This state clearly needs a faster way of dealing with judges who have been charged with felonies – but still refuse to stop hearing cases.
It happens rarely, but not rarely enough. Judge Michael Hecht of Pierce County’s superior court has been charged by the state Attorney General’s Office with felony harassment – threatening to kill a prostitute, to be precise. He’s also been charged with the misdemeanor of hiring the services of another young prostitute. He’s still on the job.
If found guilty of either charge, Hecht should be removed from the bench. But a jury’s decision is likely a long way off, if the case does come to trial.
In the meantime, the criminal charges hanging over Hecht have crippled his effectiveness as a credible arbiter of justice.
Other states have mechanisms for suspending judges charged with felonies. A common rule provides for “interim suspension,” in which judges must step aside when the state’s judicial conduct commission begins an investigation of possible ethical violations. Another common rule automatically disqualifies them from hearing cases when they are indicted with felonies.
Washington has nothing of the sort. Its procedure for suspending judges moves on geologic time. First, the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct must wait until a complaint is filed. It does a preliminary investigation, then – if the evidence warrants – it invites the judge to respond.
Then it decides whether to issue a “statement of charges.” A fact-finding hearing follows.
The commission finally decides whether to dismiss the charges, scold the accused – or recommend that the state Supreme Court suspend or remove the judge.
All this is very time-consuming. Many months can pass before the Supreme Court makes a decision. The elaborate due process is designed to protect the interests of the judge; it’s not designed to protect the interests of a county justice system saddled with an accused felon on the bench.
Why not provide for temporary but automatic suspension of such a judge? The judge would not be deprived of his election or appointment; he or she would simply wait out the resolution of the criminal charges. If exonerated – or if shown to be the victim of a vindictive prosecutor – he or she would return to the courtroom.
The judicial conduct commission is exploring the possibility of a rule under which the Supreme Court could order a timely suspension. As the head of the judicial branch of government, the high court should itself be figuring out a procedure for interim suspension.
Given the Hecht case, there’s no pretending the state doesn’t need one.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.