A View from the Bench
Judge Ronald E. Bush
Sixth Judicial District

Judges are--sometimes by nature but more often by design--solitary, mysterious creatures. We are given the responsibility to decide disputes of all sorts, to mete out sentences to convicted criminals and to unravel the most pickled and thorny problems of our communities. In addition, we are expected to be scrupulously fair and unbiased as we do that work. We try to meet those expectations every day.

The ethical canons that govern our work tend to foster our cloistered existence. A judge’s most important responsibility is to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. We must avoid not just impropriety, but also even the appearance of impropriety. We must conduct ourselves at all times in a manner that does not detract from public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. We are to decide our cases on evidence and argument brought before us in an open and fair manner, so that our decisions and the record they are based upon can be reviewed by higher courts and citizens alike. As a rule, we are not to initiate, permit or consider information or communications that are made outside the presence of the parties to the cases before us.

We are not to make any public comment about a pending or forthcoming proceeding that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of the case or otherwise impair its fairness, or even to make any non-public statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. Generally, that means that we don’t ever comment about a case. In most instances, even if we have made a decision that ends the case in our particular court, there is always that possibility that some higher court might take up the case on appeal, or the case might come back to us again if a higher court disagreed with our ruling. Usually, even if we’re raked across the coals for some decision we’ve made along the way, we’ll still stand mute rather than reply.

So, most of the time we either have nothing to say or, even if we did, we think it is inappropriate for us to say anything. Most cases that come before a judge have a good deal of gray and not a lot of black and white. Civil lawsuit and criminal cases may not always lend themselves well to short descriptions, sound bites or simple answers. Often the cases that draw the most public attention are complicated, both factually and legally. Sometimes when the media reports on those cases, we think that the reporting needs more detail or that the description of the legal issues is confusing. When we draw those conclusions, we may not fully understand that news reporting doesn’t always have the luxury of days and sometimes weeks of thought and consideration that the judge may applied to the case. We may overlook that fact that print journalism and radio/television journalism have limited “space” or “time” to report about the case. We may forget that most reporters have no training in the law. We should remember that, much like our own jobs, the best reporting sometimes hides the fact that it is much harder than it may appear.

We circle each other a bit warily sometimes, like the previously acquainted skunk and dog who want to be cordial with each other, but not necessarily hiking buddies. You’d like to have more information, because you want your reporting to be complete. You’re used to getting an “inside” scoop from other sources. What’s so special about the court system to think that such inside information shouldn’t be available from the courthouse? We, on the other hand, want the people involved in our cases and the public to know that we make decisions on the record in the file and as presented in the courtroom and nothing more. We want the parties to a case and the public to understand that our court is not a court of public opinion. Our court is a court that seeks justice based upon the rule of law.

If you ask, we’ll try to make sure you know how to follow when and where proceedings will occur in open court and when we issue our decisions. If you ask, we may try to explain the nature of the judicial procedures, without commenting upon the issues or the results in a particular case. Perhaps, if you ask, we will summarize our decisions in writing, so that you can be more assured that you’re reporting on the effect of the decision and the nature of the legal rulings is more complete and accurate. Perhaps, if you ask, you can bring your camera into the courtroom, making sure you follow the rules intended to make cameras an inanimate tool of your reporting rather than the center of attention.

Each judge may approach these issues differently, but an open line of communication on such matters is always a good thing. There are many good sources for you to draw upon. The administrative office of the Idaho courts, located in Boise, has information about the organization of Idaho courts, the judges, and how to access opinions of the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals. Each judicial district has a trial court administrator who is familiar with the operations of the local courts. Similarly, each judicial district has an administrative district judge who is responsible, along with the trial court administrator, for the management of the courts in that district. The Media Guide to the Courts you are now reading is filled with useful information for the journalist.

The power and strength of our judicial system as a co-equal third branch of government rest in large part upon the public’s confidence that our courts are fair and open. The work of the media in reporting upon the work of our courts is vitally important to maintaining that public confidence. Therefore, we have a shared interest in ensuring that your work accurately describes our work, for everyone to see. So, we’ll try to walk down the courtroom corridors with you as far as we properly can do so. And, we’ll keep our skunk tails tucked away if you’ll do the same.