There are moments that can tell you something about a judge that no campaign commercial, endorsement or carefully prepared candidate questionnaire ever could.
An all-judges meeting may be one of them.
According to individuals familiar with an all-judges meeting involving Cuyahoga County Judge Antonio Nicholson and fellow Judge Bryan Mooney, Judge Antonio Nicholson became involved in a heated confrontation with Judge Mooney that reportedly went beyond an ordinary professional disagreement.
Those individuals say Judge Nicholson physically and verbally challenged Judge Mooney. They do not allege that Judge Nicholson put his hands on the judge, but they say the confrontation became serious enough that Judge Nicholson had to be escorted from the meeting by his mentor Judge John J. Russo.
If that account is accurate, voters have reason to pay attention.
Not because judges never get angry.
Not because judges cannot disagree.
And certainly not because judges are expected to be emotionless.
It matters because judges are entrusted with enormous authority, and with that authority comes an expectation of patience, restraint, fairness and self-control—especially when circumstances become difficult.
A courtroom routinely places a judge in situations far more emotionally charged than a meeting with colleagues.
Defendants may be disrespectful. Lawyers argue. Families become emotional. Prosecutors and defense attorneys clash. Witnesses become frustrated. People interrupt. Decisions can carry life-changing consequences.
Through all of it, the judge is expected to be the person who maintains order.
And maintaining order begins with maintaining control of oneself.
That is why the reported events at this meeting deserve scrutiny.
If You Cannot Control Yourself Among Judges, What Happens Under Greater Pressure?
Consider the setting.
This wasn’t a confrontation on the street.
It wasn’t an argument in a bar.
It wasn’t even an exchange with an angry defendant.
It was a professional meeting among judges.
These were Judge Antonio Nicholson’s peers.
Yet, according to people familiar with what occurred, a disagreement escalated to the point that Judge Nicholson had to be escorted from the meeting by his mentor Judge John J. Russo.
That raises a legitimate question for voters:
If a judge struggles to maintain his composure during a disagreement with another judge in a professional setting, what should the public expect when the pressure is considerably higher?
That isn’t a trivial question.
It goes directly to the kind of person we entrust with the power of the court.
Being Firm Is Not the Same as Losing Control
Nobody should expect a judge to be timid.
A good judge can be demanding.
A good judge can be tough.
A good judge can ask difficult questions, challenge attorneys and hold people accountable.
But there is a difference between firmness and losing control.
The qualities we should expect from someone on the bench include patience, dignity, courtesy, impartiality, restraint and the ability to remain composed when confronted or challenged.
Those qualities aren’t cosmetic.
They are part of what helps make a courtroom fair.
Imagine being a defendant standing before a judge who believes you have disrespected him.
Imagine being an attorney making an argument the judge strongly dislikes.
Imagine being a witness struggling to answer questions.
Imagine being a juror who makes a mistake.
In each situation, one person possesses the enormous authority of the court.
That is precisely why how a judge responds when challenged matters.
Power Requires Restraint
Judges possess extraordinary power over people’s lives.
They can impose sentences.
They can set bonds.
They can hold people in contempt.
They can determine what evidence a jury hears.
They make decisions that can affect someone’s freedom, family and future.
A person entrusted with that kind of authority needs something beyond knowledge of the law.
That person needs restraint.
The question isn’t simply whether Judge Nicholson knows the law.
An incident like the one described by people familiar with this meeting raises another question:
Does his conduct demonstrate the patience, judgment and self-control we should expect from someone entrusted with judicial power?
Because those qualities aren’t demonstrated when everything is going your way.
They are revealed when someone disagrees with you.
When someone challenges you.
When you’re frustrated.
When you’re angry.
When you don’t get your way.
Those are the moments that tell us something.
Voters Should Ask About More Than Résumés
Judicial elections are difficult for voters because most people never see what happens behind courthouse doors.
Campaign literature tells voters where candidates went to school.
Endorsements tell voters who supports them.
Questionnaires tell voters what candidates want the public to know.
But when choosing a judge, there is another question worth asking:
How does this person behave when challenged?
Ask the lawyers who practice in those courtrooms.
Ask courthouse employees.
Ask prosecutors.
Ask defense attorneys.
Ask people who regularly interact with the judges.
Because patience, restraint, fairness and self-control aren’t abstract campaign issues.
A judge brings those qualities—or the absence of them—into the courtroom every morning.
And if a sitting judge physically and verbally challenged another judge during an all-judges meeting and ultimately had to be escorted out, as individuals familiar with the meeting contend, that should not simply be dismissed as courthouse drama.
It raises a much more important question:
How does someone entrusted with maintaining order respond when he is the one being challenged?
The person responsible for maintaining control in a courtroom should first demonstrate the ability to maintain control of himself.
That’s not asking too much of a judge.
It’s one of the most basic things the public should expect.