What we have here is a letter a lawyer wrote to a Maryland District Court judge after appearing as a defendant in a traffic case. The lawyer decided to share it, three years after he wrote it, in response to last week's column about the action taken against the rude and sometimes profane Baltimore County judge, Bruce Lamdin. The lawyer who wrote this wimped out about mailing it; the judge never saw it. The attorney asked -- and this won't be hard to believe -- that I not publish his name.

Comments welcome. Personally, I like the idea of judges asking about courtesy in traffic cases.  I don't find the question offensive, and being biased in favor of civility is a good thing. I have no problem with it. I just think the defendants should be asked whether the cops who stop them are courteous, too.

Anyway, in the interest of starting an argument on today's blog, I publish the letter:

"During the time that I sat waiting for my case to be called," the attorney wrote the judge, "I had the opportunity to observe your management of the docket and conduct of the proceedings and was generally impressed.  But (sorry, there is always a but.)  there is one thing you did that gave me pause, and the more I thought about it, the more it troubles me.  Thus, this letter.

"For each defendant who plead 'guilty with an explanation,' you heard the explanation and then turned to the officer and asked, 'W he/she polite and courteous?'   The first couple of times you made this inquiry, I dismissed it as an offhand remark.  But it became clear from your repetition of this question in every case that you believed the officer’s subjective perception of the defendant’s 'politeness' and 'courteousness'  was somehow relevant to your decision on disposition.  Candidly, I was offended by the question.  It implies that I may not have been 'polite.'  Would you not be equally offended if I asked your bailiff if you are a polite and courteous person.  Defendants should be presumed to be honest, polite adults who should be treated as such notwithstanding their having plead guilty to a violation (often technical only and not unsafe) of the traffic laws.  I guess I am saying I think your question was impolite and discourteous.  Perhaps you, in turn, think my last sentence is impolite and discourteous.   I am getting dizzy and confused.   Do you see my point? 

"My experience leads to the conclusion that police officers are probably not the best judges of what constitutes 'politeness' and/or 'courteousness.'   I think it likely that any contrariness or assertiveness by a defendant runs a high probability of being characterized as 'impolite' or 'discourteous.'  This worries me because I am a lawyer. Lawyers are accustomed to be being assertive and sometimes contrary.  To wit, this letter.  Your 'politeness' question gives the perception that you are conferring on police officers even greater discretionary authority than they already enjoy by inviting their subjective input into the sentencing decision.  Is this good?

"The public is not naïve to the 'wink and nod' that sometimes takes place in courtrooms.  In times past, I have heard judges ask the officer in traffic case guilty pleas: 'Anything to add, officer?'  This was obviously a much more subtle way of asking, 'Officer, would you like me to hang this guy for any reason?' The officer could then say something like, 'The defendant was very impolite, discourteous and disrespectful, your Honor,' which the judge would then understand was code for 'hang him, please.' Your politeness question makes this 'wink and nod' even more obvious. 

"I understand that judges may develop a certain kinship with officers that appear repeatedly before them and want to help them out by punishing the 'discourteous and impolite public.'  But as a practicing attorney and as a private citizen, I have seen plenty of examples of police abuse of discretion.  I can’t forget the friend who upon becoming an assistant states’ attorney commented that the most interesting thing about the job was how frequently police officers fabricate facts, even when completely unnecessary to the conviction. 

"Perhaps you should more appropriately have asked me whether the officer was 'polite and courteous' when he stopped me and taken that into account in your disposition.

"I have not investigated whether other judges on the District Court ask a similar 'politeness' question of police officers, however, I am informed by attorney colleagues that some do.   Thus, it might be appropriate to pass this letter along to the administrative judge, for further consideration and action.  Obviously, I think you and any other District Court judges who ask 'politeness' questions should cease this practice.

"I hope that you accept this letter as friendly constructive criticism and do not consider it too impolite.  If you do conclude that it is impolite, I sure hope I never see you again in traffic court!"