Justice too long delayed
IN THE last two days, Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Charles Johnson has offered various explanations as to why a Roxbury judge took three months to rule on a routine collections case involving State Senator Dianne Wilkerson. So far, the explanations -- a swamped court system, the need for further legal analysis, the inexperience of the judge involved -- don't add up. If Johnson will not conduct a full review of the matter, then the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct should.
The judge in the case, Michael Bolden, did more than just delay a decision while Wilkerson was fighting for her political life, forced to wage a campaign for write-in votes after she failed to gather enough signatures to secure a place on the ballot. Even though Wilkerson did not appear in court -- which would typically trigger an automatic ruling in favor of the plaintiff -- Bolden took the case file and kept it in his chambers until after the Sept. 19 primary.
That meant that no one could easily access an indisputably public record, which contained embarrassing details of the charges that Wilkerson owed her Roxbury condo association over $13,000 in fees. While the file sat in Bolden's chambers, Wilkerson waged an election battle with a serious contender, Sonia Chang-Diaz, who is demanding a recount based on unrelated election irregularities.
Bolden and his superior in Roxbury, Judge Edward Redd, both preside in a community where Wilkerson is a powerful figure. In the minority legal community, Wilkerson has an especially dominating presence. Voters need to be reassured that personal or political ties did not influence a judge's ruling -- or lack thereof -- in a court of law.
In Bolden's defense, Johnson said he was a new and rotating judge who mostly handled criminal matters. He also said that the plaintiffs in the Wilkerson case requested an assessment of damages, which prolonged the case. But that kind of accounting should not take three months, and even if it did, it would not have prevented Bolden from entering a decision against Wilkerson immediately.
Johnson said that Bolden acknowledged holding the case ``longer than he had intended." After speaking with Bolden and Redd, he said no further review is needed and the matter is closed. But Bolden's explanation -- that the delay was a simple oversight -- demands more scrutiny. Among the questions the Commission on Judicial Conduct might ask: How did Bolden, who normally handles criminal matters, end up with Wilkerson's civil case? What personal or political ties, if any, exist between Wilkerson and Judges Bolden, Redd, or Johnson? And if Bolden admits to holding the case longer than he intended, how long did he in fact intend the delay to be?
