The latest observations from Just City’s Court Watch report say that while most of Shelby County’s judges are accessible, many need to work on their ability to “treat both the accused and the victim with dignity,” as well as with sensitivity.
Just City is a Memphis-based nonprofit that works for criminal justice reform. Its Court Watch is a project that aims to bring “transparency and accountability to the county’s criminal legal system” and reduce barriers to justice.
“We do that by publishing these reports to provide a glimpse into what happens at 201 Poplar daily,” said the organization.
Just City’s “Court Watch” report is composed of observations from volunteers, who watch and evaluate the judges in the criminal courtrooms. Judges are scored on a scale from one to four, with one being the worst and four being the best.
“This report, which combines court watch and data analysis, provides an overview of the performance of judges in Criminal and General Session courts at 201 Poplar Avenue since September 2022,” said Just City.
Some of the group’s key findings concluded that most judges received lower scores in sensitivity and neutrality. Their findings also raised concern surrounding extended duration cases and the “frequency of dismissed cases.”
When evaluating judges, volunteers are asked to consider questions such as “Did the judge give the appearance of neutrality?” and “Did the judge handle each case with the sensitivity warranted?”
After receiving 10 rubrics from the judges that the group focuses on, they begin compiling that information into their latest report. In the current report, volunteers observed judges Paula L. Skahan, Carolyn Wade Blackett, Jennifer J. Mitchell, Bill Anderson Jr., and Louis J. Montesi Jr.
Skahan received high marks in accessibility and “ability to hear,” with her lowest scores being in timeliness and sensitivity. Volunteers noted that Skahan was “kind, but firm” and “demonstrated genuine concern for people in her courtroom.” However, volunteers also believed that Skahan can improve on her sensitivity, and that she should be “less condescending.”
Volunteers noted that Blackett “runs an efficient, fast paced courtroom,” and applauded her clear communication skills. They also remarked that Blackett was “responsive to defendants who had questions.” While Blackett received high scores in accessibility, and neutrality, her lowest score was regarding appointment of a public defender. Volunteers also believed that Blackett could improve on her interactions with defendants and her sensitivity.
Mitchell scored high in neutrality and accessibility, with comments noting her ability to be “conscientious of defendants needing to return to jobs” and her ability to provide “thorough explanations.” According to volunteer scoring, Mitchell scored lowest in timeliness with comments saying she “could be more efficient getting through her docket.” They also urged Mitchell to “take less phone and coffee breaks.”
Judge Anderson is recorded as having a “great handling of courtroom,” and volunteers took note of his decision to “take times to explain things.” However, a former client noted that he could be “less condescending” and should “allow for second chances.”
In terms of a lasting impression, however, volunteers also said “at times it felt like the prosecutors had more control of the courtroom than the judge,” and that he could “make better use of his time.”
A former client also noted that court under Montesi was “very efficient and organized,” while volunteers said he excelled in having “clear communication in layman’s terms.” However, Montesi was urged to “treat Black and white defendants equally.” The report also said they observed that Montesi seemed to have a “mean demeanor towards everybody.”
The full report can be viewed here.
