Judges Criticized For DWI Cases
By Jeff Proctor
Journal Staff Writer
Metropolitan Court has had plenty of critics in recent years over its handling, and high dismissal
rate, of DWI cases.
The most recent flap has come
from within.
Former Metro Judge Charles Barnhart in
letters to the editor and newspaper advertisements has criticized judges
at the state's busiest court.
Barnhart has accused
Chief Metro Judge Judith Nakamura and others of "wrongly (dismissing)
certain DWI cases by sidestepping" a rule the Supreme Court handed down in
January.
Barnhart agreed to retire last year after
admitting to a string of ethical breaches.
Nakamura
lodged the original complaint against Barnhart with the Judicial Standards
Commission and claims Barnhart's accusations are "about revenge. It's
personal, there's no doubt about that."
But Barnhart
is not alone in his criticism of Nakamura.
Deputy
District Attorney Gary Cade, who oversees DWI prosecutions in Metro Court,
said Nakamura has never enforced the so-called "hallway
rule."
The rule, which went into effect Jan. 1, is
an attempt to cut Metro Court's 33 percent dismissal rate in DWI cases by
addressing the problem of cases coming to trial without the witnesses
being interviewed.
The rule says that "if a witness
interview has not been conducted by the date of trial and the witness is
in the court or immediately available, the court shall order the interview
to be conducted at that time and proceed to trial."
Barnhart contends that, when the interviews have not been completed,
Nakamura instead of ordering a hallway interview suppresses officers'
testimony and orders the case to trial. More often than not, he says,
those cases are dismissed because prosecutors no longer have their key
witness.
Cade agrees, saying Nakamura at early court
proceedings uses pretrial scheduling orders in effect, setting deadlines
for the interviews. If the deadlines aren't met and the interviews aren't
finished, he said, she effectively dismisses the case by handcuffing
prosecutors.
"I believe (Nakamura) finds it more
efficient to file the orders than follow the Supreme Court's rule," he
said.
Nakamura said that prosecutors are always made
aware of the deadlines. When they're not met, she said she is more
inclined to take action such as suppressing officer testimony than to send
everyone into the hallway for interviews.
"When I
order them out into the hallway, it stops everything in my courtroom and,
potentially, one of my colleague's courtrooms, too," she said. "The
officer could be due in another courtroom for another judge. Sending them
all out into the hall is, quite frankly, rude."
Nakamura said her practice saves time and taxpayer money because cases
don't go to trial unless everyone is ready. She said she does abide by the
hallway rule "when it's appropriate."
"I have
written scheduling orders in place with a deadline, but when the state
does not ask for an extension which I will grant and simply decides to
play by a different set of rules, then I need to make a
decision.
"Sometimes that decision is suppressing an
officer's testimony."
