How Does, Two Judges For A Capital Case, Work

Factual Questions
1

I was reading about the Hall/Mills Murders and I looked it up in the Chicago Tribune Archive as well.

In the Chicago Tribune I noticed this:

I got to wondering, how does that work exactly. I am assuming this is no longer a law in New Jersey, and I assume at the time they had two judges because a capital crime is serious enough that two judges would do the most to prevent errors.

But how does that work exactly? Do both judges rule on objections for instance? What if they disagree? How would they co-oridinate? Or does one judge just preside and the other backs up only if needed?

Thanks

2

Don’t know what New Jersey murder law was in the Twenties.

I’ve never heard of a two-judge panel in any American court. Most courts of appeals, both Federal and state, sit in panels of three, for the obvious reason that you can’t then have a tie vote. There are or were also a very limited set of civil rights cases which used to be heard by panels of three U.S. district court judges, but I don’t know if they still do that.

In Ohio today, a single judge will preside at all types of murder trials unless, in a capital case, the defendant decides he wants a bench and not a jury trial. Some defendants do this if the facts of the case are particularly shocking and might inflame a jury; judges are thought to be calmer and more professional in such cases, although there are always exceptions. Three judges will then be randomly assigned to the case. IIRC, the judge who was first assigned to the case at the time of arraignment acts as the chief judge of the panel, ruling on all pretrial motions, objections at trial, evidentiary rulings and so forth. Guilt is determined by a unanimous vote of the three judges; otherwise, the defendant is found not guilty. If the judges find the defendant guilty, they must also unanimously agree if the death penalty is to be imposed; otherwise, the defendant is sentenced to life without parole. The rationale for this is that no single individual, even a judge, should have the power of life or death over another person. Either you have a judge and jury, or you have three judges.

A judge who’s sat on these panels tells me that the judges invariably work by consensus, and he’s never heard of any who had a serious disagreement or whose work suffered from clashing personalities.

3

Never heard of this practice.

How’s that for useful?

4

It used to happen in the early years of the federal court system, when the judges of the Supreme Court were required to act as circuit judges. In some cases, the Supreme Court judge would sit with the local district court judge to try cases.

5

Seconded. :smiley:

6

It also used to be the practice in the Canadian North-West Territories when the court system was first being set up. Originally, to try major crimes, the bench was composed of a stipendiary magistrate of the North-West Territories and a judge of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench. Later on, this was changed so that the bench would be composed of a stipendiary magistrate and a justice of the peace. The most famous case tried under these provisions was R. v. Riel, where Louis Riel was tried and convicted by a court composed of a stipendiary magistrate and a justice of the peace, sitting with a 6-man jury. He was found guilty and condemned to death.

In England, the divisional court of the High Court of Justice used to sit with only two judges until the early part of the 20th century. There was one court case where the issue came up of what to do when the two judges disagreed on some point. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

7

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]

[Quote=Elendil’s Heir]

I’ve never heard of a two-judge panel in any American court.
[/QUOTE]

It used to happen in the early years of the federal court system, when the judges of the Supreme Court were required to act as circuit judges. In some cases, the Supreme Court judge would sit with the local district court judge to try cases.
[/QUOTE]

Did a bit of research - my rusty memory seems to be correct.

When Justice Chase of the Supreme Court was impeached in 1804, it was in relation to conduct as a trial judge on circuit, not as an appellate judge. The articles of impeachment related to two different trials (plus a grand jury charge).

The first was the Fries trial, where Mr. Fries was on trial for treason (which I assume was a capital charge). The bench was composed of Justice Chase, on circuit, and Judge Peters, the local district court judge. They gave an advance ruling at the beginning of the trial as to what treason consisted, as a matter of law. Mr. Fries’ defence counsel objected to having the two judges rule on this key point without even having heard submissions on the law from counsel, and withdrew. That ruling from the two judges was the basis of one of the eight articles of impeachment against Justice Chase. (See Rehnquist, Grand Inquests, at p. 63.)

The second was the Callender trial, where Mr. Callender was on trial for sedition. The articles of impeachment against Justice Chase in relation to this trial were all connected to the manner in which he ruled on various procedural matters. The bench in this trial was composed of Justice Chase and District Judge Griffin (Rehnquist, p. 77).

Rehnquist refers peripherally (at p. 77) to the issue raised by Markxxx:

[QUOTE=Chief Justice Rehnquist]
One of the points made by Chase in his defence to the charges based on each of these trials was that if he was guilty, surely Judge Peters, in the case of Fries, and Judge Griffin, in the case of Callender, were equally guilty. Judging from the testimony adduced, Chase was the sort of person whose personality, combined with his superior office, led him to dominate the proceedings. During the Callender trial he appears to have conferred on occasion, sotto voce, with Griffin, but the latter comers across as very much a junior partner.
[/QUOTE]

So, it sounds as if in theory both judges were equal on the bench, but in practice, the SCOTUS judge carried more weight.