Jim Dey: Recalcitrant judge gets a lesson in courtroom duties

Dec. 19—Appellate justices usually go out of their way to avoid criticizing trial judges for their legal errors. But there are exceptions.

Consider a Dec. 8 ruling in which Fourth District Appellate Court justices unanimously told a Livingston County trial judge to just do her job and keep her personal opinions to herself.

"As judges, our role is not to choose the law but to faithfully apply it; that is, in fact, the sole object of our oath," Justice Kathryn Zenoff wrote. "Where a law is passed by the Legislature and upheld by our Supreme Court as constitutional, the role of the judge is to apply the law as it is, not as the judge might wish it to be."

The recipient of the message was Livingston County Circuit Judge Jennifer Bauknecht, who made it clear when presiding in arraignment court that she does not approve of Illinois' new bond-abolition law.

Zenoff's ruling in the case of People vs. (Brandin) Atterberry represents one of three appellate decisions reversing Bauknecht's arraignment-court rulings in which she used her position to denounce, rather than carry out, the new law.

The Dec. 8 ruling was followed by a similar Dec. 11 ruling reversing Bauknecht for comments that were "inappropriate and vacated and remanded ... with directions to 'hold a new detention hearing applying proper statutory criteria.'"

That was followed by a Dec. 12 decision reversing another Bauknecht arraignment-court decision for the same reason.

"Following Atterberry, we vacate the circuit court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this order," wrote Justice Amy Lannerd.

Trial judges are, essentially, kings and queens of their courtrooms. The only behavioral restraint they know is that which they put upon themselves.

In these three cases, Bauknecht used her position to angrily denounce the new bail-abolition law, not to carry out its mandate. Given the reception her comments received in the appellate court, it's not likely she will continue her unprofessional and intemperate displays.

But her actions provide a timely reminder about how judges are — and are not — supposed to behave when it comes to carrying out legislative mandates.

In these three cases, Bauknect gave the impression of reading from a lengthy prepared text in which she noted that "since its founding, this country has used monetary bonds" to deal with criminal defendants.

She complained that in the wake of bond abolition, she is "limited to detaining pending trial or not detaining the defendant" and cited a lack of oversight ability to keep track of released defendants.

"We have one pretrial officer in Livingston County who works for the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services. ... This should make the community feel safer," she said.

Because Bauknecht went on at length expressing her unhappiness with the new law, Atterberry's appellate lawyer argued that she "improperly focused on (her) disdain" for the SAFE-T Act instead of examining the "individualized facts of his case."

Under the new law, prosecutors arguing for a defendant to remain in custody must show three things:

* The defendant is charged with a detainable offense as identified in the statute.

* The defendant poses a public threat.

* There are no conditions of release that can "mitigate" the threat.

The appellate court reversed because Bauknecht delivered a "lengthy and biased commentary" about the new law and, "without any evidentiary basis in the record," concluded that Livingston County lacked resources to protect the public.

Instead, the judge should have given "the case the individualized attention it deserves," they wrote.