May a judge solicit a confidential letter from a crime victim after a guilty plea and before sentencing?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1982. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
After a criminal defendant pleaded guilty, the judge proposed asking the victim to write privately about the crime’s financial and emotional effects before sentencing, promising to keep the response confidential.
The Commission concluded that the proposed confidential solicitation would violate Canon 3A(4)’s restriction on ex parte communications in pending proceedings. It said the solicitation would not constitute an ex parte communication under that canon if the victim’s communication became part of the court file or presentence report.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1982, after the Alabama Supreme Court’s 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.
Common questions
Q: Why did the Commission reject the proposed confidential letter?
A: It found the solicitation to be an ex parte communication under Canon 3A(4).
Q: What treatment of the victim’s communication did it identify?
A: It said inclusion in the court file or presentence report would mean the solicitation was not an ex parte communication under that canon.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3A(4), including the right of legally interested persons to be heard and the restriction on initiating or considering ex parte communications in pending or impending proceedings.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3A(4)
See also
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 82-135
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
82-135
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
March 26, 1982
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether it is appropriate under the Canons of Judicial Ethics for a judge in a criminal case, after a plea of guilty, to solicit a confidential report from the victim regarding the crime. The solicitation from the victim is as follows: “I would appreciate it is you would write me prior to the sentencing date and tell me your feelings about this case. Please feel free to express your deepest emotions, and what effect, if any, this case has had on you, not only financially, but also emotionally. I am of the opinion that you have a right to be heard in this matter. Your reply will be kept in confidence.” From the facts presented, it is the opinion of the Commission that the solicitation in question would violate Canon 3A(4) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, that Canon provides: “A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.” Should any such communication from the victim be made a part of the court file or the pre-sentence report, the solicitation would not constitute an ex parte communication under this Canon. Very truly yours,
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1982. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace