Justice for Judge Kozinski? (Or not)

[The Cat-Tribe]

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has received a verbal slap on the wrist and some public embarassment over his possession of a public collection of sexually explicit material was revealed while he was presiding over an obsenity case.

Wikipedia describes the situation as:

Kozinski was assigned an obscenity case in which Ira Isaacs is accused of distributing videos depicting bestiality and other images, similar to the 1973 Miller v. California case. During the trial, on June 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski had "maintained a publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos" at alex.kozinski.com. The Times reported that Kozinski's site included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear, and content with themes of defecation and urination. Kozinski agreed that some of the material was inappropriate, but defended other content as "funny."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski



Ethics Panel Slaps Chief Judge Alex Kozinski with a Wet Noodle for His Porn Collection

It's never a good time for a judge to have his large, slightly kinky and, for a time, publicly available collection of sexually explicit material written up in the LA Times. It was an even worse time for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit when the LA Times ran a story detailing the extensive collection of suggestive or explicit images and videos on the judge's personal server.

Kozinski was in the middle of an obscenity trial when the story broke, which, needless to say was deliciously ironic and raised a suspicion that somehow the judge could be biased in favor of the defendants. As a result of the story, Kozinski had to pause the trial to examine whether or not he should recuse himself. Eventually he did, at the same time declaring a mistrial.

Kozinski also asked the Ninth Circuit to conduct an inquiry into the report's allegations about him. The Ninth Circuit in turn asked Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court to transfer the matter to another circuit, which he did, moving the investigation over to the Third Circuit.

That court released its findings and its opinion in the matter today. While the court found that Kozinski's lack of oversight concerning the public availability of the images was less than comendable, it thought that a quick admonishment and a little public humiliation would teach the Chief Judge a valuable lesson, and so it didn't recommend any further punishment.

Here's what the court had to say:

We find that the Judge's possession of sexually explicit offensive material combined with his carelessness in failing to safeguard his sphere of privacy was judicially imprudent. Moreover, once the Judge became aware in 2007 that offensive material could be accessed by members of the public, his inattention to the need for prompt corrective action amounted to a disregard of a serious risk of public embarrassment. We join with the Special Committee in admonishing the Judge that his conduct exhibiting poor judgment with respect to this material created a public controversy that can reasonably be seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the institution of the federal judiciary. We determine that the Judge's acknowledgment of responsibility together with other corrective action, his apology, and our admonishment, combined with the public dissemination of this opinion, properly conclude this proceeding.

The results of the investigation aren't really all that shocking. No one ever alleged that Kozinski broke the law, and any questions about impartiality in the obscenity case disappeared after he disqualified himself from hearing it. The site in question was a home network server that Kozinski hooked up to the internet without realizing that it would be publicly available Its contents were never meant to go live.

The whole thing was really just an embarassing personal slip-up, albeit one that came at an inopportune moment. Because of his stature, the Chief Judge was subjected to more scrutiny than was probably warranted and the affair was blown remarkably out of proportion.

Personally, I think the whole episode just adds some additional cachet to the Legend of Alex Kozinski. I mean, this is a Chief Judge who went on the Dating Game in his youth, fought back against a plan to block pornography from judges' computers, and has a collection of racy pictures and movies dating back to 1995.

Kozinski is obviously a mad playa.

Or slightly sad and desperate. You be the judge.

Here is a link to the above story: http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2009 ... ction.html
Here is a link to the original LA Times story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0192.story
Here is a link to the pdf of the 3rd Circuit's decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/cir ... 89050p.pdf

Any comments, outraged annunciations?

P.S. Not that it is relevant, but before the "OMG liberal judges" crap starts, Chief Judge Kozinski is a very conservative Republican.

[Gift-of-god]

One vote for mad playa.

We need more judges like this. And judges like this need more help with IT.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I don't see a problem. Porn is legal, so why shouldn't judges have some too?

[Deus Malum]

So a judge got reprimanded for possession of a collection of objects that he legally acquired and which are legal to possess?

Wow.

[JuNii]

Any comments, outraged annunciations?

I'm pissed. I want to know where he got those pics!

c'mon... share, don't keep it to yourself!

[Ifreann]

Any comments, outraged annunciations?

I'm pissed. I want to know where he got those pics!

c'mon... share, don't keep it to yourself!

He's been working on that collection since 95. You want one to match, put the work in yourself.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So a judge got reprimanded for possession of a collection of objects that he legally acquired and which are legal to possess?

Wow.

Note, this was questionable material made publicly available by the judge (albeit unintentionally) that reasonably could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest in his presiding over the trial of another person on obscenity charges.

I think the non-action reprimand is more than sufficient, but even Judge Kozinski recognizes his behavior was improper.


To quote the 3rd Circuit:

Like any citizen, a judge enjoys a sphere of privacy. As noted, however, a judge’s
conduct may be legally defensible but judicially imprudent. Imprudent extra-judicial
conduct that becomes public may result in gratuitously offending many people and invite
public controversy, which in turn may undermine public confidence in the judiciary.11
The Judge’s possession of sexually explicit offensive material combined with his
carelessness in failing to safeguard his sphere of privacy was judicially imprudent.
Moreover, once the Judge became aware in 2007 that offensive material could be
accessed by members of the public, his inattention to the need for prompt corrective
action amounted to a disregard of a serious risk of public embarrassment. The Judge in
his acceptance of responsibility and his apology has acknowledged as much. We join
with the Special Committee in admonishing the Judge that his conduct exhibiting poor
judgment with respect to this material created a public controversy that can reasonably be
seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the institution of the federal judiciary.

In his testimony before the Special Committee, the Judge accepted responsibility
for the events that culminated in the June 11, 2008, Los Angeles Times article. He
apologized for possessing the offensive material and for failing to secure it after his
personal files were placed online and when he knew it was possible for uninvited persons
to find them. The Judge testified:

I have caused embarrassment to the federal judiciary. I put myself in a
position where my private conduct became the subject of public
controversy. While this was painful for me personally, my greatest regret is
that I was identified as a federal judge, indeed, as a Chief Judge of the
nation’s largest federal circuit. And thus whatever shame was cast on me
personally, it reflected on my colleagues and our system of justice as well.
* * *
My unfortunate carelessness with certain files on my computer has
embarrassed the federal courts. And for this, I am deeply sorry.

With regard to the content of the stuff subdirectory described in the Los Angeles
Times article, the Judge characterized it as including some material that was “highly
offensive,” “gross,” “demeaning” and with “no redeeming value.” The Judge recognizes
that some members of the public, upon learning he possessed the material, may have the
misimpression that he has demeaning or disdainful attitudes toward women, creating in
the minds of some people what he called “a highly distorted picture” of him.

[Heinleinites]

Outside of the "har har irony" factor, and the possibility for creation of conflict of interest as regards his presiding over an obscenity trial, if the porn is legal, it's a bit of a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. It is unprofessional, though.

Personally, I think that's some nasty, nasty porn they described, but I've been around enough to realize there is no telling what people will get off on.

[South Lorenya]

Yes, he has some porn images. So what? If they're legal and he's not applying to lead the Institute Of Insane Soccer Moms Who Oppose Pornography, it doesn't matter that he has porn.

[Khadgar]

Should he not of recused himself from the proceedings due to bias?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Should he not of recused himself from the proceedings due to bias?

He did recuse himself. Not necessarily for bias, but for the appearance thereof. (Although that was AFTER the allegations about his public pornography collection was reported in the LA Times).

He also referred himself for investigation for misconduct. This 3rd Circuit ruling is the result of that.

[Greed and Death]

my poli Sci professor did a informal survey at a furry convention.
he said 70% identified as republican, and some 20% claimed to be lawyers.
what he was doing there he would not say.

So with my fudged math 50% of all republican law degree holders are furries.

[Gravlen]

I think the action taken was suitable for the judge fucking up like he did.

Nothing more was warranted.