Adopting the Judicial Deliberations Privilege PDF Download

Author: Charles Sorenson
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 11

Get Book

Book Description
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is the most recent court to join the small number of courts that expressly have adopted the judicial deliberations privilege. The privilege, which is well-grounded in “common-law and constitutional jurisprudence and [] precedents,” protects the deliberative processes of a judge from intrusion. In re Enforcement of a Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162, 163 (2012), involved the efforts of a special prosecutor for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to obtain testimony and documents from the petitioner, a trial court judge being investigated for alleged misconduct. The judge resisted producing the documents and giving testimony, asserting that the information and testimony sought was shielded by a privilege for his deliberative communications and thoughts. The matter came before the Supreme Judicial Court when the judge filed motions for a protective order and to quash the subpoena that had been issued. In its unanimous opinion, the court undertook a thorough analysis of the issue. The court recognized that deciding whether the privilege should be adopted and determining the scope of that privilege required a careful evaluation of the values served by the privilege and the cost to society of the application of that privilege. The court concluded that a judicial deliberations privilege is “necessary to the finality, integrity and quality of judicial decisions” and would “not overly impede the commission's investigations.” The court also held that the privilege was absolute - that is, in deciding whether to apply the privilege there will be no ad hoc balancing of the need for the information against the values served by the privilege. Once it is determined that information is within the scope of the privilege, it applies.This article reviews the history and precedents pertaining to the judicial deliberations privilege, and examines the Supreme Judicial Court's decision formally adopting the privilege. The article concludes that the court has properly balanced the important values served by the privilege against the recognized need to hold judges accountable for misconduct. In doing so, the court has created a robust privilege with a limited scope. The court's decision should serve as an influential precedent for courts that face this issue in the future.