NCJ Number
110224
Date Published
1987
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This document examines the issue of whether or not judicial disciplinary boards should conduct their business in secret or in public.
Abstract
Due to the Governor's Anti-Crime Council (Massachusetts) report on incidents of questionable judicial behavior in cases involving matters within the purview of the Abuse Prevention Act and, specifically, the alleged insensitivity of a district court judge in adjudicating a wife abuse case, there has been a recent surge of criticism of the Massachusetts judiciary. The Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints against the judiciary, is bound by law to strict confidentiality at all times. The legislature has before it several bills that propose changes in the Commission's secret proceedings such as public proceedings and public judicial responses to accusations. Opponents of strict confidentiality emphasize that such rules are in conflict with the public's interest in, and right of access to, information concerning officials and operations. Proponents maintain that confidentiality is essential to a commission's operations and assert that a number of functions are served by such policy, including protecting reputations of innocent judges from frivolous and malicious complaints and protecting commission members from external influence or pressure. A closer examination of these and other claims is provided, as is a discussion of legal doctrine of confidentiality. 40 footnotes and 1 table.