Despite the current state of the Supreme Court’s ethical quagmire, the mere appearance of impropriety or lack of impartiality is a real problem for the judiciary. So maybe Petersburgh, New York Town Court Justice Richard T. Snyder is (or more accurately *was*) a fair and impartial jurist, but once he used the excuse that all defendants appearing in court “did something wrong” in order to get out of jury duty, well, he had to go.
As reported by Law.com, Snyder, a non-attorney judge, resigned from the bench after 10 years of service on December 31 and agreed to never seek reelection. His jury duty excuse led to an investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission said that, had Snyder not resigned, he should have been disciplined for cause, as his actions “undermined the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and otherwise demonstrated his unfitness for judicial office.”
Snyder reportedly stood by his comments even after the investigation into his comments began:
The incident occurred in October 2023. Snyder had introduced himself as a town judge to the presiding jurist, state Supreme Court Justice Laura M. Jordan. He advised Jordan that he could not serve as a grand juror because he believes anyone who comes before him is guilty and therefore he couldn’t be impartial.
Jordan excused Snyder, but on July 16, Snyder was summoned to the misconduct watchdog’s Albany office to testify in connection with its investigation. The commission said he demonstrated bias by repeatedly stating his belief that all defendants who appear before him “did something wrong,” even if they are presumed innocent until they “come to court.” He cited as examples motorists accused of speeding, or defendants who broke into somebody’s house or committed a crime.
Well, it sure seems like Snyder doesn’t believe that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing our entire justice system is based on.
Commission counsel and administrator Robert Tembeckjian noted how wildly out of line Snyder’s behavior was, saying, “It is bad enough that a judge would seek to avoid such a fundamental civic responsibility as jury service. It is astounding that the judge would claim an inability to be impartial, and to declare under oath that the accused must be guilty or they would not be in court. There is no place on the bench for someone who so deeply misunderstands the role of a judge and the administration of justice.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post New York Judge Forced Out After Saying He Couldn’t Be Impartial appeared first on Above the Law.
Despite the current state of the Supreme Court’s ethical quagmire, the mere appearance of impropriety or lack of impartiality is a real problem for the judiciary. So maybe Petersburgh, New York Town Court Justice Richard T. Snyder is (or more accurately *was*) a fair and impartial jurist, but once he used the excuse that all defendants appearing in court “did something wrong” in order to get out of jury duty, well, he had to go.
As reported by Law.com, Snyder, a non-attorney judge, resigned from the bench after 10 years of service on December 31 and agreed to never seek reelection. His jury duty excuse led to an investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission said that, had Snyder not resigned, he should have been disciplined for cause, as his actions “undermined the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and otherwise demonstrated his unfitness for judicial office.”
Snyder reportedly stood by his comments even after the investigation into his comments began:
The incident occurred in October 2023. Snyder had introduced himself as a town judge to the presiding jurist, state Supreme Court Justice Laura M. Jordan. He advised Jordan that he could not serve as a grand juror because he believes anyone who comes before him is guilty and therefore he couldn’t be impartial.
Jordan excused Snyder, but on July 16, Snyder was summoned to the misconduct watchdog’s Albany office to testify in connection with its investigation. The commission said he demonstrated bias by repeatedly stating his belief that all defendants who appear before him “did something wrong,” even if they are presumed innocent until they “come to court.” He cited as examples motorists accused of speeding, or defendants who broke into somebody’s house or committed a crime.
Well, it sure seems like Snyder doesn’t believe that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing our entire justice system is based on.
Commission counsel and administrator Robert Tembeckjian noted how wildly out of line Snyder’s behavior was, saying, “It is bad enough that a judge would seek to avoid such a fundamental civic responsibility as jury service. It is astounding that the judge would claim an inability to be impartial, and to declare under oath that the accused must be guilty or they would not be in court. There is no place on the bench for someone who so deeply misunderstands the role of a judge and the administration of justice.”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
