Although most of the lay public tend to believe that a hearing before a judge is fair and impartial, this often is not the case. The truth of the situation is difficult to quantify, but still requires exposition. Each judge runs his or her court as a personal fiefdom. We take for granted that the generalities of law should follow in each court as a standard repertoire. This is not always so. A given judge can bring his or her own prejudice or opinion to any case, allow or disallow testimony or evidence, misrepresent the letter of the law simply because that is his or her way of doing things. We only have to remember the difficulties that Judge Ito experienced in the trial of O.J. Simpson to understand this to be true. Many of the dramatic episodes that were played out in Judge Ito=s court would not have been allowed in another judges court. The application of judicial privilege is like saying that personality defines the governance and fairness of a trial. The time for judicial privilege has passed. At the very least, new rules and procedures need to be in place to correct the imbalances that will inevitably occur.
There is in the United States a time honored tradition of championing an independent court. In a close reading of the Federalist Papers No. 81 a strong case is made to the people of a new nation that the judiciary needs to stand apart from the other branches of government, in order to remain as unbiased as possible(Federalist Papers No.*1).
Like understanding the difference between the intent and the letter of the law, it may be just as difficult to understand the difference between an independent court of law and a court of law in which judicial privilege has too much sway.
In the course of litigation, two fundamental principles of justice often come into conflict with each other. Those principles concer
...