We all have an interest in seeing that those who serve as judges in Cook County are knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy and well-regarded by their legal peers.
As state’s attorney, I am proud that many of our finest judges once served in this office.
It is also why I am concerned about the Tribune story “16 prosecutors left misconduct rebukes off judicial bids” (Page 1, March 1), which leveled in several instances factually inaccurate and unfair claims against 16 current or former assistant state’s attorneys who have applied for associate judgeships.
The allegations in the story are based on a review of judicial applications that, the reporter contends, failed to disclose accusations of “prosecutorial misconduct” in appellate court decisions.
First, in several cases the story uses the highly charged term “prosecutorial misconduct” to describe actions taken by honest, dedicated prosecutors in the adversarial setting of a criminal trial, which an appellate court subsequently found to be grounds for reversal. Such reversals are the result not of intentional misconduct but of changing views of what the law requires or of interpretation of complex legal and factual issues about which reasonable people can disagree. To the average reader, however, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” connotes unethical behavior such as deliberately withholding evidence, suborning perjury or otherwise intentionally preventing a defendant from having a fair trial.
Equating these two vastly different situations creates a false public impression that will deter more and more qualified trial attorneys from seeking careers on the bench. It is easy to label something “misconduct,” but it is not so easy to live it down once it has been attached to your name.
Second, a closer examination of the assertions in the story reveals that many of the cases cited do not fit the label of prosecutorial misconduct under any definition. For example: Several of the decisions cited involved situations in which the appellate court criticized the rulings of the trial court judges, not the actions of the prosecutors.
Another prosecutor is cited in the story for “improper argument.” In that case, however, the prosecutor’s argument was allowed by the trial court judge after he ruled that the defense attorney’s tactics opened the door to such argument. The appellate court disagreed with the trial judge’s ruling, not the propriety of the prosecutor’s conduct.
One prosecutor who is criticized for checking “no” on the question relating to judicial rebukes, checked “yes” on the next, related question and attached a copy of the very case that the story suggested he tried to hide.
In another case, the “rebuke” was not even directed toward the prosecutor named in the story. Instead it related to the actions of another attorney assigned to the case.
In some instances, the applicants were unaware of the “undisclosed” opinions because they did not name specific attorneys, were issued several years after the trial based on post-trial motions or were unpublished.
Allegations alone can have a lasting effect on careers and professional reputation. Therefore, just as it is important for individuals who apply for judgeships to provide complete and accurate information, it is not unreasonable to demand the same of those who choose to report about the process.
Complete disclosure and strict scrutiny of judicial applicants is not only fair but necessary. That is true of not just current or former prosecutors but of all applicants, including public defenders, private defense attorneys and others. For some reason, the article focused only on current or former prosecutors, perhaps unwittingly leaving the impression that only they were the subject of negative comments from appellate courts.
For the future, we can all agree that any screening system for the judiciary should fully and fairly review the legal and personal backgrounds of all applicants. When that is done, I am confident that the lawyers who have served in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office would continue to rank among the finest candidates for the bench.
