I've always been a bit of a slacker when it comes to local judicial elections. I mean, how many people really know how to vote in each race on the ballot? Or in any? We're supposed to know what sorts of rulings each incumbent local judge has made? Or simply crib from the recommendations of the local bar association, or newspaper editorials? I'd rather leave blank a contest I know nothing about. But there's one judge I'll definitely be voting against next chance I get; because crimes - especially an alleged quadruple murder - should have consequences including trial and verdict, not escape clauses. His name is Michael Spearman, Democrat, and he's the King County Superior Court judge who yesterday formally dismissed four counts of first-degree murder against Leemah Carneh, on the specious grounds Carneh was not mentally compentent to assist his attorneys in his defense. In 2002, the P-I reports, Carneh was TWICE found competent to stand trial. Then, doctors at Western State Hospital advised the court this year that Carneh was AGAIN competent to stand trial, but after "further study" their advice was rejected. Three "competent" recommedations weren't enough. Keep evaluating 'till you get what you want, huh, judge? If Spearman's name rings a bell, well, he's not only a fave of the Trotsky-ite Seattle rag "Eat The State" (scroll down, here); he was a well-financed, "broadly-endorsed" loser in the 2002 Democratic primary for the State Supreme Court seat now held by Republican Jim Johnson. Spearman is also the guy in whose court a settlement was reached allowing fired UW football coach "'Slick Rick" Nueheisel to pocket $4.7 million from the NCAA and the school.
Mental health experts for prosecutors and the defense team had agreed in numerous evaluations that Carneh was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, but they differed about whether forcibly administered anti-psychotic drugs have restored his competency enough for him to assist his attorneys....The victims' families said that all through the case, the legal system has been focused on the rights of the man accused in the murders and not on the rights of the people killed.
In a reported fit of jealous infatuation, Carneh in 2001 allegedly killed 17-year old Taelor Marks of the south suburb of Seattle, Des Moines; plus Marks' girlfriend, 17-year-old Josie Taylor, and Marks' grandparents, Dick and Jane Larson, also of Des Moines.
Carneh's psychotic shtick went like this:
Mental-health experts on both sides of the case testified that Carneh, who is black, believes he was born white in England but was kidnapped at birth and dyed brown in punishment for some unknown wrong. He also believes he is a member of a religion called Anglica Biblica that will intervene on his behalf.
So if the charges against Carneh are actually true it sends a message that you can go out, whack the guy who's with some girl you're obsessing over; whack the girl; and whack the guy's grandparents for good measure, since they all happen to be in the same house that night. Then you can steal the guy's car and sell it, and escape justice by claiming a cult of evil Sumo wrestlers brainwashed you into the whole thing. Or something. What's frustrating here, obviously, is justice denied. Four people died, a perp was charged, but we can't even get into the batter's box because of the mental competency issue. I wonder, too, although I understand the principle: how much would this guy have assisted in his own defense, absent the convenient delusions? Probably not at all, as prosecutors likely had him nailed down, on evidence. But we may never know for sure. Or maybe we will, eventually, when he's declared "competent." Seems like the "psychosis" is the best defense of all. One more day, one more bunch of people who play by the rules getting screwed. Even after they've been murdered. The "religion" that has "intervened on his behalf" is The Church Of Perpetrators' Rights.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 11, 2005 10:29 AM | Email ThisIf they're a good, competent judge - you'll be the only one voting against them and it won't matter a bit.
If they're idiots like this guy - you're doing the community a service.
Posted by: Larry on October 11, 2005 11:17 AMThis piece of human filth deserves no less, "competent" or no.
Posted by: brian c on October 11, 2005 11:22 AMThis legal mumbo-jumbo with insanity BS is just driving me insane.
Posted by: C. Oh on October 11, 2005 12:00 PM1. Believe that this particular defendant is competent and the judge got it wrong? If so, you provide no support for your position.
2. Believe that the law is wrong and that lack of competence should not preclude a person from standing trial? If so, I disagree strongly.
3. Just have an axe to grind with this particular judge? Your random comment about the Neuheisel case would seem to indicate this is a likelihood. What does the fact that a case settled have anything to do with the competency of the judge involved?
Posted by: Steven on October 11, 2005 12:20 PM1) Was he diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic before or after the murders?
2) If the answer to 1) is yes, was he on or off his medication at the time the crime?
Posted by: Mike H on October 11, 2005 12:38 PMIt's November 8th. Your ballot informs you that your choices are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Pick one, have a nice day, and stay out of court!
Posted by: TB on October 11, 2005 01:39 PMHere's some tips on how a layman politico can spot- which sitting judges or judicial candidates are rotten or activist.
ONE:
Check the PDC database- the dirty money trail is usually easy to follow. In many instances you can spot the other underbelly names in the contributor list.
ie Rep Brendan Williams giving big contributions to now Judge Chris Wickham is a pretty good tip off of what a sleezeball Wickham is: he can't second guess the Wa legislature, but sure as heck can ignore the US constitution when it fits his needs.
TWO-
Since something like 70% of the cases in the states legal system are family law- you can usually find someone who has been in front of them and either been treated fairly or not. On said example above- I didn't have a hard time finding a dozen or so people who were royally screwed by this same judge in Thurston.
THREE:
What groups of femi-nazi's and Domestic Violence "industry" advocates are backing this judge? As other court watch dogs on this forum will point out, judges who hand out restraining or protective orders like candy and w/out a shred of due dillegence or due process (like in divorce or custody battles) are favorites of the the DV industry-- it keeps them well funded and the ambulance chasers in business defending innocent men. A simple google search will feret this out.
Myself and others posting on here may sound a little bit hard nosed about these issues- but they are in fact the best leading indicators of a rotten judge. The I912 campaign is living proof of that.
I'm willing to bet your example would fail the above litmus test pretty handily.
Happy hunting.
We just don't have the necessary information to make good choices. On the other hand, I hate the idea of apointed judges that we can never get rid of.
I have and idea:
Lats have the judges be apointed by the governor, and confirmed by the senate... but- every two, or four years we get to vote on the judge. Not to pick between judges, but simply: does this judge get to keep his job. If the voters kick the bad judge out, then the governor has to apoint a new one.
Posted by: Cicero on October 11, 2005 03:35 PMYou wrote:
1. Believe that this particular defendant is competent and the judge got it wrong? If so, you provide no support for your position.
Actually, it seems to me that he supports that decision pretty well, by referring to the multiple psychiatric examinations that showed this defendant to be competent. It does seem rather like the judge allowed the defense attorneys to keep having tests run with different psychiatrists until they got a determination they liked, then he dumped the case. Whether that is true or not, Matt did provide evidence supporting that claim in his post.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on October 11, 2005 04:25 PMNow I realize I can plead insanity, since I live in Seattle, the bastion of common sense. Guess I'M the nut, right?! What a joke. Would this criminal perp walk in a 3rd world country? Doubt it. His family would not even know his unmarked grave. This is advanced civilization?!
Real world test: have the judge let this guy work on THE JUDGE'S property as a gardener or something.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 11, 2005 07:30 PMThe reply? "It's my basketball. I don't need it anymore."
Posted by: Jericho on October 11, 2005 08:11 PMWhy?
Because he gets issued a certificate of election without his name ever appearng on a ballot, if nobody files to run against him. Even unopposed Supreme Court justices have to appear on the ballot every four years.
Washington superior court judge is the only elective office in the country (of which I am aware) that permits a candidate to be elected without receiving a single vote.
How long has this Emperor-for-life deal been going on, you ask?
Since 1966.
Does anybody care?
You tell me.
Posted by: platypus on October 11, 2005 10:20 PMWhen you hear a judge pander to a group to "protect women and children," as though we all are not equally protected under the same laws and the same constitution it's a pretty safe bet you will see them lining up with Sims and Rahr on the 10:00 news for a coup for mo money for our special victim industry.
Off topic, but if that news appearance with Rahr and Sims promoting DV awareness month doesn't paint a pretty clear picture of things to come- nothing will. Another cog in the Sims cover up machine.
It's really unfortunate that Schmidt isn't better resourced in that race.
Until the judges' own family members are attacked or harmed. THEN the judges snap into "Death Wish" mode and dole out harsh justice.
The people are at the Bastille gates. Don't get too cocky at election time, Yer Onnah!
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 12, 2005 10:13 AMThere ain't gonna be no 'lecshun!
Posted by: platypus on October 12, 2005 04:37 PMUnfortunately, King County Superior Court judges are rarely challenged for re-election. In the 2004 election, there were approximately 25 positions that were up, however there were only a couple of open seats on the ballot.
Few lawyers, in there right mind, would ruin there careers to run against an incumbent for the joy of a $110K/year job (associate wages). When no one registers as a challenger, the incumbent judge's name doesn't even appear on the ballot. He is automatically re-appointed for the next 4 years.
I'm also suspicious that many of the judges on the benches have been appointed when a judge retires early, but have not investigated.
Bottom line - citizens rarely get a chance to throw out these "bums in black".
Posted by: scgibbs on October 12, 2005 05:50 PMI'd like to see some kind of "judge tracking" web site; like other political sites; or a subset of a political site;
these guys and gals are the most quiet yet most influential of the lot in your direct local life; anyone know of a "judge rating site" other than the usual big partisan endorsement groups?
how about a "ruling tracking site" so we can see how these people REALLY resolve things for or against us taxpayers?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 12, 2005 06:17 PMI trust that Carneh doesn't live near you...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 13, 2005 09:22 AMThe perp is working the system. And Angelica Biblica? religion? dont know--oh yea--i remember her--nice gal; senior prom dance; nice try, Leemah Bean; time for you to 'cook;'
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on October 13, 2005 01:52 PM
I guess he's jealous because he can't be mental but others can.
In essence, without intervention - appointed judges are not held accountable. Seems like the laws will have to revised to restore the balance of power. Judges must be held accountable for bad and irresponsible decisions that they make, otherwise we will eventually degenerate into a judicial anarchy.
Judges should be eligible for imprisonment or at the very least civil action/lawsuits whenever they make rulings that adversely impact a member of society. That is a deterrent that is sorely needed. There is no way any judge, especially an appointed judge should not håve to be held accountable !
Posted by: KS on October 14, 2005 03:08 PM