Today, Sonia Sotomayer was be sworn in as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice in the United States. I have expressed concern about her support of civil rights based on her concurrence on the Doniger case. However, one ruling is not sufficient grounds to oppose a nomination. However, it is much better than most of the reasons to support or oppose her nomination that have been discussed so far.

Some have gone so far as to suggest it would have been reasonable to block Judge Sotomayer’s nomination because in 2003 Democrats successfully filibustered the appellate court nomination of Miguel Estrada, the first time a filibuster was used against an appellate court nomination.

Yet our justice system is too important to be mired in petty tit for tat politics. The case of Kenneth Ireland is a good example. In 1989, he was convicted of the gruesome rape and murder of a Wallingford, CT woman. This week, based on DNA evidence which showed he could not have committed the crime, he has been freed.

Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer has written a column suggesting that this puts juries in question. Jury trials may be the worst method of determining guilt, except for all the others. So, what can be done to improve the way justice is dispensed?

One starting point is to get better coverage of trials. This includes talking about how Voir Dire done. People need a better understanding of the how juries work and what really happens during trials. I’ve tried to do a little bit of this in my blog posts about the Andrew Maio case.

In that blog post, I noted that Judge William Holden said that electronic devices, including laptops, would not be allowed in his courtroom. Based on information obtained from State Rep Mike Lawlor, chair of the judiciary committee, it appears that Judge Holden does not know the rules from the Practice Book which governs rules of court:

Sec. 1-10. Possession of Electronic Devices in Court Facilities (Amended June 29, 2007, to take effect Jan. 1, 2008.)

(a) Personal computers may be used for note taking in a courtroom. If the judicial authority finds that the use of computers is disruptive of the court proceeding, it may limit such use. No other electronic devices shall be used in a courtroom unless authorized by a judicial authority or permitted by these rules.

In the Maio case there was no such finding, or basis for such a finding. Yet even this is not the worst case of courts acting in ways that limit reporting about the courts. In 2006, a sign in New Haven Geographical Area Court 23 was modified to remove the prohibition against writing in court after a complaint was filed. The Connecticut News Junkie article, Courthouse Paints Over Ban on Writing states that “Judicial Marshal Luther Cuffee prevented a member of the public from taking notes during hearings in the courthouse.”

It isn’t just the judges that need to be looked at much more closely than is done in so many confirmation hearings. The New Haven Independent has a report about the director of operations at the State Marshall Commission asking New Haven to suspend a new city plan to save taxpayer money by lowering hefty marshal fees.. On top of this, a report in the Hartford Courant from June talked about efforts by State Representative Robert W. Megna to address what he considers illegal double billing by State Marshalls. The article talks about how well connected State Marshalls are noting,

the roster of marshals includes many with prominent, political positions or strong, political connections. The marshal who served Megna the foreclosure papers, who made $131,000 after expenses last year, is also the chairman of the North Haven Democratic Town Committee.

All of this illustrates the need for much better oversight of the Judicial branch by members of the fourth estate, both the professionals and the citizen journalists.