Nearly two decades ago, 144 trial judges of varied experience were asked to complete a survey about what qualities best equip a lawyer to be a fine judge.
Low on the list were characteristics like trial experience and law school background, according to the American Judicature Society’s 1984 Handbook for Judges.
At the top, though, were more subjective qualities that are harder to measure: patience, humility, compassion, integrity, common sense.
It is doubtful this 290-page volume of essays can be found on the library shelves of Cook County Criminal Court Judge Ronald Himel.
Himel is the judge who presided over the murder trial of three sheriff’s officers that ended Tuesday with their acquittal. Himel’s temperament became the focus of the trial, rather than the three defendants who had been charged with beating to death inmate Louis Schmude in the Bridgeview courthouse in 2000.
Once the trial started in January, Himel constantly interrupted the state’s attorneys trying the case, berated them for appearing disrespectful, disparaged the prosecution’s case, posited his own theories and made frequent sarcastic cracks to prosecutors.
Prosecutors became so frustrated they took the extreme measure of requesting that the trial be restarted with a different judge.
Chief Criminal Court Judge Paul Biebel Jr. considered the request, then rejected it. He could have sent it up to the state Supreme Court for a final ruling, thereby sending a message. But absent overwhelming evidence of bias, he ruled to let the trial continue under Himel’s gavel.
The month-long delay hardly gave Himel pause to reflect on his behavior.
By last week, he was back to his usual sparring. By Thursday, he cut prosecutors off when they tried to rebut expert testimony used by the defense. He was so irritated he declared a recess until Monday, saying he needed “to distance myself from the attorneys in this case.”
Himel isn’t necessarily considered a pro-defense or a pro-prosecution judge. He’s just considered an ill-tempered one. That’s reflected in the goodly number of substitution of judge requests that he gets when cases are assigned to his courtroom. Appointed to an associate judgeship in 1983, Himel has overseen traffic and narcotics courtrooms, and later was assigned to hear all types of felony cases.
One side in this case claimed the three officers caused Schmude’s death by punching, beating and stomping him on two separate occasions. The other maintained Schmude died from a variety of health problems, particularly alcoholism, and that he was never beaten. Just moments after the attorneys finished closing arguments Tuesday, Himel issued his verdict. Not guilty.
This is not to say it was the wrong verdict. It may well have been the right one. From afar, it appeared that the prosecution did, indeed, have some weaknesses in its case.
But given Himel’s antics, who, outside of the defendants, can trust this verdict? Himel should have foreseen other likely damage: He has diminished confidence that anyone who shows up inside his courtroom will get a fair shake.
Let this be a reminder of what makes an inferior judge. Maybe by November 2004, when Judge Himel will have to ask the voters to keep him on the bench, he will have learned that the courtroom is for the pursuit of justice, not self-aggrandizement.
