from civil suits to judges who have been pled guilty to a crime they committed while on the bench because of their presence on the bench is not a good public policy.
The use of judicial immunity in this case does not serve a public purpose other than protecting the pockets of criminals. These judges were not acting as judges but rather private employees sitting on the bench, but beholden to a private master. A simple exception permitting a civil suit against a judge for his/her actions on the bench when the judge has plead or been found guilty in connection with those actions would make this cause of action limited and serve as a deterrent from this type of action in the future.
I also agree with Ms. Laratro, there's no subjective intent here to analyze. This was an intentional act. Intentional torts sometimes result in Punitive Damages. Given the depravity of the judge's conduct, punishment beyond the criminal and ethical sanctions is warranted.
I understand the policy reasons behind the prevention of civil suits against judges but there has to be some extreme circumstances that warrant such actions. I do agree that as a general matter judges should not be subjected to civil liability for their case by case decisions. On the other hand when civilians are being unfairly harmed by the judges decision there has to be some course of action for these people to take. Criminal liability does not compensate the wronged parties, it only harms the judges. The major problem is that judges might be inclined to protect their own and therefore influence possible civil actions against other judges.
To open up judges to civil liability for all cases does have the potential to cause severe problems. While that may not be a good idea, a "shocks the conscience" test would be a good benchmark as Ms. Goldberg suggested.
This case should be able to set a precedent though, since the judges have pleaded guilty to criminal offense. Opening up judges to civil liability when they are convicted of criminal offenses based on their conduct on the bench would be a good place to start without having to determine a judge's good faith on a case by case basis.
I agree with Mr. Aronson's comment that as a general matter judges should had judicial immunity from civil liability, and after reading this post and the long history behind judicial immunity in civil actions I agree that the doctrine should be upheld. However, I also agree with all of the comments that this conduct seems to be the kind of wrong that the doctrine of judicial immunity should not protect. These judges were using their position of authority to obtain a personal gain at the expense of individuals. And what makes it even worse is that these individuals were minors. It seems hard to believe that these minors are not going to be able to be compensated for this wrong.
I agree with Ms. Gaedcke. While I believe that judges have a specific and upstanding role, thus warranting immunity in many cases, in other cases, I believe that judges need to face consequences just as attorney's do. This is a fine line to draw, and one that has and will continue to stir up much debate. Unfortunately, in cases such as this, this immunity will leave people without protection and without compensation for the wrongs committed against them.