Challengeable Judges

A cardinal principle in criminal law is that either side of an action can challenge, without offering a reason, a certain number of jurors. All 48 U. S. States accept this principle. But some U. S. judges are as objectionable as some U. S. jurors, and hitherto the only way a lawyer could avoid trying his cause before a judge he disliked or distrusted was to prove prejudice on the part of the judge or to switch his case to some other court on jurisdictional grounds.

This week in California a unique law takes effect which amends this state of affairs, permits either side to a trial in a superior or municipal court to object in writing to the judge assigned to try the case. No reason need be given. Automatically the case must be assigned to some other judge. However, only one such peremptory challenge may be filed by each side.

Agitated by members of the California Bar since 1935, the new law goes beyond statutes in Arizona, Indiana, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming, where a judge may be challenged but affidavits as to the judge's bias must accompany the challenge. How well the California law will work out in practice is open to question. California lawyers pointed out this week that a lawyer will hesitate to challenge a judge before whom he is likely to have to continue to appear. Abuse of the new statute may come from criminal lawyers seeking to stall a case along.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.