I am writing in response to the question Pearl Nelson raised in her letter to the editor last week: Why can’t private citizens speak to judges?

Most frequently, when members of the public want to communicate privately with a judge, it is because of personal interest in a current or pending court case and a desire to influence the judge’s decision. They don’t want the “other side” to know what they have to say, or even that they talked to the judge, Obviously, this is not appropriate. The Code of Judicial Conduct states in part: “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter.”

Judges need information about the matters they decide, and there are many ways to gather it, including: testimony at trials where everyone hears what is said and witnesses are subject to cross-examination, written reports where all parties see the reports and have the opportunity to object to the information if it is not accurate. Victim impact statements in which crime victims can make recommendations for sentencing and seek restitution for harm caused them, and persons who support a criminal defendant have the opportunity to speak at the sentencing hearing. There is also an appellate process available.

Almost all court hearings are open to the public, and the public is welcome to attend. However, you will not be invited to share your thoughts during the proceedings.

At the end of the day, it is essential that all members of the public have confidence in the courts. It is vital that citizens who have had a trial or hearing, even if they did not get the result they desired, realize that they were given a fair and impartial opportunity. To this end, there cannot be any secret communication with the judge.

John Chesterman

judge

District Court

Albert Lea