Legal News

Spotlight on Emmet Sullivan: An (Often) Self-Correcting Judge

By Ashby Jones

He plays tennis “aggressively,” loves the Redskins and gardening and takes pride in the fact that he’s a lifelong Washingtonian. These are some of the nice details baked into a WaPo profile out Friday on federal district court judge Emmet Sullivan, the man who presided over the Ted Stevens trial — and raked the government over the coals earlier this week for prosecutorial misconduct.

But for our money, the takeaway from the profile transcends its subject: that judges are, yes, people just like the rest of us. The good ones, one might argue, understand that and self-correct when they let their emotions or personal interests interfere with the workings of justice.

Cheesy as all this might sound, it’s well illustrated in the profile. According to the story, Sullivan can let his temper get the best of him, causing him to make the occasional odd ruling. Thing is, he seems to rein it in pretty quickly.

For instance, according to the story, during a critical phase of the Stevens trial, the judge grew upset that prosecutors presented faulty business records to the jury. He said he was going to tell jurors that prosecutors had introduced evidence that they “knew was not true,” an instruction that could undercut their credibility. The next day, however, Sullivan was more restrained, telling the jury to ignore the documents without calling attention to prosecutors’ motives.

Furthermore, last year, an agitated Sullivan ordered a 61-year-old man accused of tax fraud to jail before his sentencing, something even prosecutors had not requested. A few days later, the judge reversed course and released the man.

During the trial of a burglary suspect in the mid-1980s, Sullivan walked off the bench in disgust after a police officer gave conflicting testimony, said Roscoe Howard, a friend and former federal prosecutor. After calming down, Sullivan declared a mistrial because he had prejudiced the case. A few days later, the judge reversed course and released the man.

But heading into what could be called phase two of the Ted Stevens case — the investigation and possible prosecution of six prosecutors — Judge Sullivan may have already put himself out there too far. His comments could keep him from presiding over the case going forward.

“Unfortunately, I can’t trust the government,” he said earlier this week, adding that “someone’s going to pay a price.”

“It’s clear to me that he wants to keep control of this,” said NYU’s Stephen Gillers. “But it’s also clear to me that he can’t.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 10, 2009 (boomark / email).