The predictable pushback is well under way in behalf of Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman, of Andover, who famously removed a $50,000 bail placed on Daniel Tavares, who had served 16 years in prison for murdering his mother but was now facing more recent charges of assaulting prison guards. Tavares promptly fled to Washington state and now stands accused of murdering a young couple.
This, understandably, made a lot of people wonder why Tavares was released. They asked the judge for an explanation. She said she was “unable to comment.” So she got criticized – heavily.
This criticism, according to various attorneys and heads of bar associations who have written flaming letters to newspapers, amounts to a grossly unfair and vicious attack on an excellent judge.
Well. For openers, these are not exactly disinterested parties. They’re all members of the legal brothersisterhood. And these attorneys might have occasion to appear before Judge Tuttman sometime. Can you say, “conflict of interest”?
Beyond that, the judge’s supportive surrogates are missing the point. In the past couple of weeks, a number of them have explained in detail why Judge Tuttman’s decision was the right one, and how it comported with the law. They have pointed out that the District Attorney’s office didn’t make much of an effort to maintain the bail on Tavares. The prosecution never asked for a so-called “dangerousness hearing,” where evidence of Tavares’ threats and being a possible flight risk could have been presented.
Those are worthy arguments. But those are points the judge should have made herself, instead of having surrogate attorneys “voluntarily” do it for her.
The reason she couldn’t? The “rules” forbid it. But who wrote those rules? Right – lawyers did.
Those rules don’t serve the public. They serve the judges, by insulating them from accountability to the public. Of course a judge shouldn’t discuss a ruling while it is pending, but once it is issued, there is no good reason not to explain it. If there were, Judge Tuttman’s sycophant attorneys wouldn’t be so eager to do it in her behalf.
If judges and lawyers want to eliminate these alleged unfair attacks, this is a rule they should change.
