Source: Albuquerque Journal, N.迷利倉M.Oct. 12--In local legal lingo, "DQ" does not mean Dairy Queen. It means bumping a judge from a case through a procedure called a " peremptory excusal." It is a disqualification that need not be explained, and it is available to each party in a case, whether it be civil or criminal.New Mexico, now among a handful of states that offers parties the ability to use peremptory challenges, is poised to alter that policy.But the New Mexico Supreme Court's proposed fix seemed to please almost no one.In August, in a civil case from Las Cruces, the high court said a district court judge may decide if a peremptory challenge filed against him or her is both timely and correct.The opinion also expressed concerns about the rule, saying in its current form it "impedes the effective and efficient administration of justice by causing unnecessary delays" and that as applied, it "inhibits the judiciary's growing need to operate more efficiently."Trying to balance fair trial rights and efficient dispute resolution, the court concluded the rule had to be amended.The Supreme Court prefaced its proposal, published in the Sept. 11 Bar Bulletin, by observing "a serious problem" with "excessive exercise" of disqualifications made for "purposes other than avoiding assignment of biased judges." It used phrases like "unprincipled judge shopping" and "serial excusals timed in such a way as to prevent judicial action."It said some state agencies were "misusing the power to exercise so many excusals" that an out-of-district judge had to be assigned.The solution proposed by the high court was to limit DQs to one on each side of a case, no matter how many parties there are. The court自存倉said that was consistent with other states that still allow the practice-- Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Federal courts do not allow peremptory excusals.Under the proposed rule, the chief justice would still be able to suspend excusal rights of an attorney or group of attorneys seen as misusing the rule. It also would limit DQs to 90 days from the outset of a case -- "before a judge has gotten involved in learning about the case and making rulings."Within a couple of weeks, the proposal drew over 150 comments. Supreme Court Clerk Joey Moya said in an e-mail that the court has no timetable for making a decision and is reviewing the comments.Some thought the proposal fine, and overdue."This rule change has been long in coming," one attorney wrote. "I strongly agree with the court's concern over the habitual abuse of the existing rule."Another, calling the existing system "just short of absurd," wrote that the proposed rule did not go far enough. Removing a judge should be subject to proof of bias, the commenter said, adding, "Having a reliable court system ... without the cutesy 'Oh, well, it is NM' nuances ... certainly is more conducive to the conduct of orderly business and dispute resolution."The Rodey law firm, which has many large institutional clients, wrote a lengthy commentary reacting to the proposal."The court should not limit the rights of the majority of litigants to an impartial tribunal because of the improper conduct of a few," its letter said in part.Copyright: ___ (c)2013 the Albuquerque Journal (Albuquerque, N.M.) Visit the Albuquerque Journal (Albuquerque, N.M.) at .abqjournal.com Distributed by MCT Information Services迷你倉
留言列表
