Halverson won’t cede criminal cases; lawyer says client being denied speedy trial
District Judge Elizabeth Halverson is in a courthouse showdown with the District Court’s chief judge, and some lawyers and defendants are caught in the middle.
From her bench Wednesday, Halverson said that she is defying Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle’s transfer of Halverson’s cases to another judge.
Hardcastle announced Tuesday that all of Halverson’s criminal and civil cases would be moved to another judge Monday because of questions surrounding Halverson’s performance.
About an hour into Wednesday morning’s court session, a prosecutor asked Halverson whether her criminal cases would be reassigned.
“Not as far as I’m concerned,” Halverson replied. “Provide some authority, and then we’ll talk about it, but in the meantime, I shall not be moved.”
She questioned under what authority court officials could take her cases away from her.
“They can have any whim they want. I’m still setting trials,” she told the prosecutor.
“I have it totally under control. Do I look like I’m upset? Not at all,” Halverson said.
She never mentioned the chief judge or any other court officials specifically, but she concluded the conversation with the prosecutor by saying, “You can’t expect anything from lemmings except that they’ll jump off the cliff and they did. Some of us play chess and some of us are playing Candy Land.”
She continued to set criminal hearings and trials for next week and beyond.
Hardcastle said Halverson can set future dates for as many of her current cases as she wants, “but the caseload will be transferred.”
There are two provisions in the Eighth Judicial District Court rules that allow the chief judge to reassign cases from one judge to another, and those court rules are comparable to state statute, Hardcastle said.
Hardcastle said Halverson will get an entirely new stack of only civil cases Monday. The criminal and civil cases that Halverson has presided over since she took the bench in January, will go to newly appointed District Judge David Barker, Hardcastle said Tuesday.
“Barker can maintain those dates as he wishes,” Hardcastle said Thursday.
She said any trials scheduled for Monday in Halverson’s courtroom will take place there as scheduled but every other case and all other trials will go to Barker.
At least one defense attorney, Dayvid Figler, balked at the prospect of the judges’ dispute forcing some of his cases to be switched to another judge.
His client Jemar Matthews, for instance, is scheduled to go to trial in Halverson’s courtroom May 7. Figler has invoked Matthews’ right to a speedy trial, and he feared moving that case to another courtroom will cause the trial to be delayed again.
“He’s been in custody the entire time, and technically he has a right to trial within 60 days,” Figler said.
Figler said Thursday he has not been informed where and when that trial and other cases he has scheduled in Halverson’s courtroom for Monday will occur.
“If it (the change) is for political reasons, that would be completely improper to be playing with people’s lives in between,” Figler said.
He said he will probably file a petition with Hardcastle to keep cases in Halverson’s courtroom on which Halverson has already ruled.
Hardcastle said there could be concessions for defendants’ whose rights stand to be compromised by the reassignment of the cases, but she suggested Barker will be the one to decide whether such cases would stay with Halverson.
Figler said he has a great deal of respect for Barker, but suggested the former chief deputy district attorney have a cooling off period to separate himself from the prosecution.
“How do you tell your client that the judge last week was one of the prosecutors?” Figler said, adding later, “He wasn’t just a lowly deputy isolated somewhere. He was a team chief and well known.”
Barker, who began his appointment Monday, said he is prepared to hear any cases before him next week, including the trials scheduled for Halverson’s courtroom.
Barker also said a cooling-off period was unnecessary.
“Am I going to feel differently about what I feel is fair in a month or two? I doubt it,” Barker said. “I take this job very seriously and I understand the difference between being a litigant and being a judge.”
Barker wound up being assigned Halverson’s cases after a panel of three veteran judges recommended alleviating Halverson’s caseload to give her to time to obtain more experience, citing a lack of familiarity with rules and procedures, Hardcastle said. She received a report last week from the judges, who interviewed Halverson’s staff, and acted on that recommendation.
“I asked the judges to work with her, to mentor with her and to identify the issues and look at various issues that have been raised with the employees and staff as well as the handling of the caseload,” she said.
They decided to keep her off criminal cases because “some of the procedural mistakes can be more critical in criminal cases and because you are looking at someone’s civil liberties and you’re also looking at public safety issues,” Hardcastle said.
She said the committee was not an “inquisition” but an “intervention” designed to help a colleague and address personnel issues brought up by Halverson’s court staff, the majority of which have resigned or transferred from Halverson’s courtroom in the past four months.
Hardcastle said she set up the three-judge panel, in part, to serve as an independent buffer between her and Halverson. The two have a history.
Halverson served as a law clerk for nine years in District Court. The job involves researching decisions for judges, and most law clerks spend only a year or two in the job before practicing law themselves. Citing the temporary nature of the position, Hardcastle fired Halverson in 2004. Halverson then ran for a Family Court judgeship against Hardcastle’s then-husband.
Halverson lost that race by a narrow margin and started her own firm before running for the newly created seat she won in November.
