United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington v. John Jarrette Sandlin

Good Law
12 F.3d 861·93 Daily Journal DAR 16089·1993 WL 522507·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32979·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9382
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 199391-36251California10,049 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Leavy, J.

John Jarrette Sandlin (Sandlin) appeals the district court’s order suspending him from practice as a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington for six months for violating Rule 1.2(f)(2) of the Local Rules of that court and Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Washington State Bar Association by stating, falsely or with reckless disregard as to the statements’ truth or falsity, that United States District *863 Judge Alan A. McDonald ordered Ms court reporter to materially alter a hearing transcript and tape recording. We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND

The genesis of this unfortunate incident is Sandlin’s unsuccessful attempt to have Umt-ed States District Judge Alan A. McDonald recused in a civil case in wMch Sandlin served as defense counsel. During a hearing on a temporary restraining order, Richard Allen Smith (Smith), CMef Executive Officer of a plaintiff corporation, was called as a witness. As Smith approached the witness stand, he and Judge McDonald exchanged a greeting which according to Sandlin appeared to be that of friends. Based on his observations, Sandlin began questiomng Smith about his relationsMp with…

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

Trott, J.

Concurring and Dissenting:

• A judge must not only be impartial in his or her approach to a case, but a judge must also avoid the appearance of partiality. Canon 2B. of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges reads in relevant part as follows:

As Charles Alan Wright puts it, “Because the federal judge is given such extensive power over litigation before him, it is especially important that he not only be but seem impartial.” Wright, “Law of Federal Courts,” § 97 (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) pertaining to the disqualification of a judge says, “Any ... judge ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Anything less than this antiseptic approach to judging undermines public confidence in our system of justice, and without public confidence in the basic fairness of our system, it would soon crumble. This is one of the inescapable lessons of history that the noted historian Santayana admonishes us to respect, or reap the harvest that follows. Most of us are willing to accept losing in court if we believe the contest has been fairly run, but it is to the proverbial streets if we believe we have not been given…

Opinion

12 F.3d 861 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John Jarrette SANDLIN, Respondent-Appellant. No. 91-36251. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 10, 1993. Decided Dec. 20, 1993. John Jarrette Sandlin, pro se. Douglas Letter, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioner-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Before: BRUNETTI, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. LEAVY, Circuit Judge: 1 John Jarrette Sandlin (Sandlin) appeals the district court's order suspending him from practice as a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington for six months for violating Rule 1.2(f)(2) of the Local Rules of that court and Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Washington State Bar Association by stating, falsely or with reckless disregard as to the statements' truth or falsity, that United States District Judge Alan A. McDonald ordered his court reporter to materially alter a hearing transcript and tape recording. We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND 2 The genesis of this unfortunate incident is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.