Vote to retain Judge Crane McClennen for Superior Court

Retain Judge Crane McClennen
We’ve been watching with curiousity the coverage of judges going on at AZ Judges Review, especially of Judge Crane McClennen, the only judge the Commission on Judicial Performance recommended not retaining. AZ Judges Review had the opposite opinion, and says the reason the Commission recommended not to retain him is because a few criminal defense attorneys wrote up bad reviews about him. Apparently Judge McClennen is an expert on trials, even wrote his own book that is used in law school to teach trial rules, and the criminal defense attorneys don’t like that. When all the trial rules are enforced, it’s more difficult for a judge to let their guilty clients off the hook. Court staff actually gave him high ratings, but the Commission didn’t bother to report that. So we’re giving Judge McClennen a THUMBS UP.

For another interesting post about AZ Judges Review, check out Liberty’s Apothecary.


Comments

  1. Antifederalist says

    Pat,
    You severely disappoint me. “Guilty clients”…at trial? So, in your estimation, ALL accused individuals are guilty. What ever cops say is 100% correct and they NEVER lie, eh? Everyone is guilty because cops say so. Let’s just do away with trials and the 5th Amendment and due process and all those other portions of the Constitution that you have no use for. In fact, lets herd the whole populace into prisons so we can REALLY have the commie dream: the whole population under government control. Our Founding Fathers were WISE to put protections for our citizens against the criminal justice system…they had suffered at the hands of British “justice”. I think you need to go back and re-read your constitution and the history of our Revolution and Founding. Our Founders were SKEPTICAL of government and built in checks on government, yet you’re ready to trust, wholeheartedly, cops, prosecutors, and judges…all of whom are GOVERNMENT employees. You’re no small government conservative. You’re a pro-big government moderate at best. You make me sick. McClennen might be an outstanding judge who knows his procedural rules extremely well, and he may run a tight ship…that’s awesome, love that. I’d vote for the guy. What I can’t stand is your willingness to belive in government, just like the liberals. If I were Shane, I’d give your little rear end the boot and not allow you to write for the blog any more. Idiots like you, who have this, “You better obey!” mindset contribute to the erosion of our liberties and the rise of the police state. The proper mindset for a true small government conservative is to mistrust government, watch it like a hawk, and limit it at every turn to prevent the damage it does. I spit on you, Pat. Frikken big government liberal.

  2. Uh, Antifederalist, why don’t you try reading what I wrote again. I didn’t say *all* defendants are guilty.

  3. Antifederalist says

    Your statement indicates guilt before a verdict. “[T]heir guilty clients” suggests to me that you mean that all defense attornies’ clients are guilty. Defendants aren’t “guilty” until a jury says they are. Even then, there’s a difference between a jury pronouncement of guilt and whether or not the accused actually committed a crime. There’s also a difference between what an accused actually did and what plea deal he agrees to. The justice system is severly broken, and for you to even hint that more people need to be thrown in jail, when AMERICA has the highest incarceration rates in the world, is unconscionable. That’s right, the Land of the FREE has WAY too many people in jail, all thanks to vicious cops, judges, and prosecutors. It’s actually a GOOD thing that judges have the discretion to override a guilty verdict, or impose a lesser sentence, because sometimes, they have better information than a jury does. They may see holes in the prosecutions’s story that’s not brought out by ineffective dfense counsel, or that the dumb jury never catches.

    Even if you did not mean that ALL defendants are guilty, your article STILL has an anti-defense attorney bias when, quite often, they are the only thing standing between the common man and government tyranny.

    I really hope that you, Pat, get an eye-opening experience. I hope some cop accuses you of something you didn’t do just because he gets off on the power to do so. I hope some prosecutor who’s ONLY worried about his career advancement and how many convictions he can obtain offers you a nasty plea deal where you have to cop to something you didn’t do to avoid worse consequences at trial should a jury of absolute morons decide everything that falls out of a cop’s mouth is 100% God’s honest truth. And I hope a judge, who also believes EVERYTHING cops ever say, throws the book at you. Let’s not even get to what might happen to you in prison. You NEED that kind of epiphany. Perhaps then you wouldn’t be so pro-government.

  4. Pat’s misplaced trust of police and prosecutors also goes a long way into understanding why Pat believes in reasonless searches by border agents at checkpoints a hundred miles from the nearest border. Pat wants a police state.

  5. Give it a dash of common sense, guys. He said “guilty” clients meaning within the context of the sentence that there is a difference between those clients who are guilty and those who are not. Why would he include the ‘not guilty’ clients?

    Those people who make a living dispersed within the judicial system are supposed to be perfect analysts of words and phrases. Of course when pure emotion gets in the way, it is difficult to let the words alone speak for themselves.

  6. Crane was not disliked by defense attorneys because of his rulings during trial but rather because he simply could not run a courtroom. Every other Judge could get a morning calender done before noon but because he insisted on arguing with himself the calender would go all day. He thought nothing of keeping jurors waiting for hours. His sentences were so light that defense attorneys liked having cases in his court. His now attacking defense attorneys is merely an attempt to save himself by blaming the most unpopular parties in the court system.

  7. kralmajales says

    Dont worry…no judge ever recommended to not be retained has ever been not retained.

    AND…just like with Merit selection you all show absolutely no understanding of the work of the Commission and the process. It is not near as politicized as you imagine and the when they make a recommendation of “not to be retained” it is pretty damned serious.

    Sigh.

Leave a Reply to Antifederalist Cancel reply