NCJ Number
57860
Journal
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume: 53 Issue: 3 Dated: (1977) Pages: 565-595
Date Published
1977
Length
31 pages
Annotation
THE DEBATE OVER NONLAWYER JUDGES AND TRIALS DE NOVO REMAINS UNRESOLVED; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES IN THIS AREA HAVE BEEN RAISED, THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT FACED THEM DIRECTLY.
Abstract
THE FIRST ARGUMENT RAISED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUE OF LAY JUDGES WAS THE RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ARGUMENT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HIS RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED BECAUSE THE JUDGE IN THE TRIAL WAS NOT A LAWYER AND THEREFORE IGNORANT OF THE LAW. THREE DIFFERENT RESPONSES WERE MADE TO THIS APPEAL. THE FIRST IS DITTY V. HAMPTON (1972) IN KENTUCKY THAT REASONED THAT IF THE JUDGE WAS NOT PART OF THE ADVERSARY PROCEDURE, THE ARGUMENT WAS NOT RELEVANT. THE SECOND RESPONSE IN GORDON V. JUSTICE COURT FOR YUBA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SUTTER COUNTY (1974) IN CALIFORNIA ACCEPTED THE RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ARGUMENT ON ITS MERITS. FINALLY, SHELMIDINE V. JONES (1976) IN UTAH IGNORED THE RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT CLAIMED THERE WAS A LACK OF ATTORNEYS IN THE AREA. IN ALL CASES, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN FACED SQUARELY. THE CRUCIAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A LAWYER CANNOT UNDERSTAND LEGAL ARGUMENTS, AN ASSUMPTION THAT AS YET HAS NOT RECEIVED THOROUGH ANALYSIS. THE MOST FAMOUS CASE INVOLVING THIS ISSUE IS THE NORTH V. RUSSELL CASE (1973) IN WHICH THE APPELLANT, NORTH, CONTENDED ON APPEAL THAT HIS TRIAL BEFORE A LAWYER JUDGE VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION ON THE BASIS OF THE DITTY DECISION AND NORTH APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE COURT, HOWEVER, DID NOT FACE THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, BUT INSTEAD CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ARGUMENT WAS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL DE NOVO. HOWEVER, USING THE TRIAL DE NOVO AS A GUIDEPOST MEANS THAT THE ISSUE OF LAY JUDGES NEED NEVER BE SQUARELY FACED. IN STATES WHERE IT EXISTS, THE ASSUMPTION IS UNCHALLENGED THAT LAY JUDGES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. HOWEVER, IN STATES WITHOUT TRIAL DE NOVO, ONE CAN NEVER BE SURE THAT THE LAY JUDGES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. THUS, THE DECISION IN EACH CASE IS LEFT TO THE STATES' DISCRETION, SINCE THE SUPREME COURT HAS AVOIDED TAKING A FIRM POSITION ON THE ISSUE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (STB)