A Kansas City, Mo. court clerk, Sharon Snyder, was fired after 34 years on the job, without losing her pension, for ostensibly giving legal advice.
The case involved a man wrongly convicted of rape in 1984. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison with the sentence to begin running after his convictions for robbery. So a few years ago he started serving time for the rape and his sister encountered the court clerk after the prisoner was denied the right to have DNA evidence examined to prove his innocence. The clerk gave the sister a copy of a successful request with the same judge, they followed the example and the petition was successful, eventually resulting in his release.
When the judge was informed about the clerk’s role in the case he fired her. Does a judge have the power to fire a civil servant? Any judge or just a circuit court judge? This is absolutely mind boggling to me, though I do understand that we don’t want court clerks giving out legal advice.
That’s going to vary widely by jurisdiction. In my state, most court clerks are elected officials, same as most judges. Neither can fire the other.
I’d like to see a link with more details in the case you mention. In my state, most court files are matters of public record, and any citizen may inspect and/or copy documents found therein. It is not exactly common, but clerks can provide a copy of a successful pleading upon request, and some do, without it being considered the unauthorized practice of law.
After reading that link, I did a little searching, and found this article which gives a little more detail. It looks like she was not fired merely for providing a copy of a pleading. It’s not entirely clear, but the article mentions that this particular case was “under seal”, which means a judge has restricted access to the file, and the contents of the file are not to be discussed with unauthorized parties. Snyder had access to the file as part of her official duties, and appears to have violated the seal by discussing the case with the defendant’s sister, in addition to providing the successful pleading from another file. The judge apparently construed providing the sample pleading to be recommending a course of action.
Makes a case for better review for cases ‘under seal’ before a judge can just say it is so when there is a possibility of DNA tech for cases like this.
Being able to keep someone in prison without the access to getting this testing seems somehow wrong. I am sure there are some good reasons for locking up a case but in this situation, I think the system is really unfair and easily misused. YMMV
The second article mentions the court administrator, but then says the firing letter came from the judge. I would be surprised if these officers of the court “work for” the judge, more likely they work for the court administrator and the judge’s letter was a complaint to the court administrator which he then acted on?
In a way the judge is right, a court official should not be offering advice to defendants. If she had told the guy “the judge is a hard-ass, if you plead guilty you’ll get a quarter the sentence you might get at trial” - then what happens if the defendant claims later he was following the court’s advice? An official of the court may be seen as acting as an agent of the state, when they are just offering personal opinions. An appeal, a retrial, all the cost involved…
Plus she showed sealed records to the public. No explanation, though, why a request for DNA examination would be sealed. the whole point of the legal system is openness.
Having said that, the legal system anywhere seems to have a strong hostility to the idea they might have made mistakes, and actively fights any attempt to reconsider cases, because, after all, it’s only some low-life’s freedom and reputation at stake. Some states, IIRC, were even passing laws making it almost impossible to get new DNA tests for old crimes like this one. I have seen the news on a few of the fights to get wrongfully convicted people released here in Canada, and it’s just as difficult.
it’s pretty sad when a request to re-examine evidence in a life sentence is denied (twice) with the excuse apparently “you’re not asking me properly”.
Plus, judges have an incredibly amount of arbitrary power, and many are not above acting out like petulant children since there are very few restraints on their power. I suspect the Court administrator “retired” the lady even if he did not agree (maybe, maybe not) because the judge threw a shit-fit tantrum and even the guy in charge of the court building has lot less power than a judge.
I could be wrong but I don’t think there is any evidence that she showed sealed records to the public. My understanding is that the case itself was under seal and thus anyone involved was forbidden to discuss it. It’s a fine line. I wrote the governor about it. He has not written back.
It is my contention she worked FOR the judge, subject to dismissal “at will” or if she was a Classified employee, surely the Judge knows (or should know that is) if the termination was legal.
Depending on the state, both the judicial AND the administrative side of the court may be under the umbrella of its Chief Judge, and major disciplinary actions related to the canons of judiciary conduct have to be issued by the Judge.
I agree that the person in question was probably not The Clerk, but just a clerk and likely that it’s a “position of trust” appointment, where at the very least any judge has the choice to not want that person working in or around his courtroom, and to demand disciplinary action from the chief judge or the administrator. Judiciary staff are subject to stricter codes of conduct and ethics rules than your average civil servant, and those regulations are under the authority of the judges.
In any case she keeps her pension making it more like a forced-retirement event, which suggests that she was vested and it would take too much effort and time for the process to take it from her, when all you want is to have her gone from your courtroom, and they said to themselves “well, we can’t keep her around after she did this, we need to make it clear this is not to be done, but no need to be gratuituous granny-stomping dicks about it”.
And yes, judges and prosecutors are very jealous of the finality/presumption of correction of their actions and will seem to the layman to be willing to be broken on the rack before the words “but we may have been wrong” cross their lips. But they’re usually **expected **to stand by their decisions, as part of the rules.
I understood from the article that she showed information from a different sealed case, not the case of the fellow in the article who was exonerated. She showed his sister a document from the other case that (a) a petition for DNA test can be filed (b) this is how it’s done and (c) done this way, it will likely be approved.
Like I said, it’s pretty sad when the reason a request to re-examine evidence is rejected when apparently the excuse is “you didn’t ask properly”. It’s about a man’s freedom and a now very inexpensive test. The request itself is very simple - there’s a piece of (key?) evidence that could not be tested at the time, can now be tested for under $1000 that can help determine if the person is responsible for the crime. Why the need to jump through legal hoops?