Judges Suffer Under Weight of Caseloads

, The National Law Journal


Being a federal judge apparently isn't the career path it used to be. On that, the Senate Judiciary Committee found bipartisan agreement at a hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where judges spoke about the thankless grind of overwhelming caseloads.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Pancho

    There was a double homicide three years ago last month in eastern New Mexico.

    A retired federal judge offered to mediate a plea for life imprisonment, but it was obvious the lead FBI agent had career building in mind from day one. Consequently the offer was turned down. The defendant had offered to plead for a life sentence.

    He confessed almost immediately upon capture, but asked for an attorney, but was not provided with one and the questioning proceeded. It was subsequently excluded from the evidence allowed at trial.

    The accomplice was also offered a plea bargain in exchange for testimony.

    The case has tied up a courtroom in Albuquerque for four months with the case, now about halfway through.

    The FBI agent promised the world to a co-defendant, a guy who had been doing life for murder in Arizona before he escaped with the triggerman from a poorly built, understaffed and barely overseen for-profit prison near Kingman, Arizona.

    The U.S. AAG took the case from NM, which was willing to prosecute it, but that state doesn't have a death penalty any more.

    The U.S. AAG was promoted to the federal bench a month ago. Could this colossal waste of time any money have anything to do with that?

    Two weeks ago, the defense played a tape of the lead FBI agent promising the co-defendant a day or so after he was captured (the triggerman was still on the run, with the accomplice) that he would get witness protection in the BOP, be placed in a nice prison, etc., etc. This would be in exchange for testimony The guy was taken to four states where the agent was laughing it up with him as he walked through the preface, the crime and the aftermath, going to a casino, eating steaks, etc.

    The defendant is suicidal (seriously attempted in the county jail), 48 years old, in poor health (hospitalized earlier this year), and it's not likely he'll ever live long enough to survive the appeal process.

    After stealing the getaway vehicle, another co-escapee had a shootout with a deputy and Rifle, Colorado police 31 hours after the escape,

    The case is costing the federal taxpayer millions.

    The prosecution has brought in family members and friends who are not witnesses to sit in the front row in the courtroom for the four months of jury selection and trial.

    They're apparently just stage dressing, but who is paying for it and why, and how much? Is it legitimate to pay their expenses while there?

    The bench is unquestionably overburdened. But does this case, as well as nonsense such as the unfortunately fatal Aaron Swartz and other cases represent bad decision making by an out of control Department of Justice?

    Taxpayers need to know.

  • Laser the Liquidator

    Ha Ha, burden of caseloads eh!

    You should venture into the cases of Wilmington, Delaware Bankruptcy Court. Specifically the case of In re eToys 01-706. It began March 7, 2001 and continues to this very day.

    One of the reasons why is both Debtor's counsel (MNAT) and Creditor's counsel (Paul Traub) have confessed to supplication of more than 33 erroneous Rule 2014/2016 Affidavits to the court.

    Including an admittance the falsities were "intentionally" left to stand!

    The issues of fraud on the court and the (purported) burdens of caseloads, along with the adjudication upon the merits issues are expunged due to the fact that what the counsels were lying about - is their connections to the I.P.O. agent of eToys (Goldman Sachs), the buyers of eToys assets (Bain Capital) and incestuous relationships such as the Creditors counsel sneaking in his secret partner (Barry Gold) to become the post-bankruptcy petition President/CEO of eToys.

    Where Barry Gold has relationships with lender Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs cases and worked as directors assistant for Stage Stores (owned by Romney) and Michael Glazer was the Director (who also just happened to be CEO of Bain's Kay Bee that was buying eToys bankruptcy assets).

    Her Honor in eToys said she was not going to hear about fraud on the court issues, as she concluded the March 18, 2009 hearing with these words directly contradicting the 'burdensome" case load contentions;

    "Now if there's nothing else, I'm going to get back to Tweeter".

    N'est-ce pas!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202618788145

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.