Rafael Goyeneche Gets Back to me About Judging Judges!
There are 3 letters here, mine to him, his to me, and my response. I’ll attach the documents mentioned later.
Thanks for the response. I’m including your letter in my blog, it provides info I don’t and I appreciate it. You make very good points, but it doesn’t change the facts that influence the judges’ time beyond their control.
I do believe in rating public officials! Why not, they work on the public’s dime for the public good. I’m just not sure a fair system can be implemented given these other factors.
Keep up the great work! I really am very proud of you and the commission for the obvious good work you have done for a long time. Thanks for the documents, I’m reading them carefully and probably will throw those up on the blog also.
Once again thanks very much for getting back to me.
Thanks for your input on our recent Judicial Accountability Report and your kind words of praise for our organization.
I have reviewed your letters to the D.A. but our rating of the judges is not based on the numbers of jury trials or the time a judge take the bench.
The MCC has been reporting on judicial efficiency for over 15 years. Our reports track nationally recognized performance standards for the judiciary. I have attached a copy of our most recent report for your review.
Our reports provide objective and otherwise unavailable information on the judges of Criminal Court to the public and policy makers regarding the least understood and least transparent component of the criminal justice system. Judges are elected public officials and I believe they should be held accountable for their work. Our reports objectively and accurately reflect each judges efficiency in managing his/her respective docket.
The judges of Criminal District Court have approved the random allotment system that distributes the workload to each of the twelve (12) sections of court. Our reports track the work-in and work-out of Criminal District Court on a judge by judge basis. We go to great lengths to insure the accuracy of the data that we report.
I have also attached a copy of a National Center for State Courts (NCSC) report dated January 27, 2011 that was commissioned by the judge of Criminal District Court to access the “reasonableness and methodology” of our work. The NCSC found that the “specific performance measures applied by the MCC in its analyses of the Court are completely reasonable. They are wholly consistent with the measures that are nationally considered appropriate for trial court performance in criminal matters (pg. 3).”
I do not expect to change your opinion regarding the merits of rating the judiciary but I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to explain our rationale.
Rafael C. Goyeneche III
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Inc.
1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1060
New Orleans, LA 70112
From: David Eidler
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:21 PM
Subject: rating judges
Huge fan of the commission! It has done great watchdog work for decades, and I’m very proud of the organization. I cannot support rating judges, there are big factors that control the judges’ time out of their control.
I have a watch opp blog, and I’ve covered these issues when the D.A.rated judges earlier this year. He was poorly advised to rate judges, as you were. I wrote 3 letters to Cannizzaro detailing these points, here are links–
Go the navigate links on the right side of the page to click on the 2nd letter, and do the same to read the 3rd letter.
Thanks and good luck!!