Judgment is such a context.'8 The second-order investigation is therefore to assess the impact of anger on behavior and decision-making as good or bad in light of the judging role. Judging the suitability of cases of jurisprudence is a regular feature of jurisprudence and is therefore doctrinally important.2 7 The model proposed here demonstrates how a previously under-theorized - or, one might say less charitably, sloppy - area of law can be given greater rigor.
JUDICIAL EMOTION AND ANGER
Judicial Emotion: Its Inevitability and
Maroney, supra note 12, at 645 (citing, inter alia, JOSEPH LEDOUX, THE EMOTIONAL BRAIN: THE MYSTERIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF EMOTIONAL LIFE noting the consensus that "emotions are mechanisms evolved to maximize the chances of survival"). Maroney, supra note 13, at 1496 (citing Sharyn Roach Anleu & Kathy Mack, Magistrates'Everyday Work and Emotional Labor, 32 J.L.
Anger: A Summary
Justifying Anger
Plato also took the position that anger was 'a natural, open response to a painful situation'. ID card.; see also AVERILL, supra note 6, at 77 (explaining that, according to Plato, anger "became linked to reason to protect the individual from injustice committed by others"). AVERILL, supra note 6, at 97 (explaining that everyone except Seneca agreed that sometimes a person "has not only the right but the obligation to become angry"); WHAT IS AN EMOTION?, supra note 74, at 44-52 (quoting ARISTOTLE, RHETORY) (anger is directed at persons who harm "those whom it would be a shame not to defend: parents, children , women, subordinates").
Anger's Core Characteristics
Such episodes may be brief or may last; Short bursts of anger are often experienced as "hot," while prolonged anger can harden into a. Like all emotions, anger is multifaceted, carrying a complex set of attributes that can be used badly or well, including, as the rest of the Article will show, by judges.
The Ubiquity and Visibility of Judicial Anger
A NGRY JUDGES
In case law, evidence of judicial anger can often be found primarily in connection with allegations of judicial bias. Without pretending to attach any quantitative value to it, I base these qualitative statements on the experience of conducting (both alone and with research assistants) many searches for evidence of sense of justice over five years. Los Angeles judge Gregory O'Brien, Jr., for example, recently wrote an honest, self-deprecatingly humorous article entitled "Confessions of an Angry Judge."14 1 Finally, as the "benchslaps" feature of Above the Law suggests, there is a robust market for media reports of judicial outrage.
An important caveat is that these windows are just that: limited openings through which we see evidence of the phenomenon of interest. It is highly unlikely that written opinions, self-disclosures, and media reports will capture the entire universe of judicial outrage, especially given the continued appeal of the dispassionate scenario.
Anger at Lawyers
Schwarz is aware of the alternative definition of "ejaculation": namely, a "sudden short exclamation." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed.2000). Judge Judy is a good example of the difficulty in distinguishing real anger from "initiation". At least in the context of a motion to withdraw or due process challenge, judicial bias against an attorney is only legally significant if it is to the client's detriment.
A judge in a mob case was outraged at the defense for delivering a lengthy opening statement that she found to be full of inconsistencies and "vented her anger" at these and other perceived errors in front of the jury. These pressures can cause even conscientious members of the bench to vent their frustrations by showing anger and bias, even though they can usually suppress these traits.
Anger at Parties and Witnesses
Gantley, for example, the trial judge had ruled a polygraph examination of the defendant inadmissible; when the defendant attempted cross-examination to bolster his credibility by referring to that polygraph, the judge had an immediate outburst. One defendant, for example, spoke out of turn.1 8 1 The judge sent the jury outside and tried to explain to the defendant why he was not allowed to speak. It is clearly understood that the insolent retorts of the defendant, turning back the judge's words, were the final straw for the judge. 1 8 3.
While anyone's behavior can draw a judge's ire, it's especially a problem for criminal defendants. Sentencing time is a desirable place for a judge to express his feelings.
Anger at Other Judges
THE RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY JUDGE
Revealing the Judge's Anger, a project of the previous Work, is interesting not only for what it reveals about its subjects, but also for what it reveals about its audience. Justification captures the "why" of anger, while manifestation refers to the way the judge experiences it and expresses it to others. It sometimes falls upon lawyers and clients to incur the judge's wrath, and it may seem entirely appropriate for the judge to get angry and let that anger show. nevertheless, we can only worry about its influence on the judge: if the anger reacts, for example, to a personal insult, she may act rashly due to the desire to get even.236 Sometimes only the way of expression seems inappropriate, e.g. the anger is understandable.
He draws on concrete examples to elaborate the distinction between good and bad reasons for judicial outrage and argues that a good reason is one that is accurate, relevant and reflects good values. It explores the various behavioral impacts of judicial anger, such as increased reliance on heuristics—an experiential effect—and a tendency to show facially—an expressive effect.
Being Angry "with the Right Motive"
Righteous Judicial Anger Reflects
If a judge is angry with a lawyer who lied to him, for example, it matters whether the lawyer really lied. To be more precise, it matters whether the statement was actually false, whether the lawyer believed it to be false, and whether the lawyer intended to deceive. The judge's assessment of the truth status of any of these questions may be literally wrong.240.
McBryde angrily accused the assistant U.S. attorney of "engaging in lies and deception" when she claimed that some of the information he wanted her to present had been sealed by another judge. 241 The Fifth Circuit found that the charge was without merit.242 Ultimately, it imposed a three-year injunction barring McBryd from hearing in cases involving certain attorneys, apparently out of concern that he could not accurately judge the reality of where they were. 243 The district seems to have worried about these people at least, the judge could get angry for no reason. More disturbing than the original error was the fact that the referee was not concerned when this error was pointed out to him.
Righteous Judicial Anger is Relevant
Although the Court was not explicit as to precisely why, the apparent concern was that the sentiment reflects a categorical judgment that prevents the judge from adequately responding to the defendant's individuality. Anger from an irrelevant source can color the judge's perceptions and opinions in diverse and subtle ways.252 Indeed, the analysis of the following section shows that this is often true.253 A person who is angry for one reason can attribute ambiguous signals ( such as slowness) to sit) to willful misconduct. Such anger seems patently unjust if its trigger has literally no relevance: perhaps the judge was ticked off by the obnoxious lawyer who argued the previous case and took it out on the next person to appear.
Even if the lawyer is the target both times, the judge might find fault with some current, relatively blameless act because she is seething from a previous mistake. In other cases, a judge may have access to information she should not have, such as when a client unduly provides extraneous and prejudicial information, or that she should momentarily set aside, such as when she learns facts during a suppression hearing which are not subject to trial.
Righteous Judicial Anger Reflects
If the judge did not form judgments upon the actors in those courthouse dramas called trials, he could never make decisions." Id. A good part of the difficulty with Shaw is that the judge's reactions seem exaggerated, even though his anger had some Under the premise that the judge must, the accuracy of this finding, the judge is entitled to react emotionally to any damage the defendant has caused.
Expressing anger clearly shows victims and their survivors that they are within the judge's zone of care. 34;shake.”28 0 Insults, indestructible displays of power, extreme sarcasm, mocking and humiliating language all reflect that the judge uses anger to assert her dominance.
Being Angry "in the Right Way"
The Behavioral Benefits of
Potegal & Novaco, supra note 8, at Justified anger' is not necessarily constructive and prosocial, but depends on who gets angry, what they do about it, and who tells the story.") angry and happy persons have similar levels of optimism about the self; angry people tend to believe they can control and improve a situation, and overcome obstacles); Lerner & Tiedens, supra note 58, at 125 (anger causes a bias to view the self as powerful and capable to see "); Litvak et al., supra note 59, at Anger co-occurred with appraisals of individual control and caused continued perceptions of such control," not "just in the immediate situation, but in new situations."). Lerner & Tiedens, supra note 58, at Sltudies found that angry people often feel themselves to be "more energetic" to attack the cause of their anger.").
Tiedens, supra note 58, at 116; Litvak et al., supra note 59, at 296; Potegal & Novaco, supra note 8, at 10 ("Although community members may experience anger at the social deviance of others, expressing that anger is the particular province of dominant individuals and leaders who are seen as justified in doing so."); Larissa Z. Anleu & Mack, supra note 47, at 612 (judges' emotional labor can impose significant costs on judges themselves, including "distress and emotional exhaustion").
The Behavioral Dangers of
Further, if the judge chooses to broadcast his anger, he greatly increases the strength of his message. But by that point in the court process it was all that was required to remove the judge. All discussion ceased; the judge was simply "done". And once it was over, he went straight to the most punitive response possible: dismissal of the entire action, with prejudice.
In such a situation, the judge may question the correctness of the assessment she has attached to the factual basis of her anger. Interestingly, several workshop participants responded to this speculation as if it were insulting to the judge in question, Hon. We therefore expect that the judge will find another way to channel her anger.400.
If the anger is irrelevant or only marginally relevant, the judge seeks to justify his actions in other factors.
