May an Alabama judge explain a criticized sentence after the appeal period expires?

Plain-English summary

A criminal sentence had drawn criticism as too severe. After the appeal period expired, the judge proposed explaining the sentencing rationale to a prominent critic and recusing from any later Rule 32 post-trial petition.

The Commission rejected the proposed explanation. Canon 3A(1) calls for a judge to remain unswayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. Drawing on earlier opinions about comments on decided cases, the Commission reasoned that the proposed response could cause the ruling to be questioned and raise disqualification issues in later proceedings.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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: Would an offer to recuse from a later Rule 32 petition make the explanation appropriate?

A: No. The Commission rejects the proposed explanation even with that offer.

Background and rules framework

The Commission applies Canon 3A(1) to the specific conduct in the request. It concludes that the proposed explanation is inappropriate even with the offer to recuse from a later Rule 32 petition.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3A(1).

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinions 80-86 and 85-247, comments on cases in which the judge participated.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 22-950: Television Roles

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-649
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

97-649
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
May 9, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of a judge’s explaining the rationale for imposing a sentence in a criminal matter where the time for appeal has expired. The sentence has been criticized as inappropriately severe and, as the price of explaining the rationale to one prominent critic, the judge would recuse himself from hearing a Rule 32 petition for post-trial relief. It is the opinion of the Commission that it would not be appropriate for a judge to explain the rationale underlying an imposed sentence to a critic of that sentence even where the judge is willing to recuse from hearing a Rule 32 petition if one is filed. Canon 3A(l) provides that, with respect to a judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, “A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. He should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.” In Advisory Opinion 80-86, the Commission concluded, “Except under the most extraordinary circumstances, a judge should refrain from commenting on specific cases in which he has participated, especially where such comment could compromise the validity of any ruling or order entered by him in such cases.” While this opinion was rendered in response to a question regarding a judge’s proposed statements during an election campaign, the Commission cited it in Advisory Opinion 85-247, where it concluded that judges should avoid comments on the trials of decided cases if such comments might cause the decision to be questioned or reflect poorly on the legal system. The proposed explanation would be offered in response to criticism, but it is part of a judge’s lot to bear such criticism, however misguided. To do otherwise might obligate a judge to offer an explanation anytime one of his or her rulings is criticized and thus raise the issue of disqualification in subsequent proceedings regarding the matter.