New York Judge Resigns After Being Dismissed From Jury Duty for Admitting He Can’t be Impartial
“I know everybody come in front of me. I know they are guilty. They would not be in front of me.”
This is a pretty funny story. You have to remember that judges are regular and flawed people, too.
The Associated Press reports:
New York judge resigns after saying he can’t be on a jury since he thinks all defendants are guilty
An upstate New York judge has resigned after he got out of jury duty by claiming that he couldn’t be impartial — because he thought everyone brought before a court is guilty.
Richard T. Snyder, who had been a justice of the Petersburgh Town Court for about a decade, left his post after being charged with misconduct by a state judicial commission, officials said Tuesday.
According to court transcripts, Snyder tried to avoid serving on a jury in 2023 by first identifying himself as a judge and then saying, “I know everybody come in front of me. I know they are guilty. They would not be in front of me.”
He was eventually dismissed from serving on the jury after he continued to argue that he could not be impartial, saying “No. It would not be fair,” court transcripts from a special grand jury empanelment in Rensselaer County show.
The judge who was overseeing the jury selection reported Snyder to state officials.
At a judicial commission hearing the following year, Snyder said he understood that defendants are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty but that he still felt that people wouldn’t be in court if they didn’t commit crimes.
“I meant, that they were guilty because they did something wrong. But they’re not guilty ‘til they come to court. They’re innocent ’til proven guilty,” he told the commission.
“They did something wrong. That’s why they got a ticket. But they’re not guilty,” he added.
Snyder, who was elected as a justice, is not an attorney and has agreed to never serve as a judge again.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Am I correct in understanding that elected judges in New York don’t have to be attorneys? I thought it a given, at least in modern times, that judges had to be attorneys first. Can someone please enlighten me on this?
When I took Intro to NYS Criminal Code many years ago, they said that town judges did not have to be judges but at the superior (county) court level or higher they did have to be lawyers with a certain minimum number of years of practice behind them.
Real judges do have to be. This guy was what’s called a “justice”, in charge of a small-town local court with limited powers.
See Wikipedia:
“I know everybody come in front of me.” That statement tells me a lot about this judge.
“According to court transcripts…”
‘“I know everybody come in front of me.”‘
I’m not a lawyer, but having read more than one or two court transcripts, I’m sometimes amazed to find they bear any relation to the English language.
It’s a “protected dialect,” which is the whole point of illumination.
I used to type up transcripts for The Phil Donahue Show in my spare time. That’s when I found out how different the spoken language is from the written language. We use a lot of expression, both verbal and facial, to clarify meaning. In written accounts, all meaning is strictly within the words. Educated people would say the silliest things in the heat of an argument. The funniest moments were the yes I did. – no you didn’t, did-didn’t, and then suddenly they would switch positions, and continue to argue with the same passion, unaware of what they were actually saying.
It’s a small town, with a population of 1,372. He likely does know almost everyone who appears before him, except the occasional unlucky out-of-towner.
““They did something wrong. That’s why they got a ticket. But they’re not guilty,” he added.”
That is the strangest and most convoluted logic out of a Judge I’ve heard in some time. I hope he realizes he just threw every guilty verdict he ever made right out the window.
He reveals that he thinks “guilty” and “not guilty” are purely formal terms, and even if someone did what they’re accused of they’re still “not guilty” until there is a verdict against them.
So he thinks everyone who comes before him is actually guilty in the ordinary sense, but not in the formal sense. Which means he completely doesn’t get the fundamental concept that a trier of fact must always start with the null hypothesis, that the accused is actually innocent, and must then examine the evidence to see whether it changes his mind.
It’s like “we give everybody a fair trial before we hang them.”