Why ‘But, Judge, it’s Christmas!’ can’t carry any weight
Every year around this time, I hear a phrase repeated over and over. I hear it when a party requests relief that I cannot grant.
“But, Judge, it’s Christmas!”
An attorney, for example, will file an emergency motion for the release of his client from jail. The client’s family will be present in the courtroom. If I rule the client is too dangerous for me to release him, the family will exclaim, “But, Judge, it’s Christmas!”
Throughout December, I might as well hang a sign around my neck saying, “Bah humbug!” or “Scrooge” or “The Original Grinch.”
I started to wonder whether judges, at least on some subconscious level, are in fact more lenient in the month of December in terms of jail time, fines and other judicial orders. I searched for studies and statistics to no avail.
I did, however, come across the story of a former justice of the peace in Texas. He served on the bench for more than 24 years. He did not believe that people should be evicted from their homes during the Christmas holidays. Therefore, every December, he would not accept petitions for evictions during the last two weeks of the month. Finally, a property owner filed a complaint against the judge with the Texas Judicial Standards Commission. On May 5, 2008, the Commission publicly admonished the judge, finding that he had willfully violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:
“The Commission concludes based upon the facts and evidence before it that … [the judge] … failed to comply with the law … by engaging in a 20-year-long practice of refusing to accept eviction filings from landlords for part of the month of December. Although … [the judge] … may have had good intentions for creating this policy, the Commission found no statutory or other legal authority that would allow a judge to simply refuse to accept cases for filing. … ”
So, there you have it. No matter how good a judge’s intentions may be, he or she cannot ignore the laws and rules that govern judicial decisions, even when people protest, “But, Judge, it’s Christmas!”
But wait! That does not have to be the end of the story. When a judge cannot legally grant compassionate relief in situations that would seem to call for it, the attorneys and parties in a case sometimes can.
I handled landlord-tenant cases in Metro Court for many years. During the month of December, I noticed property owners and managers voluntarily stopped filing petitions for evictions during the latter part of the month. They believed it was the right thing to do.
I have seen banks halt or delay foreclosure actions during the holidays. Creditors have stopped wage garnishments. Traffic officers have waived discretionary fines and fees on moving violations.
I also have seen prosecuting and defense attorneys temporarily halt their own well-deserved holiday vacations to return to court and work out last-minute agreements for people stuck in jail on minimal bonds that they and their families could not post.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here. Perhaps, when the letter of the law does not make allowances for mercy or charity in a given situation, then maybe it is up to everyone else to bridge that gap whenever and wherever possible.
The Book of Ecclesiastes says, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”
There is a time to be firm, resolved and resolute in our duties and obligations. But there also is a time for charity, kindness and compassion.
After all the stresses and challenges of the past two years, a little peace and goodwill from all people to all people would be the most welcome gift of all during this holiday season.
Judge Daniel Ramczyk is a judge of the Second Judicial District Court. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the judge individually and not those of the court.