A Stark Reminder that Judges Must Remain Impartial

On July 24, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded former Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer for her conduct during the penalty phase and sentencing proceedings in the Parkland school shooting case. As AP News reported on Scherer’s reprimand, the case raised concerns about her treatment of defense lawyers and apparent partiality toward the prosecution. It underscores why judges must remain impartial, even in cases involving horrific crimes.

The Case Background

Nikolas Cruz was sentenced to life in prison in 2022 by Judge Scherer for murdering 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. However, the conduct of Judge Scherer during the trial, characterized by the Judicial Qualifications Commission as biased and emotional, has now drawn the ire of the Florida Supreme Court.

The Alleged Bias

The Judicial Qualifications Commission found that Judge Scherer violated several rules governing judicial conduct. For instance, she was reported to have “unduly chastised” Cruz’s public defense team, was seen embracing members of the prosecution after the trial, and even wrongly accused one of Cruz’s attorneys of threatening her child. These actions not only deviated from standard judicial conduct but raised serious questions about the impartiality of the trial.

The Essence of Judicial Conduct

Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to act without bias, maintain order in court, and treat lawyers and litigants with patience and respect. Canon 3B also bars judges from allowing public pressure or fear of criticism to sway their decisions. These duties apply throughout a criminal case, including the penalty phase and sentencing.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Florida Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to reprimand Judge Scherer underscores the significance of judicial conduct. The Supreme Court’s stand sends a clear message: irrespective of the gravity or public interest in a case, a judge must maintain decorum and impartiality at all times.

The reprimand disciplined Scherer; it did not overturn Cruz’s convictions or sentence. A defendant seeking relief from judicial bias must raise that issue through the proper motions or appeals in the criminal case. Filing a judicial misconduct complaint does not itself secure a new judge or a new trial.

The Takeaway for Defendants and Defense Attorneys

From a defense lawyer’s perspective, this reprimand highlights precisely why the judge’s role is so vital. The scales of justice must balance for all parties to feel heard and accept the outcome, even in heartbreaking cases. When victims justifiably vent their grief and anger, the judge must maintain order and decorum. This allows the defense to do its job of providing zealous representation, benefiting both the accused and the justice system itself.

Scherer’s farewell hugs with the prosecution team, however well-intentioned, created an appearance that she was personally aligned with the state against the defendant. Such perceived alliances, even if unintentional, undermine confidence in verdicts. The public understandably sympathizes with grieving victims and applauds prosecutors punishing society’s worst offenders. But judges must rise above these passions, following the law and Constitution.

This reprimand reminds the judiciary they must hold themselves to the highest standards, even when sympathies cut against them. The law cannot sway based on public pressure or heartache over appalling crimes. Written objectively and applied dispassionately, it is society’s best hope for justice. Judges are people too, but they must sublimate feelings to uphold justice’s integrity. With this admonishment, the Supreme Court stressed that core mandate. Judges everywhere would be wise to heed its lesson.