CONTRARY TO the position in the Feb. 2 editorial "Silence in the court," the credibility of the courts does not depend on judges responding to demands for explanations for unpopular decisions. Judges can and do explain their decisions - on the record, in writing, or orally with all parties present - to fulfill their primary responsibility to the litigants in a case. To educate the public, a judge may then respond to criticism by reiterating without elaboration what is set forth in the public record. By refraining from other public comment, judges assure the public that their cases will be tried, not in the press, but in the public forum devoted to that purpose.
Judges decide hundreds of issues in hundreds of cases every year. Any explanation for one of those decisions, months or years later in response to criticism, could not reasonably be seen as reflecting the decision-making process at the time and would no doubt be further attacked as self-serving and unsatisfactory. The administration of justice would be distorted, and confidence in the courts undermined, as the public watches the media and politicians manipulating the judiciary.
CYNTHIA GRAY
Chicago
The writer is director of the Center for Judicial Ethics of the American Judicature Society.
