Hecht must step aside until charges are settled
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Judge Michael Hecht must recuse himself from presiding over any cases in Pierce County Superior Court. If he has an ethical bone in his body, he will do so immediately.
On Friday, the state Attorney General’s Office charged Hecht with two grave crimes: repeatedly hiring a young prostitute and threatening to kill another young prostitute he believed was squealing on him.
No judge with such charges hanging over him can be considered a credible arbiter of justice.
Hecht – if he possesses the modicum of judgment expected of any judge – will recognize this fact and stop hearing cases.
Should he choose to defy what common sense demands, others ought to step in preserve the integrity of the court. Pierce County Prosecutor Gerry Horne, wisely, has already been steering his cases away from Hecht. Presiding Judge Bryan Chushcoff, who says he feels obliged to continue assigning cases to Hecht, ought to be looking harder for reasons not to.
Other superior court judges ought to be intervening as well, before the embarrassment becomes a scandal that taints the Pierce County bench as a whole.
Unfortunately, the upper reaches of the judiciary appear to have no mechanism for moving expeditiously. Ethical accusations against judges are normally investigated by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. The process can take many months.
The Washington Supreme Court presumably could step in and act more quickly, but so far it’s shown no interest in doing so.
One thing that must be dispensed with here is the claim that Hecht should be allowed to hear cases unless he is proven guilty in the criminal system.
Hecht will receive the full benefit of the presumption of innocence if these charges come to trial. If he is not convicted, it will be because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that standard of proof has little to do with whether Hecht ought to be hearing cases right now. Strong grounds for suspicion are – by themselves – reason enough for judges to step aside until criminal charges against them are resolved. In this case, the state’s charging papers offer strong grounds for suspicion.
It shouldn’t take a jury’s unanimous vote in a criminal trial to dislodge a judge tarnished by credible accusations of serious misconduct.
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard comes into play in criminal proceedings, when a defendant stands to lose his constitutional right to liberty or property. There is no constitutional right to be a judge, and a judge must meet a far more rigorous ethical standard than “escaped conviction” or “hasn’t been tried yet.”
A truism of the law hold that it isn’t enough that justice be done – that justice must also appear to be done. If Hecht appears corrupt, so does what happens in his courtroom.
