Judicial Impartiality at Sentencing

The internet is awash in disagreement over some comments made by Michigan Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, who presided over the Larry Nassar case.  Nassar, a doctor who treated gymnasts for the U.S. Olympic team and at Michigan State University, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting seven young gymnasts, and it is apparent that he assaulted many more. The judge ultimately imposed a 175-year sentence on Nassar, who had already been sentenced to 60 years on federal child pornography charges.

Judge Aquilina made some very strong statements about Nassar when she announced his sentence. But it is a comment that she made on a previous day—one of the days when Nassar’s many victims spoke at his sentencing hearing—that has led to a heated debate:

“Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment," she said. "If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls -- these young women in their childhood -- I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others."

This is a remarkable statement by a judge, but this is also a remarkable case. And so a number of people are saying that the judge should not have made this statement, while others are saying they are glad the judge said this.

First, let me say that I haven't seen a transcript of the judge's entire remarks, and so I can't say whether the comment might seem to have a different meaning in context. But, at least out of context, the judge is suggesting that prison is not a severe enough penalty for Nassar, and that the judge would be tempted, if she could, to sentence Nassar to be sexually assaulted.  I both understand the feeling that a prison sentence doesn't seem to acknowledge the enormity of what Nassar did (especially given how cavalierly those sentences are handed out nowadays) and think that the judge should not have given voice to her personal revulsion here.

To illustrate why, let me tell you about another judge. My friend used to be a criminal defense attorney in Tennessee. One Tennessee judge he practiced in front of used to always give the maximum sentences in drug cases.  When imposing those sentences, the judge would also give a speech saying that he would give the death penalty for drug dealers if he could.  My friend used to tell the story as a colorful anecdote about Tennessee that would outrage his new Northeaster friends.  We were all outraged by that speech because of course drug dealers shouldn't get the death penalty. And the judge's speech suggests that the maximum sentences he was imposing were based on his idiosyncratically harsh views about drugs.

Now, the difference between that judge and the judge in Nassar's case is that many people actually agree with the idea that prison is too light of a sentence for those who molest kids.  In fact, not too long ago, there was a movement in this country to make child rape a capital crime--a popular movement that was succeeding until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008).

But even though we, as members of the public are free to indulge our disgust and anger at Nassar for the awful things he did, his sentencing judge isn't. She is supposed to be a neutral arbiter who can weigh the awful things Nassar did against any mitigating evidence.  This comment suggests Judge Aquilina can't be that neutral arbiter. And that's a problem in every case, including the cases where we couldn't imagine being such an arbiter ourselves.

Now, I’ve made this point about being a “neutral arbiter” on Twitter (in fact, this blog post is drawn from a number of tweets from earlier today), and a number of people disagree.  They’ve noted that, when announcing a sentence, a judge’s role is different than her role at trial; and that at sentencing, a judge is supposed to explain the reasons for her sentence, and that it is completely appropriate for that explanation of sentence to reflect the magnitude and awfulness of a defendant’s crime.  Both of these statements are true, but they don’t necessarily justify Judge Aquilina’s statements here. Just because judges can act differently at sentencing than at trial does not mean that there are no constraints on their sentencing behavior.  This statement happened before all of the sentencing evidence had been submitted, and it goes beyond merely explaining a harsh sentence.

Some have gone even further to say judges are not expected to be impartial overseers at sentencing; instead the judge represents “the people” at sentencing, and it is appropriate for the judge to give voice to “the people’s outrage.”  I disagree. The judge never represents the people in a criminal case; the prosecutor does.  A judge’s duty to act fairly and impartially applies to “all duties of judicial office.”  And, at least taken out of context, I think that Judge Aquilina’s statement fails to be sufficiently impartial.

So, assuming that Judge Aquilina’s statements were insufficiently impartial, what does that mean? It probably does not mean that Nassar will have his sentence reversed on appeal.  Michigan courts have not been particularly hospitable to such claims in the past. And appellate courts are generally loathe to overturn trial judges’ sentencing decisions unless they violated a relevant statute, imposed a sentence based on materially false information, or if the judge based the sentence on the defendant’s race or gender.

It *could* mean that Judge Aquilina will be subject to professional discipline for violating her duty of impartiality.  There are several examples of judge being disciplined on that basis when their sentencing comments were critical of victims or minimized the harm victims suffered.  But I’m not sure that judicial disciplinary committees will have the stomach to impose discipline where the judge’s impartiality favored victims and disadvantaged the defendant. Our current moment seems to be one where judicial leniency prompts backlash, but judicial harshness does not. And I think that asymmetry is troubling.  Impartiality requires fair treatment for both sides, not merely for victims—even victims in a case as horrifying as this one.