Prosecutors are some of the most powerful elected officials in our country. They decide what charges to file or dismiss, how severe the charges will be, whether to seek cash bail, and what plea offers are made. Through their lobbying associations, they also shape criminal statutes to their benefit, often blocking reforms that the community supports.
But while prosecutors wield immense control over the direction of our criminal justice system, they certainly can’t handpick the judges who hear their criminal cases.
Or can they?
In Marion County, Florida, Brad King — the elected state attorney and the county’s top prosecutor — believed he was losing too often in the criminal cases his office was prosecuting. Instead of upping his game, he managed to shift it in his favor, with the help of a judge whose job it is to guard the integrity of the judicial process.
On July 12, King sent a scathing letter to the administrative judge of Marion County, Judge James McCune, complaining about two of McCune’s colleagues, before whom King and his staff regularly appeared: Judge Robert Landt and Judge Thomas Thompson III. That letter was obtained by the ACLU of Florida through a public records request, and is being publicly released in full here for the first time.
King’s complaints were brazenly self-serving. Of Judge Landt, King asserted that his “rulings on such things as motions to dismiss, motions to suppress evidence, and motions to set bond, and his sentencings, are consistently more favorable to the defense than other judges.” King threatened to assign fewer prosecutors to Landt’s docket, because “we expect little in the way of punishment for those defendants.” As for Judge Thompson, King complained that he “grants continuance after continuance to defendants,” in reference to a tool commonly used by judges to postpone proceedings and requested by both sides to allow proper preparation for trial. In his letter, King also formally demanded that the number of judges in the Marion County Criminal Court be reduced.
After sending his letter, King that his issues with Landt relate to allegations of harassment of King’s female attorneys. However, these allegations were investigated and closed years ago. Moreover, King’s letter makes clear that adverse rulings, not those claims, are the reason King sought Landt’s removal.
Within days of receiving the letter, Chief Judge Sue Robbins, who oversees Judge McCune, gave King exactly what he wanted. Without consulting defense attorneys, whose clients’ cases are directly impacted by these changes, Robbins reduced the numbers of judges in the Marion County Criminal Court from four to two. Specifically, she removed Landt and Thompson — the judges King had criticized in his letter.
The two remaining county judges on the criminal docket both used to work as prosecutors for King. The judges who were removed — Landt and Thompson — were both up for re-election, with primaries on August 28. Landt ran against a current assistant state attorney working under King. That candidate proudly posted Landt’s reassignment letter on his campaign website, boasting that his competitor has been removed from the criminal bench.
It remains a mystery why a chief judge, who is charged with neutral oversight of a judicial district , took such an action after receiving King’s letter. Ruling for the defense, or not doling out sufficient “punishment,” is not legitimate grounds for removal. This would be true even if the judges were consistently getting it wrong on the facts or the law — but they weren’t. Florida’s appellate courts regularly affirmed these judges over King’s objections.
Going forward, how can people who appear in Marion County Criminal Court feel they are getting a fair hearing or trial — knowing their judges have effectively been selected by the prosecution, or that they might fear removal if they rule on behalf of the defense?
What State Attorney Brad King did — seeking to influence who is on the criminal bench by sending a scornful demand letter to judges — is highly irregular, to say the least. On Robbins’ part, accepting the unreasonable demands of a state attorney is even more inappropriate. Her decision, shortly following King’s request, gives the appearance, at the very least, that she is easily pressured and, at worst, that she is biased toward the prosecution over the accused.
A prosecutor’s grievance should never become policy. Prosecutors aren’t kings and they don’t get to issue decrees. They — and the judges who oversee their cases — are public servants, accountable to us all.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.