Judges Like Being Lied To

A while back, someone posted a video of a judge in Utah, who conspired with the public defender to pretend a defendant didn’t show up to court. The purpose was to revoke his bond, and thereby force him to take a deal instead of waiting for trial in jail. This saved both the public defender and the judge from having to go through a trial.

It is not certain why people become judges. But the evidence is that those who are judges will eagerly welcome being lied to, if it makes their job easier. A judge will take any lie that simplifies a case. And in particular, a judge will welcome lies from the prosecution that save the outcome – and the judge – from anything politically inconvenient.

My friend was recently tried for “felony murder”, and got life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn’t happen. The prosecution lied from end to end, including about when the victim actually died. The defense brought up an issue about events taking place after the victim died being irrelevant to guilt. The judge said it didn’t matter, because the victim died two days later, so everything happened before he died.

In fact the judge was wrong by two days, and had been lied to by the prosecution about when the victim died. Some evidence of guilt presented to the jury took place after the victim had died. But the judge will never seek any sanction for being lied to, or stand up for truth in her courtroom. Because this lie simplified the case and the jury instruction, and contributed to a politically more convenient outcome.

That same judge seemed to have a curiosity about the case at one point. This seemed to be confirmed in court, when one of the witnesses who came on the stand told straight and brazen lies compared to what she had previously sworn to on video. A momentary look of tight-lipped shock and surprise crossed the judge’s face. But it was gone in an instant, and my friend’s co-defendant got life in prison, partially based on the lies that witness told.

As a geeky idealist, you might say wait, this concedes power from the judicial branch to the executive branch. If police and prosecutors and witnesses are allowed to fake evidence and lie to convict whomever they pick, the outcome is fixed by the executive branch before the case even gets to court. It is a mock trial, and the role of the judge is a fake one, theater.

This is true. But it only proves that whatever reason people become judges, it is not power or justice in an abstract sense. Officials in the executive branch outnumber judges perhaps 100-to-1. So certainly they have overwhelming political tools to destroy any judge. The political pressure on the executive branch to convict people – even the innocent – is overwhelming to an outnumbered judge.

This was further confirmed during a civil hearing where I was the plaintiff. The defendant had written a lie about me so I sued him for defamation. At hearing, he claimed what he had written was true. I responded that no, these things he said were in an email are not in it. Where are they? He coolly told the judge there were other emails, and the things he said were in those other emails.

Of course this was a lie, the things he said were not in any email. But I didn’t think I needed to point out the obvious. Because as a novice, I assumed the judge had read the pleadings and looked at the evidence. I was wrong. In fact the judge seemed to accept the lie as fact. And judge was happy to be lied to, because it gave her cause to dismiss the case and save going to trial

The lawyer knew something I didn’t, that the judge would happily have someone come up there and lie to her, if it would justify her closing the case. And it is a lot easier than actually reading the evidence and pleadings. And especially in this case, where high-ranking Florida elected officials from the same political party as the judge had suborned perjury. Evidence of their crimes would be subpoenaed and exposed if the case went forward.

Of course I appealed the ruling which was based on lies. And of course the appeals court took the politically-convenient path – given the elected officials involved – of affirming the lower court’s ruling without writing an opinion. And of course I filed a motion requesting they compose an opinion. And of course that same defense lawyer filed a response with straight lies, in the form of a stock argument copy-pasted, that my motion did not contain any supporting statements.

Just as it is easier for a lawyer to copy-paste such false statements, one can assume it is much easier for the appeals court judges to rule based on these lies, than to actually read my motion and write an opinion. So judges want to be lied to. It puts on a charade toward the outcome with the least work. And in this case, pretending they accept the lies as true, gives them basis to bury a case that high-ranking officials in the executive branch want them to bury.

Even the criminal case my lawsuit was based on, resulted from a deputy sheriff swearing lies to a judge in an affidavit. And of course that judge wanted to be lied to, to give him basis to sign an arrest warrant, that a high-ranking Florida official he was close with wanted him to sign. So it is all a charade, to manufacture the politically most convenient outcome, with the least work.

There is so much to fool you in court. They make you swear an oath to tell the truth. There is even a sign on the wall, in Miami, that says “we who labor here seek only the truth”. But if you go in there with the naive and novice idea that lies are unwanted and have some penalty, you are missing the plot.

Don’t be tricked or misled. You have to go in there with the mindset that lies are welcomed and not penalized and are used every day, and the other side will use them. Or else you will be at a serious disadvantage to those with experience who know lying is accepted and welcome, lying is the game.

So go into court and lie with a smile. The judge will smile, too. You may be making her job easier.