Hear me out.
Why do I suspect that if this had been the clerk in question, we wouldn’t be hearing about this story?
The news media is indignant over the firing of Sharon Snyder, 70, a court worker who provided a copy of a successful motion for seeking post-conviction DNA testing that gained Robert Nelson a reversal of his wrongful 1984 rape conviction. He had been sentenced to more than 50 years in prison, and the belated DNA testing showed that he was innocent. Nevertheless, court officials in Jackson County, Missouri ruled that Nelson’s “angel” had improperly provided advice about a case, among other violations of court rules.
Snyder was fired nine months before she was scheduled to retire, and there is little question that without her efforts, Nelson would still be in prison. In August 2009, Nelson filed a motion seeking DNA testing that had not been available at his trial 25 years earlier, but Jackson County Circuit Judge David Byrn denied the request. Two years later, Nelson asked the judge to reconsider, but again Byrn rejected the motion because Nelson’s self-drafted document was insufficient under the statute Nelson had cited. After the second motion was rejected, Snyder contacted Nelson’s sister and gave her a copy of a successful motion, drafted by a lawyer, that resulted in the same judge granting another DNA testing request. Nelson then used it as a template for a motion he filed Feb. 22, 2012, again seeking DNA testing. Byrn sustained the motion, found Nelson to be indigent and appointed Laura O’Sullivan, legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project, to represent him. Last month, the Kansas City Police Department’s crime lab concluded that DNA tests proved that Nelson was not the rapist in the crime he had been convicted of committing. He was freed on June 12, 2013
This is all good, and an example of justice finally, if belatedly, prevailing.
Snyder’s role, however, got her suspended without pay, and then fired on June 27. She had apparently discussed aspects of the case with Dunnell and attorneys not involved in the matter, according to the evidence of recorded phone conversations between the then-imprisoned Nelson and his sister.The judge’s dismissal letter to Snyder cites the recorded conversations, and notes,
“The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division. But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven … which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action.”
Virtually every commentator has condemned the decision to fire Snyder. Here’s Joe Patrice at Above the Law:
“Obviously a clerk shouldn’t be offering legal advice, but handing out a public document as a model is not really legal advice. Especially when the inmate has already demonstrated what legal action he means to take. Judge David “Not From the Talking Heads” Byrn probably should have considered the optics of an old woman helping an innocent man, but he didn’t and is now the least popular judge in America. Judge Byrn succeeded in highlighting the perversity of the criminal justice system by creating the most sympathetic fact pattern imaginable. Byrn himself denied multiple requests of an innocent man for stylistic reasons, and when finally forced to acknowledge the substance, he reacted by firing an old woman for having the gall to think that the system is about “guilt” or “innocence” rather than blowing off inmate requests and throwing around the word “Judge” to make dinner reservations.”
All of which misses a very crucial point, and the key point, as far as firing Snyder goes. A court cannot function if clerks and court administrators take it upon themselves to champion the cases of particular parties. It’s not their job, and they can do a lot of damage. The rules that prohibit what Snyder did are not only good rules, but necessary and responsible rules. In the ethical assessment of what Snyder did, most of the facts that the media and critics have focused on are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that she is old, about to retire, or a grandmother. It also doesn’t matter that Nelson turned out to be innocent, either. Snyder didn’t know he was innocent. If he had not been innocent, the recorded phone conversations had revealed Snyder meddling in a legal matter, and she had then been fired, this would not be newsworthy in any way, nor would anyone now argue that court clerks should be allowed to secretly work with prisoners and their family on their cases. That Nelson was proven innocent was pure moral luck, and judging Snyder’s improper actions as proper because of what transpired after she engaged in them is consequentialism at its worst.
She violated important rules and crossed lines that the court cannot allow to be crossed. It has to fire workers who cross them because it cannot trust such employees to be impartial and to uphold the integrity of the justice sysstem, and I can’t think of a better way to make that point than firing Snyder. (And by the by, does anyone think that this is the first time Snyder did something like this? I think that is unlikely.)
Am I glad that Nelson was freed?
Yes.
Am I happy that Snyder broke the rules in this case?
Of course.
Do I agree that the Judge’s conduct was questionable and not in the best interests of justice?
Yes.
Does the case point up some of the weaknesses in the system?
Sure.
Do I admire Snyder for what she did?
I’m not so certain. I think it’s easy to say she was courageous, but I’m not persuaded that she thought she was at any risk—because she was old, close to retirement, and a sympathetic figure. I would not be surprised to find that she was habitual meddler, and this also reflects badly on the courts system in Jackson County.
Yes…it all turned out well. Snyder was forced to leave some months before she planned, but her pension, we are told, is intact. An unjustly imprisoned man is free. A judge of questionable judgment is under special scrutiny. Nonetheless—and a majority of the public has trouble with this key ethical concept—just because conduct was undertaken for admirable reasons and has good results does not make that conduct ethical.
It also has trouble with this one: just because the correct conduct is motivated by unethical instincts (I think the suspicion that Snyder was fired in part because she embarrassed the judge is well founded) doesn’t make it unethical.
Snyder should have been fired.
Still, she should take pride in the fact that what got her justifiably fired freed an innocent man.
(I never said ethics was easy.)
_______________________
Facts: Kansas City Star
Sources: Above the Law, ABA Journal
Graphic: 2013 Trending
Ethics Alarms 
Based on this the whole damn government should be fired but we can’t do that. Only the little guy gets it for bending the law. In a system that regularly conducts itself in a corrupt manner why should it then require we peons follow the law? Mercy is better than justice and it’s a good thing because the letter of the law kills.
Do you doubt that the whole damn government should be fired?
You know what I meant.
I agree, why is it that the truth never matters. This judge needs to go, he denies Nelson’s request on style.
de minimis non curat lex
The law does not concern itself with trifles; – a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.
Before you say that the consequence was not small you have to remember that the consequence was not the overturning of the conviction but the providing of a publicly available document that could/would have been available at some point down the road. The clerk hastened a result (providing a copy), she didn’t change the ultimate outcome.
1. This isn’t a law. The motto is inapplicable.
2. Interfering with a case isn’t trivial. Contacting a prisoner’s family isn’t trivial.
3. It wasn’t just the motion. If she was talking to lawyers, that’s not trivial, that’s advocacy.
It is sad what happened to Robert Nelson. He lost seven years of his life in prison.
Jack is absolutely right on this one. The woman’s heart was in the right place, but anyone in that job knows you don’t get to play lawyer and give out legal advice. Even as an attorney, I have to be very careful to say when I am and when I’m not giving legal advice or giving my own opinion vs. a company opinion.
I have read somewhere today (maybe ATL for that matter) that all of this would have been more or less OK if Mr Nelson had asked Ms Snyder if she had an example of a motion that he could use to follow the correct format, rather than her providing him one of her own volition.
I do see a difference between these two cases (e.g., I don’t think providing an example document that has been specifically asked for is bad, but providing one as a “hint” of what to do is interjecting yourself into the matter– which IS bad).
Would that successfully pass the ethical sniff test?
I don’t see why providing public documents as an exemplar of a successful motion should be unethical at all. It would be one thing to say “well, if you claim to be indigent the court can do XYZ and get you legal remedy ABC.” It seems quite another to have the policy be “You’re requestng testing based on X. Here are other motions that have succeeded based on X.” Why is the court’s position that prisoners/defendants shouldn’t have full access to style guides and examples?
Note- I’m not saying Snyder didn’t break the rules, or that she shouldn’t face the penalty for breaking a rule she knew she was breaking. I’m just questioning the rule she broke.
Nothing’s the matter with it, if the administrator is asked to provide a template. Volunteering the help is taking sides, and that a clerk may not do.
Right- like I said, she broke the rules. I just don’t think that giving over a public document that someone might not have known to ask for SHOULD be against the rules.
So, knowing what she must have felt fairly sure of, what was her ethical response? I could see resigning first or waiting till she retired as a possibility, but she’s probably still under obligation for what she did as her job.
Another choice might be to tell him “I can’t help you, but you need to talk to a lawyer/paralegal etc.. to resolve your issue. They may be able to help you.
I’m just not seeing a lot of ways to right an injustice that don’t involve her violating the rules?
I’m not disagreeing. But if you choose to break a cardinal rule, you should expect to be fired, and should be fired. In her case she was right, but there will be lots of people who rationalize breaking the rules who are not right, or even close. You can’t have a rule that says, “Never do this, unless you really, really want to.”
“But if you choose to break a cardinal rule, you should expect to be fired, and should be fired.” …..unless you are an “officer of the court” and then you might expect State Laws to be enacted to prevent you from being held accountable. So, how many prosecutors have been terminated for prosecutorial misconduct?
Absolutely right—not nearly enough. But that is a different issue. The fact that their misconduct isn’t addressed doesn’t argue that its wrong to punish misconduct in the justice system.
Obviously, I am quite ignorant of ethics when it comes to the law/attorneys/judges/juries, etc. But, I sure did enjoy watching The Lincoln Lawer last week! Dunno how many ethics doo hickeys were violated but I had a ball for 119 minutes.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-lincoln-lawyer-2011
Dear Jack–You are ethically challenged, evil or morally immature. No just (tifiable) “law” can be defended or supported when it allows itself to be the private realm of an immoral authority figure (i.e. “Judge” David Byrn). If ethics is as hard as you find it then you need to keep looking; you missed it somewhere along the way.
That you can seriously defend Byrn rather that urge his imprisonment when a true American hero is being denied a 34 yr pension (which waiting nine months would have guaranteed her), an innocent made is warehoused in our medieval, aids & violence-filled prison system, and two actual rapists remain unpunished all because this Byrn character insists on misusing (even criminalizing) his authority.
It was “Judge” Byrn who deliberately and consistently choose to not process DNA evidence (any fool can see that a guilty man take extraordinary steps to uncover evidence which would or even could implicate him). Byrn must be removed from the bench and from his pension.
Snyder must be given the whistle-blower protection(s) and potential monetary benefits which she should be entitled to. To do less would be to encourage this sort of pathetic activity no one should ever mistake for justice much less attempt to dress up as a morally defensible substitute for a functioning legal system. We must insist that injustice never makes acceptable “Law”. If you find that hard or hard to do then find out why and fix the problem – that could be hard but this case simply is not. Step up and be a real American Jack – do you believe in something beyond expediency, symbolism, convenience & precedence – How about truth, justice and the American way – when did that stop counting for much?! — Nuff Said!!
—Mark C.-Chicago, Il. – 08/14/2013/08:38 pm, cst
Let me summarize this, Mark: you’re a consequentialist, you think the ends justify the means, you are an advocate of situational ethics, you believe in not enforcing standards, and in organizational chaos, you endorse anyone having the leave to disobey any law or rule they find inconvenient or that they can, all by themselves, ratioanalize a justification for violating, you think that duly authorized authority means nothing, and you can’t distinguish conflicts of interest. You think clerks and and clerical staff should presume to take sides in criminal matters, and that should be no consequences of blatant defiance of procedures….and based on that, you tell me that I know nothing about ethics.
As I said, presuming you can read better than you think, she was courageous and did a good thing, and she should have expected to be fired, should have been fired, and was fired. If there are no consequences of breaking rules, everyone will break them.
I just love being lectured by the ethically ignorant and self-righteous.
“As I said, presuming you can read better than you think, she was courageous and did a good thing, and she should have expected to be fired, should have been fired, and was fired. If there are no consequences of breaking rules, everyone will break them.”
So,Snowden should just blow his brains out and save the government the trouble?
No, Snowden should turn himself in, and accept the consequences of what he did. As I have already written at least twice.
Since it is quite obvious that Snowden would not receive a fair trial, that does not follow at all. Unless you believe Holden’s assurances can be relied on, you know, no torture, fair trial.
It may be a good tactic in civil disobedience to let oneself be arrested, tried and punished, but it is far from evident that there is an ethical obligation to do so in every case.
Of course he’d get a fair trial. He is, however, guilty as hell, so I don’t see what the problem is…except that he’s not, as he claimed, willing to pay the price of his actions. I am increasingly persuaded that he is self-serving, narcissist fraud. The fair trail excuse is just that.
🙂
You’ve GOT to be kidding.
Some blog occupied by people to whom the principles of due process, authority, predictability, responsibility, accountability, conflicts of interest, precedent and competence are apparently alien links here, and you smile at their feel-good, chaotic theory of ethics, which is essentially “if it all works out, then it’s OK?”
Embarrassing.
“You’ve GOT to be kidding.
Some blog occupied by people to whom the principles of due process, authority, predictability, responsibility, accountability, conflicts of interest, precedent and competence are apparently alien links here, and you smile at their feel-good, chaotic theory of ethics, which is essentially “if it all works out, then it’s OK?”
Jack,I have one set of ethics. I believe in the saying that evil will prevail if good men do nothing. I believe in whistleblowers. The rules in this country have changed and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. I’m not saying that because the rich and powerful who get away breaking the rules the rest of us have to follow means that we should willy nilly break them ourselves but sometimes you have to take a stand. Yes,she should have counted the cost. It’s too bad she didn’t but why should the system make an example with her when they wouldn’t someone else? If she must be punished then let the punishment fit the crime. Don’t throw away everything she’s done right and rob her of a pension she has worked years for.
1.She got her pension. She should…I never said she shouldn’t.
2. She is in no way a whistleblower.
3. She could have done enough to help the prisoner without exceeding her authority—-like recommending a good pro bono lawyer. That’s not nothing ( and a judge being a stickler about form isn’t evil.)
She did get her pension? I must have missed that. Then I have nothing more to say.
Who gets to decide what’s ethical? The word “ethical” can be defined as doing what is morally right. Did she violate workplace rules? Maybe. Did the Judge, an ordained minister of the Community of Christ, allow his Christian values / morality interfere in his decisions to deny petitions on technicalities and terminate Ms. Snyder….no. A judicial system that so easily convicts innocent individuals does not deserve to use the word “ethical” in defense of any of its actions. A justice system riddled with unethical behavior on the part of the prosecution/judiciary claiming foul due “unethical” acts resulting in the release of an innocent person…..priceless. (A Friend’s teenage son was picked up walking down the street, prosecuted for rape, convicted on bogus police lab testimony, and served three years before being freed through the efforts of Project Innocence. The unethical actions of the Prosecution resulted in a teenager being sent to Adult Prison for three years.) Did the prosecutor or other “unethical” actor lose their job?
Tell you what, Clark. Read the description of the blog, the mission, the definitions we use here (morality and ethics are not the same thing) and terms and rationalizations, then rewrite your comment and I’ll be happy to engage with you. The short answer is that society decides what it regards as ethical, along with the culture, using sound principles employing accepted values and established methods of analysis. It’s an ongoing process, but a progressive one.
Now do your homework, please. I’ve spent three years and written getting close to 4000 posts exploring your question, and I’m not going to start from square one because you decided to drop in.
Thanks for your reply.
Mission? I went to your home page and several others, and couldn’t find anything of the sort. Then I asked the Edit feature on my browser to Find the term “mission” on those pages. It didn’t find them, either.
I’m sorry, but you are being a jerk. Here is part of the description of the blog:
“Ethics Alarms are the feelings in your gut, the twinges in your conscience, and the sense of caution in your brain when situations involving choices of right and wrong are beginning to develop, fast approaching, or unavoidable. The better your alarms work and the sooner they start sounding, the more likely you are to do the right thing, or at least to use good ethical reasoning to decide what to do. This is a blog that aspires to help keep everyone’s ethics alarms in good working order.
” How? By pointing out ethical problems and dilemmas from all segments of society, professions and experiences of life. By applying principles of ethical analysis, and reaching conclusions about what is right, what is wrong, and what remains uncertain. Finally, by discussing, arguing, disagreeing, opening doors of perception and closed minds, and by helping us be more alert to ethical issues in our own lives.
“I will usually make strong statements and espouse definite positions in the posts here. The objective isn’t to be “right,” though if I post an opinion, I believe it. The objective is to provoke thought about the issue that isn’t controlled by biases, pre-conditioned reflexes, ideology or rationalizations. This is the same successful formula I employ in the ethics seminars I facilitate across the country for corporations, associations, non-profits, student groups and law firms. I don’t need you to agree with me; there are often many legitimate ways to judge an ethical problem.”
One common and accurate definition of “mission” is “an important goal or purpose that is accompanied by strong conviction.” Purpose and objective are both synonyms. The passage above describes a mission…I don’t have to use the word for it to be one.
This kind of comment is dangerously close to trolling. Cut it out. Last warning.
I don’t think he was trolling you. I went looking for the “Mission” page as well, because that’s what you said to look for.
Yeah. He implied he had a section on the mission.
You’re an idiot. This is verdict I deliver rarely. And a troll.
The About Section IS on the mission, as I showed. You are really too silly to tolerate. One more ridiculous comment, and I’m permanently banning BOTH of you.
I’m so sick of “the law” denying justice. All those who support this decision to fire her must either be lawyers, judges, DA’s, or self-righteous egomaniacs (which by the way all the previous usually are). See where your “law” gets you at judgement.
Let me guess, Brian…you also think the Zimmerman verdict was an example of the law denying justice, right?
I’ve no wish myself to get much into the Zimmerman case, since I agree with you that there is no federal civil rights case against Zimmerman.
I also think the applicable law is quite flawed, but I would not say that is the reason Zimmerman got away with murder, as one of the jurors put it. I think they did not correctly assess the available evidence.
I think there is clear evidence that Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter. It’s right there on the so-called re-enactment video where Zimmerman purports to demonstrate how he drew his weapon and shot Trayvon. If we take his motions as correct, then it is quite clear that Zimmerman was not at that moment in any danger of serious injury or death, nor could he reasonably suppose he was. The prosecution made this point in their closing speech.
There was a case for manslaughter (I still think he had a reasonable doubt self-defense claim—the computer reenactment isn’t proof of anything), but the prosecutors didn’t charge him, and didn’t present evidence to make that case. The Hail Mary addition of that charge at the end virtually assured that a conviction wouldn’t hold up to appeal. Under Florida law, the jury can’t convict under a lesser charge if it wasn’t charged, unless the judge does what she did here, and most lawyers I’ve consulted think it was improper.
Well, if we want to throw labels around, you are a deontologist, a rules is rules guy, the hell with the consequences.
Of course, you are also quite wrong about means and ends. And end is a purpose, not a consequence, which invalidates your arguments. Now, if you take some painful course of action, like an operation to remove a cancerous organ, what on earth could justify that action besides the purpose of saving a life or improving it? No, you had better rethink the thoughtless maxim about the ends justify the means. Not all ends justify every means, there must be some proportion.
In this case, the basic action was to provide a publicly available document which indicated how one could obtain a DNA test. It did not decide the result. In fact, the judge should have pointed that out himself, IMHO, or at least advised he get a lawyer.. That is, if he was interested in justice.
“Well, if we want to throw labels around, you are a deontologist, a rules is rules guy, the hell with the consequences.”
Absolutely untrue, and you are ethically obligated to read the blog before you start throwing ignorant accusations around. No one who has read more than a sample here would agree with your description.
Nevertheless, “deontologist” is a label, and a generalization; “consequentialist” is a precise description of those who judge conduct according to what unpredictable results occur after the conduct occurs. That’s an invalid method of judging the ethics of conduct, because it makes consideration of an act before it is undertaken impossible. Nobody would be calling Snyder a hero if she had helped the prisoner and the DNA had shown he was guilty, or had helped him get released after a new trial and then went out a raped someone else. Nor can anyone seriously and convincingly argue that any system, especially the justice system, can work if every participant considers himself or herself a free agent without limits, supervisors, procedures or bounds, with only “justice,” and not process or authority or expertise or training a consideration. There is no analysis, ethical or otherwise, that supports allowing clerks to do what Snyder did, other than “it worked this time.” That’s not analysis. That’s infantile.
OK. If you say that you are not a deontologist, I will take your word for it. Yes deontology can mean a lot of things, but then so can consequentialism. I see no reason to adopt your own defintion. Go look it up. But you are awfully strong on rules.
For some reason, you refuse to consider that there is an ethical conflict or ethical gray area here, both of which you have put in your section on Concepts and Special Terms.
“All of which misses a very crucial point, and the key point, as far as firing Snyder goes. A court cannot function if clerks and court administrators take it upon themselves to champion the cases of particular parties. It’s not their job, and they can do a lot of damage. The rules that prohibit what Snyder did are not only good rules, but necessary and responsible rules.”
First of all, you seem to accept the judges finding of fact, to wit:
“The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division. But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven … which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action.”
This is nonsense. The document is what it is, it is a public document not written by the court clerk. It apparently could be used to learn how to proceed with the action the imprisoned man and his sister wished to pursue, to get the DNA evidence examined.
Secondly, you say that “A court cannot function if clerks and court administrators take it upon themselves to champion the cases of particular parties. It’s not their job, and they can do a lot of damage.” That’s all very nice, except that we have no evidence that actually happened. There was no championing of the case, just providing them with the means to find out how get a test done.
You bring up moral luck. But then you argue that if the moral luck that the results might have supported the conviction. So what? The consequence is not bad either way. The DNA tests can be performed with present day technology, and so they should be tested if the person convicted wants it. In neither case is the functioning of the court upset, and there are no damaging consequences.
So you have provided no justification for firing the court clerk. In fact, she improved the functioning of the court. It was the Judge Byrn and the prosecutor who brought the reputation of the courts in Jackson County into disrepute.
I
1. My definition is correct, and to the extent that there is disagreement, it’s my forum, and I choose the definitions. THAT’s the reason to use my definition. Consequentialism is judging an act’s ethics by its consequences after the act. Utilitarianism judges the act by its intended consequences, balancing good and bad outcomes. Don’t tell me to “look it up.”
2. Why yes, I’m a lawyer. Lawyers are required to be strong on rules. And we live in a nation dependent upon the Rule of Law.
3. That those who knowingly and intentionally violate clear and established rule going to the heart of the integrity of a system deserve serious negative consequences when they do so is hardly a gray area.
4. “This is nonsense. The document is what it is, it is a public document not written by the court clerk. It apparently could be used to learn how to proceed with the action the imprisoned man and his sister wished to pursue, to get the DNA evidence examined.” No, THAT’s nonsense. Cases are also public documents. That doesn’t means handing cases to a prisoner that you think he should cite to the judge isn’t practicing law—it is. It is not as if she was asked which form he needed to fill out, and her function was purely ministerial. She used her own judgement to find what she believed would be an analogous motion in his case that was successful. That’s legal research, and a lawyer is the only one allowed to render legal advice. She did not even respond to a request for help, but volunteered it….which she cannot do. it’s taking sides. it’s taking sides against her own office.
5. “There was no championing of the case, just providing them with the means to find out how get a test done.‘
Which is, if this is not what she does for every rejected petitioner, championing the case, by definition.
6. You missed the point. If the DNA test proves him guilty, she still gets fired for breaking the rules and meddling in a criminal case, but we don’t have this discussion, because nobody then thinks she’s a hero.
7. The damaging consequences are that every other court employee will think they are doing the right thing to second guess trained judges and prosecutors and mess around in their pet cases. It’s like the Hardy Boys, or Murder She Wrote. Amateurs will inevitably screw things up with good intentions unmoored to skill and knowledge. Snyder was lucky.
8. Sorry. She has no case, and neither do you.
You’re getting sillier as you go along, Jack. It is you who said the rules should be obeyed and a punishment inflicted because otherwise the system would be destabilized. That is presumably a result that can be observed and analyzed. Now you turn around and whine that you don’t have to justify the rule with any such results or probable results. You are contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.
I have shown so far that you have not shown that Snyder broke any rules. And I seriously doubt you have surveyed every court in America.
Secondly, if she did break the rules, you have shown no proportion between the offense and the punishment–as I pointed out, you asked ME about it (rhetorically, I know), and I responded that the five day suspension seemed appropriate. You have no real argument against it. Indeed, it would seem that they should be stuck with the five day suspension because it set a precedent.
But of course, there is a class thing involved here. You imagine that for a working person, a five day suspension is just a slap on the wrist (metaphorically, of course), but ordinary working people would not think so. They would regard it as pretty severe.
You don’t want to deal with reality, systems, organizational ethics, just situational ethics. There’s no rational debate with that. I have answered these issues in the thread repeatedly; you just don’t want to acknowledge them—fine; stay unethical, chaotic and ignorant. You contradict yourself—if she did nothing wrong, why do you say she should be suspended for 5 days? I see woman who knows she’s about to retire, and thinks she has special immunity from the discipline others must fear….and less risk, because she’s a short timer. Untrustworthy and dangerous.
I would be very surprised if 1% of the judges in America would keep a clerk who could not be trusted not to undermine the decisions of her boss, will cross the line into delivering legal advice, and pick pet cases to intervene in, breaking policies and rules in the process.
The specific Rules vary somewhat from court to court, but they all are consistent with the code governing federal judicial employees, which you can read here Among the section relevant to Snyder are Canon 1 (An independent and honorable Judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judicial employee should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary are preserved and the judicial employee’s office reflects a devotion to serving the public. Judicial employees should require adherence to such standards by personnel subject to their direction and control. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further these objectives. The standards of this code shall not affect or preclude other more stringent standards required by law, by court order, or by the appointing authority.), Canon 2 (A judicial employee should not engage in any activities that would put into question the propriety of the judicial employee’s conduct in carrying out the duties of the office.), Canon 3 (A judicial employee should respect and comply with the law and these canons. A judicial employee should report to the appropriate supervising authority any attempt to induce the judicial employee to violate these canons….C. A judicial employee should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to all persons with whom the judicial employee deals in an official capacity, including the general public, and should require similar conduct of personnel subject to the judicial employee’s direction and control. A judicial employee should diligently discharge the responsibilities of the office in a prompt, efficient, nondiscriminatory, fair, and professional manner. A judicial employee should never influence or attempt to influence the assignment of cases, or perform any discretionary or ministerial function of the court in a manner that improperly favors any litigant or attorney, nor should a judicial employee imply that he or she is in a position to do so.), and Canon 4 ( A judicial employee should not engage in the practice of law…)
The Snyder episode is similar to the bank tellers who are fired after they play Batman and foil robberies, which all banks forbid. Everyone gets all upset about them too: They’re heroes! Until they get someone shot. That’s moral luck too.
Suspension in such cases is a holding action. In professions where trust is paramount, it makes no sense to keep on an employee who has already shown the willingness to violate trust for her own purposes. Firing has two functions—as punishment, yes, but also to remove a risk to the public and the administration of justice. Your attitude is typical 0f those who think employees have a right to a job regardless of their trustworthiness and reliability.
My comment that the 5 day suspension would be appropriate is based on the supposition that she did break the rule (a supposition I do not agree with), so I am not at all contradicting myself.
You suggest that it would be all right if she handed out a form. I don’t know if there is a form, but a form presumably should have directions, and it would obviously be appropriate to tell the person what is needed on the form. Providing a copy of a publicly available decision (identifying details blacked out, so it is not offering a precedent) is analogous to that. Nothing more.
You just make up your own facts, and ignore what happened. There is no question that she broke rules, as well as basic ethical principles. I gave you an equivalent Code—the places where she would violate that code are obvious. I’ll argue why firing is necessary; I won’t argue about whether she actually broke a rule. That’s just obtuse and idiotic, frankly. If you want to put in a last word on this nonsense, be my guest–now you’re wasting my time.
But a friendly warning—last words that are intentionally insulting to your host will never see the light of day—I just banned Mr. Smith for pulling that stunt. I don’t tolerate that here.
I had no particular intent to insult you personally. You, on the other hand, called me a “jerk,” somewhere and maybe other things, and called someone else a troll and an idiot.
But don’t worry, I don’t think your blog is much of a place for me. For one thing, you don’t seem to be able to handle people who really do have basic disagreements with you. I will spare you reading any other reasons I may have.
Have a nice life, all of you.
Good.
I have no problem with fundamental disagreement, as legions of regular commenters here can attest, some of which almost never agree with me. or close to it. I have big objections to those who apply deceitful labels and selective facts while refusing to leave the iron door in their mind open even a crack. Arguing that Snyder’s rules violations should be waived in gratitude is a respectable, if wrong, position. Arguing that she broke no rules is either trolling or willful ignorance. In either case, I’m sick of it, and regret waiting my time trying to teach you something. I tried.
I would normally apologize for the jerk call, but I know of no other way to categorize the “there’s no mission on the website” crap. I don’t have to take that.
I have said goodbye to those on your website, so I will not reply there.
No Jack, I specifically did NOT say there was no mission on your website, and that was quite intentional. I said I couldn’t find it, which is a different thing. I tried, but you can hardly expect me to guess that it was in something else labeled entirely differently. If you don’t lay out your website so people can easily find something like that, that is hardly my fault.
I am not sure you have dealt with someone who really has fundamental disagreements with you. Anyway, when you find yourself limited to titles such as idiot, troll, and jerk, it means you have no further arguments. Beyond differing principles, we evidently perceive a lot of things quite differently, which is an issue that could be explored, but you apparently are not interested in that sort of thing.
And since you persist, I will add another reason for leaving your website alone in the future. That is because I find I gain nothing from it. I could say that in less kind ways, but i will leave it at that.
I wish you a nice life.
I’m not going to reply directly to Patrick’s , a.k.a “Xenophanes” second farewell. I just reviewed the whole thread with his comments, and will keep it on file to periodically ask myself if giving most comments the courtesy of a reply is really worth the time and frustration.
For some reason, a left-wing website someplace linked to the Snyder post, and I was deluged with ideologically inspired arguments that saw the whole episode as a conspiracy of a corrupt US justice system (some of the commenters appear to be Canadian). None of them articulated a valid ethical reason to allow Snyder to stay on, but they were expert in the time-honored campus game of cherry picking facts and issues and changing the subject as soon as they ran out of barely plausible arguments. Patrick, for example, said that not regarding a 5 day suspension as sufficient punishment was “classist.” Another suggested a racist conspiracy, because Nelson, the prisoner, was black. All took their cues from the misleading and biased headlines used to first announce the story, which said in various ways that the clerk Snyder was fired “for helping to free a man falsely convicted of rape.” That is NOT what she was fired for. It didn’t matter how many times I tried to explain this.
In some ways, Patrick was the worst. He is the variety of commenter who I would term an articulate pseudo-intellectual—he was arrogant and liked to use learned buzz words, but he failed to make critical distinctions, make illogical conclusions, and was arrogant about it. Arguing with him was like arguing with an absolutely unmovable teenager, which he is not. Almost every one of his posts had at least one example of this…When I said, for example, that Snyder, as an employee of the Court was obligated to be impartial and could not choose to champion the causes of particular litigants, Patrick wrote: “There was no championing of the case, just providing them with the means to find out how get a test done.” Which, since this is not done for every such litigant, but only the one Snyder took an interest in, is in fact “championing.” Like most pseudo intellectuals, he was condescending while talking nonsense or making assertions beyond his actual expertise. He kept saying that “no rules were broken.” I sent him the link to the ethics code of Federal employees of the courts, and pointed out where Snyder was in violation of several rules (all courts have fairly similar ethical requirements, stated differently.) He never addressed them. He just kept saying that no rules were broken.
He finally made me snap when I alluded to the mission of the website, and he implied that I had no mission, because no text was literally labelled “Mission”. The “ABOUT” page defines the blog’s mission in some detail, as ABOUT pages on blogs usually do. This is troll stuff, and I said he was a jerk. Now that I have reviewed the whole exchange, I will double down on that diagnosis. Yet I devoted well over an hour and over a thousand words trying to get him to acknowledge and comprehend the realities of maintaining a justice system, which will not and cannot permit vigilante clerks to suddenly decide to shoot under-the -table assistance to a particular supplicant to the court. All I got in return was more cherry-picking, ignorant arguments phrased in authoritative style, and infuriatingly disjointed reasoning.
What a waste of my time. Then he signs off with an accusation that I don’t tolerate dissent….and is so impressed with himself that he feels he needs to bid farewell to the participants and me in separate notes, as if he was a celebrity guest.
I admit it—I don’t handle commenters like this well. They don’t fairly consider one’s argument, they just look for semantic and formulaic rebuttals. They don’t know hwo little they know, and they think ideology is the same as reason.( Patrick, by the way, actually cited not only MSNBC, but Chris Hayes as an authority. I was not surprised.)
It sounds like you are just arguing for the protection for lawyers to keep their monopoly on making, interpreting, and administrating laws. Keep in mind that most people think that our judicial system sucks and you can credit lawyers for that distinction.
For you to justify an innocent man spending one minute in jail because a court employee offers a man a copy of a proper filing is insane. The mentality of lawyers is the problem with our judicial system. Your argument is basically; Protect our profession at all cost to the victims!
Well let’s see, Roger:
1. That’s not what the post said, so either you didn’t read it, can’t understand it, or are ignoring it to make your own silly point. I pick “B” and “C.”
2. “Most people” don’t know what they are talking about, and have no basis for such an opinion. Including, I gather, you.
3. “For you to justify an innocent man spending one minute in jail because a court employee offers a man a copy of a proper filing is insane.” Since that doesn’t relate to what I said or believe, I couldn’t care less. But hey, why go through any procedures and systems at all? Why not just bust people out of jails as soon as the mob decides they are innocent! Do you have any idea how simple-minded and foolish you sound?
4. I teach legal ethics. I advocate strict discipline for the profession. I have met, known and spoken with more lawyers than you will meet in a lifetime, and your “opinion” on this topic is unsupported, unsupportable, anarchist gibberish. Legal systems are difficult and complex, and the US system is the fairest and most just anyone has ever developed, You sit back and condemn it because it isn’t perfect, which is signature proof of a lazy mind.
Don’t waste my time.
Jack, you must have walked out of the Sound of Music conflicted because although it was good that the Nazi SS in pursuit of the Von Trapps couldn’t start their cars to continue the chase, the nuns did commit unethical acts of vandalism and car part theft…LOL.
It’s really great to be free, man…you should try it sometime…
I bet it’s great to be an idiot too, Frank…tell me about that some time.
Nazis, eh? MUSICALS about Nazis.
Wow.
But let me address your bad analogy directly. Hitler was rnning a fascist and brutal regime against the will of the Austrians, and it was an illegal and inhuman regime, The moral and ethical obligation was to assist all in their efforts to escape and resist.
Snyder’s conduct destabilizes a legal, orderly and and fair system, the nuns were working to destabilize a murderous one. No comparison. Cheap one, too.
Serious question: how do you decide a system is fair and a system is murderous?
That’s half a good question.
People may differ legitimately about how fair the the US justice system is. Because it is almost alone in the world in putting the burden of proof on the state, it is, I think, widely considered as unusually fair in that regard, at least.
But the fact that the Nazi regime was murderous is not open to question. A system is murderous if it murders a lot of people.
Just discovered your blog. It surprises me how eager you are to reach a premature conclusion about what seems to me as a very complicated ethical dilemma. There is much information missing from the few news stories I’ve been able to find about this incident. I can’t, for example, determine whether she actually violated any regulations governing her employment as a clerk of the court. Is it ethical to judge the conduct of others until you have until the full factual record before you?
I don’t know what “Canon” the judge was referring to in his letter of dismissal, or what the purpose of the rule she’s alleged to have broken is (other than promoting the appearance of impartiality within the judicial system). But in any event, I am confident that his position grants him a great deal of discretion in deciding whether and how to penalize this woman, who had worked as a clerk for 34 years. (And yes, you might argue that she also undermined the integrity of our criminal justice system by breaking a rule; I probably wouldn’t argue that, but then I’m, I’m not an asshole). I doubt that exoneration or immediate termination were the only two choices that the judge had available to him, yet you have enthusiastically given this judge’s decision your seal of approval.
She is elderly and middle class and she had planned to continue working for nine more months. That’s nothing to sneeze at, especially in this economy. Without more facts, you are wrong to state that it was “dumb luck” that the inmate whose sister she assisted turned out to be not guilty. Sharon Snyder is not an attorney, but she might know a thing or two about criminal procedure after 34 years on this job. Perhaps she had access to the trial record? Maybe she read it and was shocked by the paucity of evidence presented by the prosecutor or the lack of competence of the defense attorney? I understand that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney in the originally lobbied the judge to throw the book at her for making them look bad. Maybe the record of voir dire showed compelling evidence of racial bias in the selection of the jury pool? The man’s trial took place prior to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky limiting the use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges – and that the ruling does not apply retroactively. You’re assuming that she didn’t think long and hard about this before responding to the sister’s request for assistance, but we don’t know that. I guess you don’t think that’s relevant, but I disagree.
Is there any injustice in the world sufficiently great that you would have concluded that Sharon Snyder’s choices were not only defensible but in fact absolutely imperative, from an ethical point of view? I mean, what if she had not only freed a man who had been wrongly convicted but also put into motion events that would lead to the arrest of the guilty parties who had evaded justice for three decades? Oh wait, she did that too. What if instead of helping an innocent man obtain his freedom, her rules violation had prevented a serial child rapist from harming any more victims? Or what if she had prevented an act of terrorism? Would you still conclude she acted unethically?
Who or what exactly was harmed by her conduct in this particular instance, or does it not even matter if this violation was “harmless error?” Because we know who was harmed by the the judge’s total inflexibility in twice denying the motion of a pro se litigant to use DNA evidence to affirm or overrule his conviction. (Snyder rightly observed that judges should not even have the discretion to deny these sorts of requests in America, circa 2013). Is it ethical to deny such a request on “stylistic reasons” because, due to the state’s errors, this man has been rotting in prison for 30 years and thus can’t afford to hire an attorney now? And that recording of the conversations between brother and sister wouldn’t have been permitted under the 4th Amendment if the man hadn’t been wrongly convicted in the fist place. There is something a little creepy about that part of this, especially if the judge threw his weight around to find that evidence and use it to punish the woman who showed the world just what a clown he is.
What if the judge’s motivation in penalizing her as severely as he did was not to enforce the rules impartially in the interests of our legal system, but instead to punish her for embarrassing him and to prevent her from ever making him look incompetent or dishonest again in the future? Are you sure he acted ethically? Even if his interpretation of the “Canon” and his application of it to the facts in this case were correct, his punishment was way too severe. (Another employee who had embezzled funds from the court received a lighter penalty, according to media reports.) And does it matter that his actions have undermined the confidence of the public in the ability and willingness of judges to operate with integrity and competence?
It surprises me how eager you are to reach a premature conclusion about what seems to me as a very complicated ethical dilemma. There is much information missing from the few news stories I’ve been able to find about this incident. I can’t, for example, determine whether she actually violated any regulations governing her employment as a clerk of the court. Is it ethical to judge the conduct of others until you have until the full factual record before you?
Not premature at all. I work in the legal system, and there isn’t a court in the land that allows clerks to selectively meddle in individual cases like that. They had evidence from the phone records that she was advising the defendant. It’s probably not the unauthorized practice of law (though that case could be argued) but it definitely exceeds her authority and appears to undermine the authority of the judge and the court. She allied her self with a prisoner, and she is not an advocate or approved for that activity. She can’t do that. Anywhere. Where’s the question?
“But in any event, I am confident that his position grants him a great deal of discretion in deciding whether and how to penalize this woman, who had worked as a clerk for 34 years. (And yes, you might argue that she also undermined the integrity of our criminal justice system by breaking a rule; I probably wouldn’t argue that, but then I’m, I’m not an asshole). I doubt that exoneration or immediate termination were the only two choices that the judge had available to him, yet you have enthusiastically given this judge’s decision your seal of approval.”
No, I said I would fire her too. The judge is obviously a poor one, as he favored form over justice: judges are supposed to give leeway to pro se defendants, and he did not. He got no seal from me, but her firing does.I don’t condone the judge. But in Snyder’s position, how would you not fire her without in effect tellingt every other employee that they were free to pick favorite and sympathetic defendants and work against tthe state?
She is elderly and middle class and she had planned to continue working for nine more months. That’s nothing to sneeze at, especially in this economy.
Completely irrelevant. If she could afford to lose her job, she shouldn’t have engaged in a firing offense. But she can risk it…she get her pension, and was ready to retire. Are you advocating that the rules should be applied differently according to age, race and gender, as well as class? Seems like you are.
Without more facts, you are wrong to state that it was “dumb luck” that the inmate whose sister she assisted turned out to be not guilty.
If you don’t know the difference between dumb luck, which I never referenced, and moral luck, which is something else, then you miss many a point.
Sharon Snyder is not an attorney, but she might know a thing or two about criminal procedure after 34 years on this job. Perhaps she had access to the trial record? Maybe she read it and was shocked by the paucity of evidence presented by the prosecutor or the lack of competence of the defense attorney?
You have just described the practice of law. She cannot do that, as a third party.
“I understand that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney in the originally lobbied the judge to throw the book at her for making them look bad. Maybe the record of voir dire showed compelling evidence of racial bias in the selection of the jury pool? The man’s trial took place prior to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky limiting the use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges – and that the ruling does not apply retroactively. You’re assuming that she didn’t think long and hard about this before responding to the sister’s request for assistance, but we don’t know that. I guess you don’t think that’s relevant, but I disagree.”
Well, you are just wrong. Now she is litigating the case, looking for reasons to appeal. She is NOT a lawyer, and not qualified—in law, qualifications have to be official and certified, not “I know something about procedure.” She works for the state, do you understand that? The State as in State vs the Prisoner. She has confidences that she may not share with anyone without the state’s permission. She is bound to be neutral, but also to be loyal to her employers, who are on the opposite side from the prisoner. It doesn’t matter how long she though about this—how does that matter? “Oh, as long as you thought hard before breaking the rules, it’s OK then…”—-what???”
“Is there any injustice in the world sufficiently great that you would have concluded that Sharon Snyder’s choices were not only defensible but in fact absolutely imperative, from an ethical point of view?”
Simple–if she knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the man was innocent, then she should have broken whatever rule, and perhaps any law, and accepted whatever punishment she received.
“I mean, what if she had not only freed a man who had been wrongly convicted but also put into motion events that would lead to the arrest of the guilty parties who had evaded justice for three decades? Oh wait, she did that too. What if instead of helping an innocent man obtain his freedom, her rules violation had prevented a serial child rapist from harming any more victims? Or what if she had prevented an act of terrorism? Would you still conclude she acted unethically?”
You’re way off base. The taping of prisoner conversations has been judicially approved, repeatedly. He knew he was being taped, and his sitser should have known. Nothing creepy about it. It’s evidence. The conversations might have exonerated Snyder.
The consequences of her action unknown to her are what I refereed to as moral luck—she gets no credit for those as far as evaluating her decision goes. She must be judged on the actual data and circumstances when she made her decision
.
“Who or what exactly was harmed by her conduct in this particular instance, or does it not even matter if this violation was “harmless error?” Because we know who was harmed by the the judge’s total inflexibility in twice denying the motion of a pro se litigant to use DNA evidence to affirm or overrule his conviction.”
What? Actions have consequences. What is allowed becomes precedent. You can not have a coherent system where low level employees inject themselves into cases beyond their authority or expertise. Do you want Congressional clerks altering laws they think are unwise? Are seriously defending systemic anarchy because it happened to work out once?
“(Snyder rightly observed that judges should not even have the discretion to deny these sorts of requests in America, circa 2013).”
“What do you mean “Snyder rightly observed”? This is the “I don’t have to obey rules and laws I think are stupid” rationalization. She knows zilch. She’s not a lawmaker or a lawyer. If she wants the law changed, she can work to get it changed. She has no right or authority to act unilaterally based on what her grand experience as a clerk has taught her about proper judicial authority.”
“Is it ethical to deny such a request on “stylistic reasons” because, due to the state’s errors, this man has been rotting in prison for 30 years and thus can’t afford to hire an attorney now?”
Irrelevant. I don’t think it’s ethical, no, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the judge’s authority, his call, and his job. Not hers. Not mine. Not yours. And every prison system has programs to provide legal services, free to the prisoner.
And that recording of the conversations between brother and sister wouldn’t have been permitted under the 4th Amendment if the man hadn’t been wrongly convicted in the fist place. There is something a little creepy about that part of this, especially if the judge threw his weight around to find that evidence and use it to punish the woman who showed the world just what a clown he is.
What if the judge’s motivation in penalizing her as severely as he did was not to enforce the rules impartially in the interests of our legal system, but instead to punish her for embarrassing him and to prevent her from ever making him look incompetent or dishonest again in the future? Are you sure he acted ethically?
The action of firing her was proper, as was the position of my post. That’s all that matters. We never know all the motives behind such decisions. If he was motivated by bias, and without it would have let her off easy, yes, that’s unethical. But unless that si known, what matters is that the action itself has an ethical basis—and it does.
Even if his interpretation of the “Canon” and his application of it to the facts in this case were correct, his punishment was way too severe.
You can say that, and that’s a matter of discretion. But it’s wrong, in my view.
“(Another employee who had embezzled funds from the court received a lighter penalty, according to media reports.)”
So what? If someone wasn’t fired for embezzling, that was stupid, and is a lousy precedent. If the embezzler was, well, they are both firing offenses. If the embezzler wasn’t a clerk, then there’s no analogy.
“And does it matter that his actions have undermined the confidence of the public in the ability and willingness of judges to operate with integrity and competence?”
No, because as this comment proves, albeit in an articulate manner, the public doesn’t understand. Should George Zimmerman be thrown in jail because to an ignorant public, a verdict dictated by the proper standard of proof in a criminal trial “undermined the confidence of the public” in the justice system? The fact that a bad judge caused this problem in no way justifies Snyder.
I think it would be helpful to give examples of how well meaning individuals can cause huge problems by doing what this woman did. There must be reasons for these types of policies and procedures. Please explain.
You mentioned that you suspected that this may not have been the first time she was warned about such actions. I suspected the same. This may or not be true but I have seen individuals that get a feeling of self importance doing simular things. Would you say that this could be a major concern in the court systems?
Two points (A and B).
A. Your argument for firing
1. Failure to fire rule breakers sets a precedent that it’s all right to break the rules
2. Setting a precedent that it’s all right to break the rules will result in other employees breaking the rules.
3. Other employees breaking the rules would be bad.
4. Therefore, rule breakers must be fired.
5. Snyder broke at least one rule.
6. Therefore, Snyder must be fired.
Rejection of argument
1. An employee breaking the rules would only set a precedent if other employees capable of committing the same offense find out about it. If no one finds out about the violation, then no precedent can be set. No other employees could be influenced by something they never found out about. In this case, no other employees would ever have found out about Snyder’s involvement if the Judge hadn’t exposed her. Therefore, her rule breaking could not have set a precedent. With your first assumption being false, all the following conclusions are falsified, including your conclusion that she needed to be fired.
B. You might argue that the Judge has the right to expect not to be undermined by members of his staff. But there are plenty of other punishments he could have chosen from. He chose the most extreme punishment he had at his disposal. You argument is that “I would have fired Sharon Snyder too.” What you mean is that you believe that, out of all of his choices, firing Sharon Snyder was the most appropriate level of punishment. But that’s just an opinion. All of your arguments mean nothing, because essentially you’re just saying that, in your opinion, the firing was the correct level of punishment. Not the only one necessarily, but the correct one. In your opinion.
In summary
A. You argue that your opinion that “the firing was the appropriate level of punishment” is valid because of the risk of precedent. Although, since your assumption 1. fails, so does your conclusion.
B. You also touch on how the Judge should expect to not be undermined by an employee, but you fail to discuss the various options the Judge had at his disposal and why the firing was the correct response to this challenge to his authority. Why were the other options he had not appropriate? Essentially, we’re left with “because.”
1. Your argument is predicated on hiding a major rule waiver from the rest of the staff? That itself is an untenable precedent. It’s dishonest, and undermines trust that rules are applied evenly. Indeed, wanting to keep conduct secret is a pretty good indicator that you know its wrong. The old saying is “Ethics is what you do when nobody’s looking,” not “Ethics is what you hope nobody will ever find out about.”
2. Everything here is my opinion…an informed opinion, based on systemic ethical analysis, but still my opinion. I’ve never said otherwise—-what else would it be? An edict? An official pronouncement? Yes, it’s opinion. It’s also correct.
When I was in the Army, I was brought up on charges for some foolishness that I did. The CO had mercy on me and did not “fire” me. He gave me a suitable punishment and then sealed the files so that it would not ruin the rest of my career. It turned out to be the correct choice, as I went on to become and exemplary non-commissioned officer.
My CO “hid a major rule waiver” from the rest of the Army command, because he “wanted to keep secret” what I’d done so as not to destroy my career. In neither case was it an “untenable precedent”, nor “dishonest.” Instead he came up with an appropriate, yet compassionate punishment that fell short of the “firing” that you feel needed to happen.
larushka, I am glad my questions seem to have excited some deeper level of discussion here. You have certainly found a major weakness in Mr. Marshall’s argument. He has not connected the alleged infraction of the rules with the actual punishment inflicted.
The connection is that one requires the other.
How else do you punish someone who’s leaving in 9 months anyway?
The problem is that you and the gang don’t comprehend the seriousness of having court officials without law licenses or proper authority interfere with specific cases. It’s a cardinal offense. And the ends do not justify the means when the means is a cardinal offense—not to the system being corrupted.
That Snyder actually broke the rules is not established. Judge Byrn’s statement is just patently is beyond false, it is silly.
““The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division.”
It makes no sense at all.
I love it that your reply illustrates what I said. Your assertion that the offense requires that she be fired is just that, a pure assertion. You have no actual argument as to what the appropriate penalty would be. Indeed, you ask ME what it would be! OK. They already gave her a five day suspension, so they should not have added additional punishments.
Now, you assert that what she is supposed to have done is a cardinal offense, one that corrupts the system. It is quite clear that you are here put the system, which is not a thing but a being of reason, to real people who are seeking justice. Among other things, not all of which Cenk Uygur in essence made this point during a discussion on The Young Turks a while ago. He also says they should have congratulated her for good work. At that time, they did not seem to be award that it was the same judge who denied the first two requests for testing the DNA evidence. The discussion includes Cenk Uygur, who was trained as a lawyer, and Steve Oh, also trained as a lawyer and a former prosecutor.
To which I say, “so what?” Of course she broke a rule, as well as a fundamental principle of any hierarchy. All you are doing is asserting over and over again that the fact that the prisoner was innocent and exonerated retroactively justifies conduct that no coherent and functioning system, justice or otherwise, can allow.
The judge is quite correct. She could give him a form, but once she says, here is an example of the kind of motion you should write, that’s advice, and it’s a recommendation, unless that successful motion is by policy given to everyone, and it is not. It is given to prisoners whose cases interest a particular clerk–well, that’s outside the system, and is a serious violation of the rules in any courthouse in America.
You have no argument, just displeasure with the result. Your desired result—she gets off with a wrist slap, gets hailed as a hero, and the innocent man goes free, has potentially terrible consequences, and destabilizes the justice system. Mine…she breaks the rule, the man goes free, she is punished significantly so others don’t follow her lead lightly, and she retires with her pension, is safer, in accordance with procedure, and still accomplishes the main goal while preserving the system.
The video, in my opinion, is infantile.
You have not, in fact, stated my position correctly. I have, in fact, been employing a type of reasoning you yourself have been using, but to better effect. You have here laid it out very succinctly, which will save me the trouble of quoting something longer farther up.
“has potentially terrible consequences, and destabilizes the justice system.”
The term, “destabilizes,” is terribly vague and seems to be some sort of physical metaphor. You think that if this grandmother is allowed to get away with photocopying a publicly available court document and giving it to Dunning (one news report said that Dunning had called the court to ask what needed to be done, so Snyder did not just volunteer), that so many others will be encouraged to take all sorts of actions that it will undermine the system. You totally blow the likely effects way out of proportion, which is paranoid, and you prioritize the system over actual justice for individuals. As for the numbers, most people do not have the knowledge, the moral fibre, and the guts needed.
As it happens, I have actually worked in a couple of hierarchical system. One was in military, where one could not really operate strictly following all the procedures, and in the public service. The public service department was pretty stable. Employees who helped clients negotiate the system, even those who disagreed with decisions and enabled clients to seek different decisions higher up, did not at all destabilize the system, they just enabled them to take advantage of the procedures open to them. And of course, we were there to serve the clients. A little flexibility was a good thing.
Now, if people in the justice system fix parking tickets, falsify or destroy evidence, take bribes to make certain decisions, and such things, that is detrimental. Snyder did nothing like that. Indeed, at the time there was no case to interfere with. The request had been refused. The prisoner’s sister wanted to know how to request a DNA test to see if the DNA belonged to her brother. Now, if there were a form Snyder could have supplied, then surely she could tell how to fill out the form properly; that should be SOP. That itself is enough to show that it would be in her purview to offer some how-to advice.
Now, you allow yourself to reason about potential effects of letting this grandmother get away with it, without a shred of evidence that the alleged bad effects are likely to happen. But then you have the gall to accuse me of appealing to a particular good result to the tests. No, what she did enabled the prisoner to have relevant evidence tested, which is a generally good thing. That is the good she accomplished, and in doing so, she helped the course of justice rather than hindered it as the prosecution and Judge Byrn did in the previous attempts. The testing of relevant evidence should be available, and in a number of cases will result in exonerating some unjustly convicted prisoners. Snyder did nothing to affect the results of the tests. It was nice that the tests exonerated the prisoner, but that is not the justification I am proposing. What the particular result did was to illustrate that following good procedure, looking at relevant evidence, is a good thing in itself and that one of the effects is that it has exonerated a number of wrongly convicted prisoners.
Why you bring up the attention the case has caused is a mystery. You are right that the case would have excited little attention had the tests shown that the DNA belonged to Nelson (though it actually belonged to the people who actually did the rape). But others can make up hypothetical scenarios as well as you can. If the tests had shown the DNA belonged to the prisoner, the prosecution and judge would not have been embarrassed, they would not have cared, would not have bothered to listen to the conversations between Dunning and Nelson, and therefore would not have suspended or fired her. I think that is far more likely than your proposed scenario.
If you are actually concerned with the effective functioning of the justice system, there are a number of better things to look at. There is systemic discrimination against African Americans and some other minorities (and Nelson is black!), there is the school to prison pipeline, there is the war on drugs, there is the large proportion of the population in jails and prisons, for starters.
1. “The term, “destabilizes,” is terribly vague and seems to be some sort of physical metaphor.”
Fine: destroys its integrity, makes it impossible to rely upon or predict, reduces to chaos.
I think destabilizes pretty much describes it.
2. “Now, you allow yourself to reason about potential effects of letting this grandmother get away with it, without a shred of evidence that the alleged bad effects are likely to happen”
Ridiculous and dishonest comment. I don’t have to prove that extra-judicial conduct that violates policies and rules but is praised or allowed rather than forbidden and punished won’t be more common rather than less common. This is the principle on which all rules and laws systems operate. Civilization is the evidence.
3. The military is a unique and separate situation. I come from a military family. Yes, it can and is gamed like every other system. Nonetheless, when one breaks the chain of command, and that’s what happened here, the penalties are usually very serious. If a private intervened to interfere with a major’s order, the private would get punished severely.
4.“Now, if people in the justice system fix parking tickets, falsify or destroy evidence, take bribes to make certain decisions, and such things, that is detrimental. Snyder did nothing like that/”
This is my least favorite rationalization: “It’s not the worst thing.” (Look it up.) Yes, those are, in fact, crimes. She didn’t kill anyone either. Don’t forget that one.
5. “Why you bring up the attention the case has caused is a mystery. You are right that the case would have excited little attention had the tests shown that the DNA belonged to Nelson (though it actually belonged to the people who actually did the rape). But others can make up hypothetical scenarios as well as you can. If the tests had shown the DNA belonged to the prisoner, the prosecution and judge would not have been embarrassed, they would not have cared, would not have bothered to listen to the conversations between Dunning and Nelson, and therefore would not have suspended or fired her. I think that is far more likely than your proposed scenario.”
I write clearer than your refusal to accept the point suggests. The point of moral luck is that her firing would not be the topic of indignation if the man hadn’t happened to be innocent, which she can’t possible know before the DNA test, but the rules infraction exists and is the same regardless of whether he turned out innocent or not. You apparently can’t grasp this, which is the basis of the disagreement. Repeat after me: Subsequent unpredictable events cannot and should not retroactively validate prior unethical conduct.
Subsequent unpredictable events cannot and should not retroactively validate prior unethical conduct.
Subsequent unpredictable events cannot and should not retroactively validate prior unethical conduct.
Subsequent unpredictable events cannot and should not retroactively validate prior unethical conduct.
Subsequent unpredictable events cannot and should not retroactively validate prior unethical conduct.
Got it yet? It’s kind of a crucial and basic ethics principle, and it cancels the whole, false basis of your argument.
6. “If you are actually concerned with the effective functioning of the justice system, there are a number of better things to look at. There is systemic discrimination against African Americans and some other minorities (and Nelson is black!), there is the school to prison pipeline, there is the war on drugs, there is the large proportion of the population in jails and prisons, for starters.”
That’s it—the smoking gun proof that you are full of hot air an have no idea what you are talking about. This is another set of rationalizations—your whole argument is full of them. “You are wrong because—LOOK OVER THERE!!! WHY AREN’T YOU LOOKING AT WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT?” So you play…the race card? Seriously? I had no idea whether of not Nelson was black, or whether Snyder was black, because it makes no difference to the analysis, but to those, like you, who base everything on a hierarchy of preferred minorities, it means everything
Thank you, sincerely–this perfectly exposes and debunks all of your colleagues’ emotion-based and non-ethical arguments regarding this case. Now you’re done. After that last paragraph, you have disqualified yourself from serious consideration.
Jack, if you really believed that his last paragraph disqualified him from serious consideration, you wouldn’t have spent 400 words giving him serious consideration.
You’ve spent so long building up this edifice of logic, that you can’t allow one stone, one board, one nail to be removed.
A little rule-breaking is OK sometimes. In the service justice, rule-breaking will not destroy your system. I’m reminded of that girl recently who blew up a coke bottle on school property as part of a science experiment. She didn’t have school permission, so the local DA charged her with using an explosive device, a felony I believe. The DA was following the rules, your rules. By your logic he had no choice but to prosecute her. He agreed with you and tried to. After public outcry, he ended up not prosecuting her. She broke the rules, but he chose not to prosecute her, and you can’t tell me he was wrong.
really believe the last paragraph dis qualifies him from consideration. I discussed the first part of his post, and previous posts, for the purpose of making it clear where that kind of seat of the pants ethics analysis goes wrong. Once he, or anyone, starts making the specifically banned (in the guidelines) argument “Why aren’t you focusing on something else?” argument, I’m out.
THIS…”A little rule-breaking is OK sometimes. In the service justice, rule-breaking will not destroy your system. I’m reminded of that girl recently who blew up a coke bottle on school property as part of a science experiment. She didn’t have school permission, so the local DA charged her with using an explosive device, a felony I believe. The DA was following the rules, your rules. By your logic he had no choice but to prosecute her.” is pathetic. You are comparing reasonably waiving a technical violation of a rule clearly intended to prevent different behavior, with core rules and principles of all courts, the law, and any other serious system: chain of command, don’t meddle outside your expertise, don’t undermine your superior, and finally, a basic ethics rule: if you feel you have to break a rule in the interest of a higher value, be prepared to accept the penalties.
This blog was established specifically to teach people–like you, who use gut level snap judgments as a substitute for careful ethical analysis someplace to go to learn that rationalizations aren’t ethical, bad analogies lead to bad decisions, and that “it works!” is not a valid basis for ethical approval. Based on this thread, you and Xenophanes, it’s going to be a long, slow slog.
I said nothing about violating the chain of command in the military. I guess being in a military family is not the same as actually being in the military. I was actually thinking of getting necessary parts that seem to be impossible to get and using some other parts that will do the job just as well.
You can say destabilize is the right word all you want, what you have not done is to show that anything like that happened, or is at all likely to happen, as a result of Snyder’s helping out at Dunning’s request. You have said several times that Snyder volunteered to help, but that is not the case. That is the way numerous articles seem to imply, but MSNBC apparently did more investigation, and Chris Hayes brought that small point out.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52759585#52759585
As for No. 4, I was simply pointing out some things that are clearly wrong as opposed to things which are not wrong. So no, I am not just arguing that there are worse things than what she did. That’s no my comparison at all.
In No. 6, you are simply making up an argument for me. And please stop yelling! I was simply offering friendly advice, that since you clearly have lost the argument, IMHO, about the appropriate punishment for Snyder, and you have expressed concern about destabilizing the judicial system, you could concern yourself with some things which actually do work to destabilize it.
I’m sorry: ignorant obstinacy drives me wild. It is ridiculous to ask for proof that this particular incident destabilizes the justice system. Crossing lines of authority, taking sides, being partial, meddling in a case is per se destabilizing, because it means we do not know who the advocates and arbiters are, and a lawyer for one side will never know whether someone in the supposedly impartial court is putting a thumb on the scales. You refuse to acknowledge the principles of ethics laid out in the Code that she obviously violated.
I have asked numerous lawyers and one judge about this case—every one of them agree that it is 1) unfortunate 2) good that the innocent prisoner was freed 3) wrong that a judge wouldn’t give some leeway to a pro se motion in this situation 4) a clear and intolerable breach of the rules for her to intervene in the case 5) imperative that such an employee be dropped to preserve the integrity of the system.
Many of them also opine that the average member of the public will never comprehend the ethical imperatives involved. I’m not ready to concede that, but I have concluded that you won’t ever comprehend it.
Jack, Sorry if this doesn’t show up under your last comment.
“chain of command”
Chain of command refers to going to someone above or someone outside of your immediate supervisor. She did not do this.
“don’t meddle outside your expertise,”
It was both her job and her expertise to handle court documents. I believe your complaint here is that she routed a document improperly to a client.
“don’t undermine your superior,”
If your superior is doing something wrong, not illegal necessarily, but wrong, you should do something about it. You address punishment for acting on a higher cause next, so I’ll address that there as well.
“and finally, a basic ethics rule: if you feel you have to break a rule in the interest of a higher value, be prepared to accept the penalties”.
Maybe you can explain this one to me. You claim this site is to educate us about ethics, but just off-hand, I can’t see a reason for punishing someone for doing right? What is the reasoning behind the need to punish someone who did a good thing. I just don’t accept that. And I’m not alone. The idea of whistle-blower protection laws is to protect whistle-blowers who expose company corruption from retaliation by those companies. The laws basically say that someone who did right, even if it violates the company rules, cannot be punished for breaking those rules.
So if multiple state and federal governments agree with me that good deeds should not be punished, how can the field of Ethics think that’s a good thing?
In fact, now that I think about it, I wonder if she would be covered by those laws, since it was indirectly through her actions that the corruption of her boss was exposed?
So I guess my question is, how can the field of ethics endorse a position that multiple state and federal laws reject? By what reasoning does Ethics endorse the punishment of someone who does good. And don’t just come back with “you’re a consequentialist, you believe the ends justify the means.” Because when it comes to corruption, state and federal whistle-blower laws agree that, yes, the ends do justify the means.
1. Chain of command also is involved when one engages in unapproved actions that normally would require approval—which she would never get for this conduct.
2. “It was both her job and her expertise to handle court documents” That’s a deceitful description. Handling documents means processing them, not using them arbitrarily to assist specif defendants. Court clerks do not have authority, nor is it their function, to give documents unasked to litigants to assist their particular cause.
3. “If your superior is doing something wrong, not illegal necessarily, but wrong, you should do something about it.” You are deluded. No subordinate is in place to second guess their superior—as a non-lawyer, she has no idea whether a judge is right or wrong, and has no authority to make that judgment or act on it—nor should she. If she thought the judge was doing something improper (he was not—it was within his authority and discretion), her FIRST obligation, and she cannot avoid it, was to tell him her objections and why she was troubled. She did not.
4. “I can’t see a reason for punishing someone for doing right”-— I am not going to write this again. She is violated for breaking the rule. Not for the results of it. The fact that you refuse to see the dichotomy is why you are confused.
5. “What is the reasoning behind the need to punish someone who did a good thing.” ARGGH!!! Because everyone thinks they know what is right, and what That they do is justified. The threshold “right” is following societal and organizational rules and laws. If a law or rule doesn’t work, you change it, you don’t violate it. What you are advocating is pure, subjective, situational ethics. Murderers often think what they do is “right.” You really think anyone should just do what they think is “good” regardless of rules, laws and policies, and we should then retroactively decide case by case whether it was really “good” before they suffer any consequences? That’s anarchy.
6. “And I’m not alone.” So what? Yes, there are lots of confused, confidently unethical people out there. That’s a problem, not a validation.
7. “The idea of whistle-blower protection laws is to protect whistle-blowers…So if multiple state and federal governments agree with me that good deeds should not be punished, how can the field of Ethics think that’s a good thing?” Stop it. This wasn’t whistleblowing. There was no corruption. There was no illegal activity. No whistleblower law on earth would apply to her or protect her.
8. “In fact, now that I think about it, I wonder if she would be covered by those laws, since it was indirectly through her actions that the corruption of her boss was exposed?” Stop think about it. They wouldn’t apply. Do you know what corruption is? There was no corruption. The judge was being a jerk—they will do that.
9.”So I guess my question is, how can the field of ethics endorse a position that multiple state and federal laws reject?”
You are hopeless.
Ok, now I understand why I have such a hard time with Snyder being fired, and with why you and I don’t see eye to eye on this. I believe that one of your first principles is wrong. You state that she was fired for violating a rule against giving legal advice. But this is wrong. She continued to be happily employed for months after the judge became aware that someone had given the prisoner a proper template, and he didn’t care enough to ask who. He didn’t care. Later on, after that prisoner was exonerated and the public found out that this judge had spent the last few years denying this prisoner his chance at justice, well yeah, he cared then. After having his office track down who counseled the prisoner, he then fired her. He didn’t fire her for giving advice; he fired her in retaliation for causing him embarrassment.
The laws of our nation are codifications of the Ethical principles that we as a nation have agreed are important guidance for moral behavior. It’s Ethically wrong to murder, it’s Ethically wrong to steal, it’s Ethically wrong to assault someone and it’s Ethically wrong to use an internal company rule as a justification to retaliate against an employee who exposed wrong-doing, EVEN IF the employee actually violated that rule.
You were absolutely right that the judge did nothing illegal and therefore the whistle-blower laws don’t cover her. But we are not in a court of law. The Ethical underpinnings of the whistle-blower laws apply to Ethical deliberations just as surely as the whistle-blower laws apply to Legal deliberations. We as a nation have decided that it is wrong to retaliate against an employee for exposing wrong-doing. Legally wrong for legal wrong-doing, and Ethically wrong for Ethical wrong-doing.
The statement “The judge’s firing of her was correct” would only be true if this was a forum discussing the Law. This is a forum discussing Ethics. The Judge firing her in retaliation was Ethically wrong, as this nation has decided.
No, the WB laws really don’t…they are narrow for a reason. Few people Can be trusted to make sound judgments about right and wrong, and the chain of command roughly sets out whose judgement is more trustworthy. You’re advocating chaos.
The judge was wrong not to take immediate action to find out if someone on his staff crossed the line, and if he only acted as vengeance, his motives were unethical. I said I would fire Snyder for the right reasons.If he fired her for the wrong ones, it doesn’t mean he still didn’t do the right thing.
Well, it sounds like were almost in agreement. Getting closer anyways.
At this point our difference seems to be what argument you’re making.
A. She should be fired.
B. She should be fired by the Judge.
You are trying to be clever by including Sharon Snyder, but leave out the judge who fired her. You are trying to get your liver nutrients without having to eat the liver. It’s ok to eat the liver. It’s good for you.
If Sharon Snyder had been fired for giving legal advice in violation of Canon 7, then yes, I agree with you 100% that it was an Ethical firing. If that’s the argument you’re making, then yes, I agree with you.
But, while that in itself is a valid argument, you’ve divorced it from what really happened. The conflict we are having is that all of us posters here are arguing about what really happened, and you are not. IF you are content with arguing in abstract, then yes, you are right.
But if that’s the case, I’ll have to conclude that you’re more concerned with being right than discussing Ethics.
Jack upon re-reading my comment I realized I’ve slightly mis-stated your position. Your actual argument is that “Sharon Snyder deserved to be fired for offering legal advice in violation of Canon 7.”
I have a lot of problems with that statement, but just for arguments sake, let’s assume it’s true. Who’s going to do the firing? The judge recused himself from being able to fire her when he put himself in the position of it being a retaliatory firing. Who else would fire her? Sure, if that statement is correct, then your position would be correct. But you’re still arguing in abstract. No one else here is arguing the same point you are. Even if you’re right, you’re talking to yourself.
Again, if that really the point you’re trying to make, I’ll have to conclude that you’re more concerned with appearing clever than discussing Ethics.
You focus on an issue that 1) isn’t ethics related and 2) doesn’t relate to the topic of the post, and I’m the problem? That’s rich. The topic was whether it was ethical to fire the woman, and I said I would have fired her too, and why. Your argument is like saying, “But you couldn’t fire her, because you don’t work there.” How she is fired is a procedural question, and that neither interests me nor a proper topic for an ethics blog. I don’t care whether or how she is fired or who fires her. The ethics issue involves why she deserves to be fired.
The post wasn’t about the judge, and the judge’s conduct is none of Sharon’s business unless she has proof of actual corruption. If the judge is abusing his discretion, she’s still not the one to address it. It’s a bogus issue. Insisting that the discussion stick to the topic of the post isn’t being clever, it is called “moderation.”
“You focus on an issue that 1) isn’t ethics related and 2) doesn’t relate to the topic of the post, and I’m the problem? That’s rich.”
My focus is on the issue that the judge fired Snyder in retaliation.
1. My focus is Ethically related. Retaliation for exposure is such a strong Ethical problem that society felt that preventing it was worth encoding into law. You yourself admitted as much earlier.
“and if he only acted as vengeance, his motives were unethical.”
2. The subject of your post may have been “Snyder deserved to be punished.” But the purpose of your post is not that. The purpose of your post is to show how foolish society is for criticizing the judge who did the punishing. You make this post, cleverly arguing your self-evident point without bringing the judge into it. And then when we try argue with you, your able to keep saying “My post isn’t talking about the judge’s actions. My focus is on my point that rule breakers should be punished.” So you are able to make all the points you want, and never be held accountable because it’s self-evident that “rule breakers should be punished.”
Regardless of your heading, your post absolutely is about the judge firing Snyder. Or rather, society’s reaction to that firing. The judge was not right to fire her in retaliation. And to your point earlier, that he was right to fire her, even if it was for the wrong reason. That smacks of the same consequentialism that you accuse your posters of; The ends (her getting fired) justifies the means (firing her in retaliation)
I understand the problem—you can’t read. Here’s what I wrote in summary:
“Yes…it all turned out well. Snyder was forced to leave some months before she planned, but her pension, we are told, is intact. An unjustly imprisoned man is free. A judge of questionable judgment is under special scrutiny. Nonetheless—and a majority of the public has trouble with this key ethical concept—just because conduct was undertaken for admirable reasons and has good results does not make that conduct ethical.
“It also has trouble with this one: just because the correct conduct is motivated by unethical instincts (I think the suspicion that Snyder was fired in part because she embarrassed the judge is well founded) doesn’t make it unethical.
“Snyder should have been fired.”
I did include the judge, and I never suggested that the public and media’s knee-jerk response was foolish. In fact, I show in the post that I understand it and am sympathetic.
Your post reads:
“Snyder should have been fired.”
“I did include the judge”
You missed or ignored my point. Your argument “Snyder should have been fired,” leaves out mention of the judge. Otherwise, it would read “Snyder should have been fired by the Judge.” So yes, I can read just fine. Leaving the judge out of your statement allows you admonish the public for criticizing the judge, without the need to defend yourself.
As an example, you’ve said “The judge was right to fire her.”
I said, no, the judge was retaliating, and so was wrong.
Then you said “The judge is irrelevant. I’m only saying that “Snyder should have been fired.”
You use you’re original statement leaving out the judge as a means to retreat to safety from both your own positions and the unstated purpose of this column. Which is to educate the public for not understanding the Ethics of her firing. But the public was never upset about her being fired, they were upset about her being fired by this judge in retaliation.
You can cling to your abstract “rule breakers should be punished”, but it’s not useful in educating the public about the Ethics of this situation. Which is the stated purpose of this blog. That is because, by leaving out the judge, you’re no longer talking about THIS situation.
“Snyder should have been fired.”
“Snyder should have been fired by this judge”
They are not equivalent. If you insist on arguing that “Snyder should have been fired”, you won’t convince anyone of anything, but less educate someone. The purpose of your column will not be fulfilled.
You’re done!
This—“You use you’re original statement leaving out the judge as a means to retreat to safety from both your own positions and the unstated purpose of this column. Which is to educate the public for not understanding the Ethics of her firing. But the public was never upset about her being fired, they were upset about her being fired by this judge in retaliation.”—is flat out untrue. I have about 50 articles on the topic. The outrage is based on a “she was a hero, and she’s being fired anyway!” You are assuming that the outrage is based on a theory of vengeance. I can’t intelligently discuss that (and neither have you) because there is nothing but speculation about that motive. Since the firing is justified on the merits, the ethics of retaliatory firings aren’t raised her. I said I would have fired her, and I have no reason to retaliate.
Fist you said she was a whistleblower, now you’re making the bizarre argument about what the real controvery is—which, by the way, most of the commenters arguing here don’t embrace—they think she should get way with breaking the rules. And you are telling me what I should be writing about, which is as presumptuous as it is offensive. Don’t. Go write your own blog. I pick the issues, and you misunderstand them. Those are OUR respective roles.
I would like to hear the impassioned, misguided defenders of Snyder because “she did good” explain why their argument would be any different if the clerk took extraordinary action to make sure someone she just knew was guilty and deserved to be convicted—George Zimmerman, say—and made sure the justice system achieved what she thought was the “right” result by, say, tampering with evidence or documents. Because there is no difference. Both are equally wrong.
The lady in this case did not tamper with any DNA evidence.
Quite so! She provided information which enabled Nelson to have the DNA tested. Nelson’s sister called the court, as I understand it, to see what information would be required for such requests. Sounds perfectly legit to me.
How he could conclude that would be as wrong as tampering with the evidence is anyone’s guess.
Michael, you can’t seriously miss the point that badly. I know you’re smarter than that.
You made a very bad analogy.
a more appropriate analogy would have been if a clerk at the Zimmerman trial court advised the prosecutor on the subject of filing a motion (which is exactly what the clerk did in this case.)
I didn’t make the analogy you accused me of. My point was that if a clerk is “doing right” by surreptitiously helping one side, the defense, then it must be right t help the other side too, to conflict someone the clerk “just knows is guilty.” But the court personnel MUST BE IMPARTIAL.
HOW the clerk might help the prosecution is incidental to what I was comparing.
If the clerk is being kicked to the curb for over-extending her authority then Judge David Byrn should also be removed from the bench for denying Robert Nelson his full Due Process rights.
It seems that once again another double standard is being displayed and the judge in his blatant misconduct and abusive actions gets treated as if he were nobility and therefore untouchable.
It just adds another layer of why so many people have distrust for judges, the bench and the laws.
How Judge Byrn can sleep at night knowing that he could have been very much instrumental in keeping an innocent man behind bars to complete a term of 70 years is beyond the realm of of common decency and conscious.
I think Byrn was wrong, but you don’t know what you’re talking about: there was no Due Process denial here. The prisoner was able to submit his motion, and the judge is within his discretion to reject it for not being in proper form. Meanwhile, whether or not the clerk should be fired is unrelated to Byrn’s fate. “If you don’t punish X for A, then it’s unfair to punish Y for B”: is an invalid statement, if A and B are independent acts and they both deserve punishment.