Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard an appeal from a defendant who claimed that his constitutional rights were being violated because the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency was "judge-shopping" by setting its citations before particular general sessions court judges rather than having them randomly assigned. The trial court found that the TWRA had indeed engaged in this judge-shopping and found that the defendant's due process rights were violated by such actions. The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed the trial court's ruling and held that the TWRA's actions in this case were perfectly acceptable. According to the Court of Criminal Appeals, judge-shopping is perfectly fine as long as the defendant cannot prove that the preferred judges have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct or were biased against the defendant in some way. In other words: "no harm, no foul."

One potential problem with this ruling is that although the law, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, presumes that judges operate with "honesty and integrity," most of the public in Tennessee and nationwide operate under a diametrically opposed presumption. Many citizens are skeptical of the legal system as a whole and cases such as this only serve to heighten the appearance of impropriety when actions such as judge-shopping are condoned. Condoning judge-shopping where no harm is done is kind of like wearing a ski mask into your local bank in the middle of July: you may intend no harm, but not much good will come from it and you will certainly invite suspicion from those around you.

If you suspect any kind of impropriety has taken or is taking place in your case, contact an East Tennessee criminal defense lawyer to discuss your situation.

Source: State v. McCullough, 36 TAM 23-28, 4/12/11, Knoxville, Witt, 8 pages.)