It could not have been 10 seconds
into District Court Judge Dave Staudt’s presentation to realize he was in fact,
what he claimed to be. A forthright yet tactful man, picking and choosing
wisely what he wanted share with us. I have no experience with ever meeting a
judge and have definitely never had the opportunity of sitting down with one,
accessing information the normal citizen cannot. Staudt’s informative
appearance gave our class the opportunity to learn the hierarchy of our states
justice system, his background and how he decided to become a judge, along with
a long list of criteria and regulation that the typical citizen is uninformed
or apathetic to.
He began his appearance by
explaining his position in the Iowa justice system. Dave Staudt is 1 of 110
District Court Judge’s statewide, and just a few levels below the Iowa Supreme
Court. To be elected to serve this honor, one must first be a lawyer admitted
to practice law in the state of Iowa. You must then send an application to the
nonpartisan commission along with extensive information about one’s education,
professional career, and qualifications. The commission will then conduct
interviews selecting just two of the applicants to then be brought forth before
the Governor for selection. Staudt was a district attorney for ten years before
applying for this position, which adequately qualified him for such a role.
A district attorney is an elected
or appointed official who represents the government in the prosecution of
criminal offences. They are paid by the state, for the state and do their best
to deliver a fair and effective prosecution. The District Attorney’s office is
responsible for any cases besides civil suits. Under this position, Staudt had
seen “Just about every type of case.” Murders, theft, rape, and the list goes
on.
Judge Staudt’s level of positioning
in our states justice system sees felony’s ranging from drug trafficking all
the way to murder. Depending on the severity or uniqueness of the situation,
the Supreme Court of Iowa can step in and take the case at any point in time.
An example he gave us of the Iowa Supreme Court stepping in was an issue
between two women who wished to be married. At that point in time, gay marriage
was illegal under Iowa law. They went to the county clerk to attain their
marriage license with the thought of being denied the right of marriage would
be unconstitutional. They were inevitably denied a license and chose to sue the
state of Iowa. The Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs granting them the
right to get married. The case was appealed in the Iowa Supreme Court, gaining
national coverage and attracting an enormous amount of criticism via supporters
of both sides. In April of 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower
courts ruling finding it was contrary with the equal protection clause of a
state constitution such as Iowa’s.
Staudt was asked many interesting
questions about his own court experiences and accounts. Some along the lines of
ruling in favor of the law when maybe his personal beliefs go against what he
is ruling. Others asking what his most covered or interesting case has been in
his long line of duty. As a District Court Judge, the judicial system is
requiring them to interpret the law as stated and then to proceed to making a
decision on that case according to law. It is not in their job description to
rule in favor of something because they feel it is not unethical or unjust nor
can a judge at Staudt’s level interpret the law in hope of a bill for revision.
From the sentences above I concluded I could never be a judge. If a case was
brought to me and it went against my personal beliefs to rule in favor of the
written law, I could not do so. Luckily Judge Staudt said he has never
encountered such a case… Yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment