Could a judge send a character letter to a sentencing judge at a defendant’s or lawyer’s request?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A district judge was asked by a lifelong friend facing federal sentencing and by the friend’s lawyer to write a personal-knowledge letter directly to the sentencing judge.
The Committee said the then-current Canon 2(B) commentary allowed a judge to provide information for the record in response to a formal request, but a defendant’s or lawyer’s request did not qualify. It interpreted formal request to mean one from the court, the United States Attorney, or a governmental agency involved in the criminal matter.
The opinion distinguished ordinary reference letters from communications directed to a sentencing judge and concluded that the proposed letter was not permitted.
In practice
The opinion’s no-letter conclusion concerns a request from the defendant or lawyer to contact the sentencing court. It describes a different rule for a formal request from specified public authorities.
Common questions
Q: Did the defendant’s personal request count as a formal request?
A: No. The Committee said it did not.
Q: Did the lawyer’s request count?
A: No. The opinion likewise excluded a request from counsel.
Q: Who could make a qualifying formal request under the opinion?
A: The Committee named the court, the United States Attorney, or a governmental agency involved in the criminal matter.
Background and rules framework
The Committee interpreted Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(B) and its commentary as they stood in April 2005.
Citations and references
- Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(B) and commentary.
- JEAC Opinion 2000-03 (sentencing letter appearance concern).
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-2005-01/
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
April 28, 2005
District Judge David Stewart
3rd Division
500 West Markham Street, Room 112 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
[email protected]
Advisory Opinion 2005-01
Dear Judge Stewart:
You write that you have been contacted by a criminal defendant who is a life long friend and by his attorney. The defendant will soon be sentenced in a federal tax felony. You have been asked to write a letter based on your personal knowledge of the individual and direct that letter to the sentencing judge.
Canon 2(B) of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge=s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
In particular, the Commentary provides:
Although a judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge=s personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation. However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request.
It is our opinion that a Aformal request@ means a request from the court, the United States Attorney, or a governmental agency involved in the criminal matter. A request from the individual or his attorney is not a formal request. As we have stated in Advisory Opinion 200003, such a letter has the appearance of lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal interest of a single individual. There is a significant difference between a judge=s letter on judicial stationery recommending an individual for admission to a law school or for a position with a law firm, and a letter to a sentencing judge. The former is permitted by the Code and its commentary; the latter is not.
Sincerely,
Howard W. Brill for the Committee
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2005. 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