Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Defended as ‘Brilliant’ by Colleague

Fifth Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones criticized a probe into the mental fitness of 96-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, calling the process involved “inexplicable.”

Jones, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who was reportedly on President George W. Bush’s shortlist for the US Supreme Court, wrote in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor that Newman had been deprived of due process by a special committee of fellow judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit investigating Newman’s ability to continue as a judge.

Jones’ letter, published Tuesday, calls Newman “a friend of mine” and “a brilliant, capable jurist.” In it, Jones endorsed an opinion piece in the paper co-authored by Newman’s lawyer Greg Dolin that published on Aug. 10.

The rebuttals come on the heels of an extensive report issued by the committee—composed of Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judges Sharon Prost and Richard G. Taranto—recommending suspending Newman from receiving any new case assignments for a year as a punishment for her refusal to cooperate.

The report described observations by the court’s staff that Newman “has been unable to remember from day to day how to perform simple tasks” like bringing materials with her to court and logging onto the Federal Circuit’s computer network. It alleged Newman has appeared “paranoid” when staffers offered her help with these tasks.

The committee didn’t conclude that Newman has a disability but said it had been stymied in its ability to assess her mental faculties because the judge refused to sit for a medical assessment by a neurologist selected by the panel.

Jones wrote that it appears “career-ending removal from” Newman’s “judicial duties is being imposed by her court” where the Constitution states that removal of a federal judge is a power reserved for the US Congress. Jones wrote that while serving as chief judge of the Fifth Circuit she presided over two investigations of judicial misconduct that resulted in her circuit recommending impeachment of two judges.

While Jones was chief judge, her circuit’s Judicial Council voted in 2009 to recommend impeachment of district court Judge Samuel Kent, who had been accused of non-consensual sexual contact with two female employees. A few years earlier, it recommended impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, who was investigated for failing to disclose gifts from lawyers.

“Neither judge was removed from a docket involuntarily pending the conclusion of our lengthy investigations,” Jones said.

Jones also called it “inexplicable” that the Federal Circuit had not followed a “norm” by transferring the investigation of Newman to another judicial circuit. “At odds with fundamental due process, members of her own court sit in inherently conflicting positions as prosecutors, judges, jurors and witnesses,” she wrote.

The Federal Circuit’s special committee did, however, provide reasons why it rejected requests from Newman that it transfer the case to another circuit in its report, which relied heavily on interviews of staff at the D.C.-based court.

“Proximity to court staff—particularly because the judges and staff in this circuit all work in the same building—has allowed the Committee to operate efficiently and expeditiously in investigating this matter,” it wrote. “Delays undoubtedly would have been the result of transfer here.”

Staffers, the report says, “have reported incidents with Judge Newman to the Committee in almost real time,” in some instances. The committee specifically highlighted one situation where a Newman clerk had reportedly “declined to work on Judge Newman’s defense in this matter (which is not court work) and found that he could no longer tolerate the atmosphere in her chambers.”

“The Committee believes that witnesses would have been chilled from participating in the process in a similar manner if they were required to contact federal judges in another circuit who were not known to them.”