Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Chuck Griffith needed to overcome several problems to win legislative support this year for a second term on the bench.
He had a reputation for moody outbursts in the courtroom. He had been reprimanded by the Virginia Supreme Court for displaying bias toward an attorney. And his previous Republican credentials as a prosecutor were a liability with key senior Democrats.
In the end, those issues were overshadowed by a new and distressing one of Griffith's own making. Doubts about the judge's credibility vaporized his support at the Capitol, stamping out what little hope he had for re-election.
Griffith's downfall ultimately was less about politics than it was about lawmakers' confidence in his story.
They raised questions about Griffith's presentation during a public hearing two weeks ago, when he made his bid for re-election.
The judge's detractors falsely accused Griffith of having an attorney handcuffed and jailed for failing to follow court procedures last fall. The judge offered a compelling defense against his detractors, revealing that the melodramatic details of the story were exaggerated.
After the hearing, a lawmaker decided to verify the judge's account. That's when information surfaced showing that the judge had provided an incomplete account to the committee. Some lawmakers then concluded that Griffith's version was designed to minimize what actually happened and to make him look better than the complete set of facts did.
Griffith acknowledged fining the attorney. He did not disclose that he had also issued a bench warrant charging the attorney with criminal contempt of court and ordering his arrest.
The lawyer was escorted from the courtroom by a deputy to be fingerprinted, booked and released. Although the attorney was not manhandled or restrained, he was in fact arrested.
Because of the confusing testimony, a legislator asked Norfolk Sheriff Bob McCabe for an accounting of the incident. His inquiries yielded the warrant, signed by Griffith, and records of the arrest. That disclosure sealed Griffith's fate.
Prominent leaders in both parties went to great lengths to defend the judge from attacks they assessed to be unfair and mostly partisan. Griffith's omissions, though, broke faith with the very people who trusted his word.
Griffith told legislators there was a "kernel of truth" in the criticisms against him. He had an obligation to give them the whole truth. By failing to meet that standard, he made himself undeserving of their confidence and thus their blessing for another term.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
Discretion vs Abuse of Discretion
There’s a fine line between judicial discretion and JUDICIAL ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Clearly, Mr. Griffith has abused his discretion. It’s not as much about what he did (holding a lawyer in criminal contempt) but rather WAS HIS CONDUCT JUSTIFIED, APPROPRIATE AND UNBIASED. Did he hold a lawyer in contempt for something that is done as an acceptable customary standard practice in Norfolk? If so, why was this particular lawyer/client held to a different standard? If so, is there an existing pattern demonstrated by this judge against that lawyer and as a result his clients? If so, does that place that lawyer and thus his clients at a disadvantage in front of that judge? I trust that the Virginia General Assembly acted in the best interest of the citizens of Norfolk.
Suggestions that a lawyer
Suggestions that a lawyer was arrested constitute a gross exaggeration of bench warrant for contempt. It's hard to take seriously anyone who tries to make that leap. There's an agenda lurking behind those who make that assertion.
A bit off the subject
I think it would be healthy for the judicial system and for the general health of America to cycle through judges, from the lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court. Life appointments and such invite temptation, complacency and bias in law...
Sorry for your experience
Aunt Bee, I'm sorry you had a bad experience in court. I hope you realize that not all of us are like that.
As for the comments about the arguing, etc., I believe they've been removed. Regardless, I won't be engaging in it anymore. I've already stated my opinion, it's not going to change, so I'm not going to waste my time wallowing in the mud on the internet with Z.
I never wrote on these
I never wrote on these boards before but after reading this I have to say that if this judge did lock up that lawyer then he needs to keep his job. I say this because I just sat all day in court to be a witness and waited and waited for a lawyer to show up and when he finally did he just got the case just got moved to another day. So I missed a whole day of work and sat in court all day with no lunch break waiting for a lawyer now I get to do it again. Some of the other witness were so mad they said they wont come back and one lady had health problems and couldn't sit that long but nobody cared. While I was there I saw a bunch of cases where lawyers were late and moved cases around so witnesses like me showed up for nothing. You wouldn't believe some of the junk I saw some of those lawyers do to try to get criminals off. I saw one try to get a woman not to testify and she was crying and telling him to leave her alone but he wouldn't. The only thing different about some of those lawyer and the crooks is the way the stripes go their suits. The courts are messed up and so are lawyers and I hope this judge did do something about it and I wish that lawyer had to stay in jail as
Good grief!
Will you 2 please take it someplace else? If I wanted to hear lawyers argue with and accuse each other of stuff all day I'd watch Court TV! Now back to the topic at hand. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a politician, and I don't play them on TV. I'm just an average guy who has been convicted of a misdemeanor in my time, and I was fined. Before I left the courthouse, I had to go in the back for fingerprints and get my papers. No faceplant, cuffs, or strip search. If what happened to this lawyer was similar, he didn't get arrested. Given that it is a the nature of lawyers, politicians, and their buddies to lie, cheat, argue, and name call to get what they want--see our friends on this board as examples--I take anything any of them say with a grain of salt. All I know is that as a citizen, I wish we elected judges. Everyone in office needs to be accountable to the people and not a bunch of crooked lawyers and politicians! That's all in case anyone cares what John Q. Public thinks.
Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Chuck Griffith
We need to get rid of about 80% of these lying judges that certainly can affect your life, at their whim. Who needs them. All members voted to boot the creep...well done!
I was there TOO . . .
I was there as well, and I have also read the transcript. Griffith was asked: "Did you have an attorney arrested?" He replied: "No, I never had an attorney arrested." When he was questioned again, he hedged and said: "I never had an attorney arrested that I was aware of." That got everyone's attention.
Also, Griffith passed out an eleven page letter to members of the General Assembly and I have read a copy. In fact, I have the copy in front of me. Griffith wrote: "I fined the attorney $50 for being late to court." That was it. When the GA members were informed that he also had the attorney arrested, he denied it. Issuing a bench warrant -- just to help you out here -- means HE HAD THE ATTORNEY ARRESTED.
When his fellow Republicans asked him about it, he again denied it. This is exactly the kind of mush mouth hedging that, were it coming from the mouth of a defendant in his court, he and you would be screaming to hang the guy for lying.
Funny how tight that shoe fits when it's on HIS foot.
The General Assembly Senate vote was
15-0. Zippo...... Nada. Thanks for giving an accurate accounting of why this man, the "law and order" judge, was not reappointed.
I WAS THERE
The case should not have even been discussed because it was pending appeal, and according to the panel's own rules of procedure, pending cases are not to be discussed. The panel even voted AGAIN to keep this rule. The judge's DETRACTOR (singular) repeatedly broke this rule, discussing this case, for which he was rebuked by a member of the House Courts committee, then he discussed another pending case immediately following his rebuke. When the judge rebutted, Sen. John Edwards of Roanoke, again in violation of his own panel's rule, repeatedly attempted to engage the judge in questioning about the case, and after other panel members stated he could not answer because it was pending, the Roanoke Senator said the judge "didn't want to answer" because the case was pending. The judge then quickly commented that he never put the lawyer in jail (which is true, the lawyer here was not jailed) and moved on. If you don't believe me, request the transcript; it's public record!
Disappointed
I must say I am disappointed in the Pilot's editorial staff. Research and understanding of fact as well as nuance are essential building blocks for responsible expressions of opinion, particularly those which impugn the character of a fellow man. The editorial regarding Judge Griffith reveals the editorial staff's lack of understanding of the legal system, what a bench warrant is in the context of a citation of criminal contempt, and what the process is that follows such citation. The bench warrant is nothing more than the paperwork necessary for the Clerk to process the citation of a lawyer for criminal contempt. It's not a warrant for the arrest of the offending lawyer. What a stretch!! On top of that, the sources cited would love nothing more than to see Judge Griffith gone. Consider your sources and their spin! Judge Griffith answered the General Assembly's questions forthrightly and honestly. No lawyer was handcuffed, no lawyer was imprisoned, no lawyer was arrested. He was found guilty of contempt and fined $50. Period. Those are the facts. The misstatements and exxagerations were made by others, yet the Pilot attacks the one who was truthful in responding to outrageous alle