How would you feel if you were sentenced to death by
a judge who was under the influence of marijuana? I wouldn’t feel too good about it, and fortunately, the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the judge’s pronouncement by a split
two to one decision.
This case stemmed out of a matter in Phoenix in 1982,
and an evidentiary hearing has been ordered to determine whether or not the
judge in question, Judge Marquardt was under the influence of marijuana when
considering whether or not to sentence defendant Warren W. Summerlin to
die. If it is determined that he was
under the influence of marijuana, then the death sentence is to be set
aside. The Court of Appeal indicated
that “one’s legal conscience simply recoils at the shocking thought that the
judge presiding over a criminal trial and making life-or-death sentencing decisions
was under the influence or materially impaired by the use of an illegal
mind-altering substance.” In 1991,
Judge Marquardt resigned from the bench as part of a plea bargain, as he
pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana.
The Judge had previously been suspended due to an earlier
marijuana-related conviction, and acknowledged that he was addicted to
marijuana.
This case got even more off the beaten path when it
was learned that Mr. Summerlin’s public defender was involved in a romantic
relationship with Mr. Summerlin’s prosecutor at the time of this case. In fact, the prosecutor and the public
defender had worked out a resolution for Mr. Summerlin in which he would serve
fourteen years in prison; however, Mr. Summerlin rejected this plea resolution.
I indicated earlier that the ruling in this case was
two to one. The dissenting judge, Judge
Alex Kozinski indicated a strong concern that it is now open season on the
private lives of judges. He further
indicated his concern for the anticipated major upheaval in the administration
of criminal cases. He noted that in the
decade of the nineties, eleven State Judges in California were disciplined for
substance abuse.
I fail to see the merit in Mr. Kozinski’s
position. Let’s take a little more time
and review and decide whether or not the eleven judges were impaired when
making significant decisions with respect to their cases. It seems as if Judge Kozinski is more
interested in a speedy resolution of matters as opposed to an appropriate
resolution of cases. If there are
people in custody right now who are there because their judge was not mentally
competent, let’s review these cases, and if new trials are called for, then so
be it. I am quite disappointed that a
judge feels that it is more important to put cases away nicely and neatly
rather than being willing to get one’s hands dirty and do the work.
I am glad that the Summerlin hearing will take place,
and while it may be difficult to go back to 1982 and determine a judge’s state
of mind or consciousness on a particular weekend, it ought to be done as well
as it possibly can, as an individual’s life is at stake.