The Star recommends a vote against retaining these Jackson County judges
Jackson County Circuit judges John Torrence and Patrick Campbell, and Associate Circuit Judge Janette Rodecap are among 52 nonpartisan magistrates across Missouri up for retention in the Nov. 3 general election.
Interviews with criminal justice reform experts, defense attorneys and housing advocates reveal a troubling pattern among these three Jackson County judges of hostility and disdain toward public defenders and indigent defendants, putting the poor at a disadvantage in their courtrooms.
For this reason, The Star recommends that Torrence, Campbell and Rodecap should not be retained by voters.
Torrence once described overworked public defenders as lazy and suggested, without evidence, that most struggled with substance abuse issues.
Public defenders are appointed to represent criminal defendants who can’t afford to hire a private attorney. Torrence was the presiding judge in Jackson County in 2017 when he threatened Ruth Petsch, the head public defender in Kansas City, with jail time if already overburdened lawyers didn’t keep adding to their caseloads.
As a former public defender himself, Torrence certainly knows that offices across the state have been stretched to the breaking point.
Only Mississippi spends less on its public defender system on a per capita basis than Missouri. Funding is scarce. Individual caseloads continue to rise. Public defenders often juggle hundreds of cases at a time.
Some judges have exacerbated these issues as they’ve flouted the law and ignored pleas from public defenders.
Torrence labeled the outcry for a lighter caseload as a “feckin shitshow” in a 2019 email. He suggested that state-appointed attorneys don’t always need evidence before engaging in plea negotiations with prosecutors.
Why would a judge ever encourage a public defender to forgo a client’s right to due process? Every attorney understands that it’s unethical to advise a client without knowing the evidence.
Campbell once heard arguments from at least 25 public defenders that their constitutional duty to provide indigent clients with proper representation was being compromised due to a lack of staffing.
Unmoved by the argument that public defenders were risking their law licenses by taking on additional cases, Campbell suggested that Petsch take the matter up with the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Last year, Rodecap doubled a homeless man’s fine because he did not accept a plea agreement quickly enough to satisfy the judge.
“This is the risk we run when we don’t take the offer when it is extended,” she told the man’s legal counsel, an overworked public defender.
Rodecap’s docket was also the subject of a recent protest calling for a moratorium on evictions in Jackson County due to the coronavirus pandemic. Those pleas went unheard. Residents struggling to make ends meet continue to be removed from their homes as a result.
How retention works
In Missouri, the Nonpartisan Court Plan provides that judges run in retention elections after their first 12 months on the bench and at the end of each term.
A survey conducted by the Missouri Bar’s statewide Judicial Performance Review committee asked lawyers to evaluate the trial performance of judges up for retention.
The background and survey results for each judge appeared on the website, www.yourmissourijudges.org.
Among the eight circuit or associate circuit judges in Jackson County on the ballot, Torrence received the lowest mark for impartiality. He also received lower marks for treating parties equally.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWho decides the endorsements?
Members of The Kansas City Star Editorial Board interview political candidates, as well as advocates and opponents of ballot measures. The editorial board is comprised of seasoned opinion journalists and is separate from The Star’s newsroom. The board’s members are editorial writers Toriano Porter and Mara’ Rose Williams — all veteran journalists with decades of experience. Editors Derek Donovan is also a member, and editor David Tarrant, while not a member of the board, reads and often improves each editorial we publish. Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
What does the endorsement process entail?
The Star Editorial Board invites candidates in each race to meet with the board in an on-the-record discussion, the purpose of which is more fully understand what distinguishes one candidate from another. Board members do additional reporting and research to learn as much as possible about the candidates. The editorial board then convenes to discuss the candidates in each race. Board members seek to reach a consensus on the endorsements, but not every decision is unanimous..
Is the editorial board partisan?
No. In making endorsements, members of the editorial board consider which candidates are well prepared to represent their constituents — not whether they agree with us or belong to a particular political party. We do weigh heavily their stances on issues we consider basic tests of judgment and candor, such as whether they even acknowledge climate change as real, or if they continue to deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. We weigh these factors against many others, and state clearly what our conclusions are. Primarily, we evaluate candidates’ relevant experience, their readiness for office, their depth of knowledge of key issues and their understanding of public policy. We’re seeking candidates who are thoughtful and who offer more than just party-line talking points. The editorial board will endorse both Republicans and Democrats, making recommendations about who the best-qualified candidate for each job is.
Why are endorsements unsigned?
Endorsements reflect the collective views of The Star’s editorial board — not just the opinion of one writer. Board members all discuss and contribute ideas to each endorsement editorial.
The judicial review group was split almost evenly between attorneys and laymen, said member Larry Tucker, senior counsel for Kansas City-based Armstrong Teasdale law firm and former board president of the Missouri Bar.
Judges were evaluated for fairness and effectiveness. All met the overall judicial performance standards.
But the disdain exhibited by Torrence, Campbell and Rodecap toward the Public Defender’s Office in Kansas City and the poor is anything but satisfactory — and ultimately is unjust.
“I have never seen judicial hostility and retaliation against public defenders as I have in the criminal bench in Kansas City,” Stephen Hanlon, a former chairman of the Indigent Defense Advisory Group of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, said.
Hanlon once successfully challenged in court the chronic funding problems at the Missouri State Public Defender Commission. In 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that judges may not order public defenders to take more clients than they can competently represent.
A law later approved by the Missouri legislature forbade public defenders from turning down cases without court approval, essentially punishing those who can’t afford attorneys.
Hanlon spoke out against a system that prevents Missourians in need from obtaining legal counsel — not one particular judge. The hostility “is destroying people’s lives,” he said.
Every Missourian, regardless of their socioeconomic status, has a constitutional right to effective counsel.
The conduct of Jackson County judges Torrence, Campbell and Rodecap raises serious questions about whether they respect that right.
This story was originally published November 1, 2020 at 5:00 AM.