CBA condemns threats against Judge Thomas Nowinski

The Chicago Bar Association has issued a statement condemning threats made against Judge Thomas Nowinski.

The statement, posted to X, states in pertinent part, "Regardless of one's views on the merits of any judicial decisions, threatening judges and their families is not acceptable in our society under any circumstances. Threats made against those we have appointed or elected to administer the rule of law undermine our democracy and judicial independence and must be denounced by our community and responded to by law enforcement to ensure the protection of our judges and court personnel."

The threats referred to in the CBA's statement were reported in this Chicago Sun-Times story by Andy Grimm and Sophie Sherry and this CWBChicago story by Tim Hecke.

FWIW readers are presumably well aware of the tragedies underlying this controversy; for those who may not be fully up to date, this November 24 CWBChicago report by Tim Hecke provides helpful background.

CWBChicago, for one, is reporting that the Office of the Chief Judge is "investigating to determine whether any employee failed to follow policies and procedures" in these cases. I don't pretend to know what these investigations will reveal, or what they should determine.

I suspect, however, that there will be blame enough to go around: whether it will, or should, rest on the judge, or the State's Attorney's Office, or on the "court official responsible for providing pretrial assessments for judges to consider," or on some combination of these, or in what proportion, is not something I can calcuate or predict. I don't know Judge Nowinski personally; I don't believe we've ever met in person. But I would be astounded, whatever the investigations may reveal, if he were not profoundly affected by the two cases where persons he did not detain went on to murder persons they'd previously threatened.

But the impulse to blame the judge for these tragedies should not result in threats to the judge's safety. Clairvoyance has never been a prerequisite for judicial service; that this judge has not been blessed with second sight should not alone be disqualifying. Judge Nowinski would not have been the first judge to imagine that electronic monitoring devices are blessed with properties that they really don't have. According to CWB Chicago:

[Chief Judge Timothy C.] Evans has a history of overstating the real-world capabilities of the GPS-based system.

Speaking to the Union League Club in January 2022, Evans described the domestic violence GPS system and the electronic no-go zones around the victim that the accused is not supposed to enter.

“And also, we can contact the victim,” Evans continued. “And we can say, ‘Madam victim, the potential perpetrator is outside of Macy’s right now on the Washington [Street] side, and if you have to leave, please go out the Randolph side, don’t go out the Washington side. He’s in a zone that he shouldn’t be in, but we want to tell you so you can avoid getting attacked.’”

In reality, an individual with knowledge of the system says, humans do not regularly monitor individual GPS zone violations in real-time and they described real-time, personalized intelligence warnings like the one Evans described at Macy’s as “Fantasyland.”

If the Chief Judge believes that electronic monitoring devices are equipped with these fantastic, but fictitious properties, it might not be so surprising that some of his subordinates might also believe similar things. Even if they shouldn't. There are, moreover, some judges who apparantly cling to the charming, but dangerous, belief that Orders of Protection are bulletproof, a belief based perhaps, at least in part, on their own ingrained obedience to following court orders, to the point that they can't imagine that anyone else might not feel so constrained.

But I am not here to pile on judges: The best judge is constrained by the record before him or her, namely, the evidence provided by the witnesses, the arguments of counsel, and the reports of court agencies. And, of course, most importantly, the text of the law itself constrains courts. Judges are required to follow the law. It is always easy to blame the judge when a terrible consequence follows from a judicial decision, and blame may often be justified. But sometimes the terrible consequence might be the logical result of a judge applying a bad law.

I do not pretend to know whether the laws applicable in these cases should be considered to be part of the problem. I never practiced criminal law. But I am wary of politicians, including those who have a vested interest in a statute, or group of statutes, because they supported those statutes in the first instance, saying that the judge alone should wear the jacket in any given case.