As questions arise about the ethics of our judicial we are seeing more cases supporting the need for oversite. Alaska State Constitution Article I Section 8 states Grand Juries are allowed investigative power. Grand juries are meant as an external check on our judicial branch. Margaret Murphy was investigated, indicted and charged with perjury after two years of investigation. Her case was dismissed on a merely technicality. The indictment was written wrong!
So this indicates that the appointed special prosecutor Clint Campion, who previously stated there was nothing to investigate, wrongfully instructed the jurors. Clearly there seems to be a need for more judicial investigations. Why was Mr. Campion ever put in charge of a jury for a judge he had previous declared there was nothing to look at? Why did Mr. Campion not champion the law and find out where the 12th juror went. This person was there for the indictment but failed to show for the remaining work. The indictment was not a failure of the grand jurors, assembled after two years of investigation, it should be blamed on the appointed prosecutor. This was an ethical failure on those who appointed Campion, and those who failed to go after the missing juror. It would seem logical that Clint Campion was responsible for the failure of that indictment which he was appointed to oversee!
A second case involving judical conduct is now making headlines once again. The importance of these cases must not be missed. Each time a judge acts contrary to ethics there is a direct impact on judical proceedings that these judges preside over. Judge Joshua Kindred is a perfect example of why grand jurors should have investigative powers. In the recent case of Josh Kindred the head lines reads
“Resigned Alaska federal judge had conflict of interest in 23 criminal cases“
This speaks volumes. The case against Margaret Murphy should illicit just as much outrage because like Judge Kindred she also had conflicts. Margaret Murphy’s perjury case was not dismissed because she as innocent it was based on technicalities. The leader of this grand jury group had a clear conflict and poor leadership. Judge Murphys high powered defense attorneys would have forced the release of the grand jury report issued well over a year ago if she was innocent. In the case of Margaret Murphy ADN wrote,
“In a dismissal notice issued by the Third Judicial District at Homer, the criminal case against Margaret Murphy was closed due to a failure to specify her alleged false statement to the grand jury, which is required under Alaska state law in criminal indictments. In an email Wednesday from Clint Campion, the attorney representing the State of Alaska, Campion wrote that he filed a notice with the Superior Court to not seek re-indictment of Murphy, effectively closing the case.” A logical person would say this is convenient since it aligns with Mr. Campions statement “being no need to investigate Judge Murphy”. Mr. Campion never intended to help make a case, and could ever have resulted in an unbiased indictment. In truth, wasn’t justice simply diverted. The story relating to Judge Murphy is a compelling and should be taken seriously. “The tip of the iceberg,” is how the news termed Judge Murphys perjury case. Without the release of the grand jurors report, is Judge Murphy really cleared? This writer does not believe justice is served when a prosecutor is appointed that clearly had conflicts. Whose fault is is when the is ruled as faulty? isn’t it the person appointed to prosecute? Isn’t Campion the one who failed to accurately assist as instructed and required by law to put forth a sound indictment? Instead it just adds another branch to the tree leading to more questions about how deep our ethical challenges run.
These types of collusion cases hurt all of us. Collusion? That is right when one party makes a deal with one of the other partys they are colluding to come to an acceptable conclusion. None of this is based on law or evidence, it simply sweeps judicial misconduct under the rug. Clearly the ethics of judges and attorneys matter. Our judges are over seen by one judicial investigator who has held her single position for 35 years. Let’s think about that for just a minute. ONE investigator in the same seat overseeing all Alaska judges for 35 years! HOW and WHY is this allowed?
Consider for a moment the impact a judge with ethical concerns could have on your divorce, your probate case, in injury case, or say a defamation case. What level or amount of an ethical lapse in a presiding judge is acceptable to you? Judge Kindred’s example has no less that 28 case of conflicts so far. If a judge is willing to perform duties without disclosing those conflicts are they ethical? If a grand jury can find perjury and write a report as to the findings shouldn’t that report be made public? If it is not what are the chances it contains information that is contrary to proving honesty on the part of the judge? When you only have one judicial investigator for 35 years the chances of some favors being exchanged is substantial.
The judicial system must be accountable to the people. Our judicial system can only levy true justice when it stands on solid ethical conduct. Every lapse we allow, every transgression is a breech of trust that eventually amounts to system failure. In the period of three years how many judges have been indicted in Alaska? How many have been questioned about ethics or conflicts? The answer is not that simple. Look to nation wide new media Reuters for a look at the systemic corruption nationwide. THousands of judges who have broken laws to which they hold us accountable have remained on the bench. Is your justice ethical? Is your judge making deals? Is your attorney even able to present the laws for you and get justice when these lapses are allowed to exist? Alaska Grand Jurors Association is not against justice but rather convened to ensure ethics or protected and the rights of all those facing our court system have equal access to impartial justice.
