Why shouldn't magistrate or municipal courts follow the law?
Why shouldn't they? And why shouldn't defendants get a fair trial in the magistrate or the municipal court?
There are magistrates in our state, and there are excellent municipal court judges, some of whom have law degrees and some who don't, who follow the law to the best of their ability, and who are concerned about defendants receiving fair treatment in their courts.
There are also many magistrates and municipal court judges throughout the state who refuse to follow the law, and who see themselves as extensions of law enforcement. Why do we continue to allow this attitude in our lower courts? There are some lower court judges who will deny every motion made by a defense lawyer, and who will grant every motion made by a solicitor or officer, without even the appearance of listening. There are many who refuse to look at case law.
In a recent trial, I was informed by a magistrate that he simply disagreed with the United States and South Carolina Supreme Courts; disagreed with the 20 or so appellate court opinions I provided to him; and disagreed with the circuit court order I provided him overruling and reversing the last lower court judge who refused to acknowledge the same law and the same cases. Several months ago, I was informed by another magistrate that he did not make enough money to decide constitutional issues (He then said he was joking. The fact is, joking or not, he then went on to refuse to decide the constitutional issue, and continued to state that it was an issue for a higher court, not him.)
This isn't sour grapes. In the last two cases I mentioned, I am proud to say that juries did what the judges could not and gave justice to my clients. It's frustration, and it's disappointment. It's acknowledging that we can do better. There is a need for summary justice in the lower courts, dispensed quickly. But it must be justice - if we cannot give our lower court judges a legal education, we need to make sure that they have enough training in the rules of evidence to make adequate decisions during trial; that they understand stare decisis and the importance of obeying the mandates of higher courts; that they have a working understanding of the Constitution; and that they are functioning as neutral and detached judges.
Many of our magistrates are either former police officers or probation officers. That is fine, if they understand the neutral and detached role of a judge and if they are not police officers while sitting on the bench.
We have a system that provides trained attorneys to prosecute mostly pro-se defendants in the magistrate and municipal courts. Most cities have full time or part time prosecutors, and most magistrate courts have assistant solicitors assigned to them to prosecute DUI's and CDV's, if not other crimes. But neither the municipal courts nor the magistrate courts provide a defense to those who cannot afford counsel - which is most of the people who find themselves there. Despite the United States Supreme Court telling us that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does indeed apply in the lower courts, where a person is facing jail time, our Chief Justice has instructed the magistrates not to appoint counsel to indigent defendants.
I've no doubt that justice in the lower courts has improved by leaps and bounds in the last few decades. We are not there yet.
