Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct that Magistrate Geraldine Hale worked for the Pima County Public Defender's Office before becoming a judge.
The City Magistrate Merit Selection Commission, a five-seat review board that both recommends candidates and reviews the performance of Tucson City Court judges, has made a rare unanimous recommendation that the mayor and council vote against reappointing Magistrate Geraldine Hale to another term on the bench.
The City Council is scheduled to discuss the re-appointment at its next meeting Tuesday, March 9.
The commission's report said more than 35 prosecutors, public defenders, judges and defense attorneys from both the city and county spoke against Hale’s reappointment, citing what they said was her erratic temperament and lack of basic legal knowledge.
Every four years, city magistrates face a review panel in order to retain their position for another term. The magistrate commission said in its letter that its recommendation to remove Hale from her position was made with thorough consideration.
“We do not make this recommendation lightly. Quite the opposite, we do so with great reluctance and only after an extensive investigation spanning several months that included, among other things, an opportunity for Judge Hale to speak to us directly,” the commission wrote. “We make this recommendation in the strongest of terms and without any reservation. The evidence and our duty to the community require it of us.”
Hale previously worked for the Pima County Public Defender’s Office, and Tucson City Council approved her appointment to city magistrate in 2011.
After almost 10 years serving as a judge at the Tucson Municipal Court, her reappointment is being contested as dozens of court officials weighed in on her performance for the commission’s report.
According to the letter the city magistrate commission published Feb. 11, Hale is reported to have been abusive toward parties and counsels, has trouble understanding basic legal principles and doesn’t afford due process to defendants who come before her.
A unanimous recommendation to not reappoint a judge is extremely rare, as is the very notion of sworn officers of the court coming forward to testify against a reappointment. If a magistrate does retain their position, those who spoke out could face unwanted retaliation in court for challenging the judge’s competence.
“I want to make sure that people understand that this is not something that we recommend lightly. This is definitely an outlier. This is not typical,” said James Rappaport, chair of the commission.
The commission doesn’t consider comments from anonymous sources, and although their identities are unknown to the public, Rappaport says the commission had direct contact with every source who spoke about their experiences with Hale.
In the commission’s report, Hale is described as showing unprofessional conduct, including one instance where she left the bench early and instructed a prosecutor to issue bench warrants to the day’s remaining defendants for failing to appear, even though many were present in the courtroom.
“Judge Hale rushes through initial appearances at the jail and often leaves the bench while there are still pending motions from prosecutors as well as defense attorneys, and before the clients can be asked if they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present during questioning by law enforcement,” one source told the commission. “No other magistrate does this.”
Hale’s conduct is also described as “volatile.” Sources told the commission sometimes she appears calm, and other times berates attorneys, making them appear incompetent in front of their clients.
One criminal defense lawyer who spoke to the commission, Joseph St. Louis, says he’s been in front of Hale at least a dozen times and has never experienced such unprofessional conduct from a judge.
“I've seen instances where lawyers in the courtroom, including myself, have been arguing things to her that she didn't seem to understand. She gets frustrated, she gets angry, and then she sort of lashes out,” he said.
St. Louis provided the commission a recording of one of his hearings in front of Hale where she rebukes him over her own misunderstanding of a basic legal principle.
The attorney asked Hale to include a lesser charge in a DUI case and filled out the corresponding jury instruction sheet. Hale took issue with the fact St. Louis’s instruction sheet was filled in pertaining to the case specifics and didn’t match the blank instruction sheet template.
“I would appreciate it if you would not state things that are not correct in the law,” Hale told St. Louis in the recording, later adding, “I don’t appreciate you telling me that your proposed instruction is identical to what is stated in the law, and it is not.”
The commission report received the recording and mentioned Hale’s misinterpretation of the law.
“On another occasion, she berated a defense attorney in front of his client for raising a legitimate legal argument in a DUI case,” the report said. “Judge Hale not only incorrectly interpreted a basic point of criminal law, she also was openly rude to counsel and accused him of misleading the court.”
In its report, the commission says it brought the numerous allegations before Hale, and she described those who came forward as being “mean spirited” and suspected they came from the city public defender’s office, which previously filed a complaint against her.
“It is the considered opinion of the Commission that Judge Hale was not candid with us and that she was not credible. While it is understandable that defensiveness is a natural reaction to criticism, the interview went beyond mere defensiveness to flat denial,” the report states. “Judge Hale did not earnestly engage with our questioning, and she did not acknowledge or accept even a single criticism we presented her with.”
Hale didn’t respond to the Arizona Daily Star’s requests for comment.
Several sources did write to Mayor and Council in support of Hale, however. Tucson City Court Magistrate Jeffrey Klotz told councilmembers he supports Hale’s reappointment and said she’s “conscientious and diligent in her efforts to fulfill the obligations of her post.”
Tatiana Struthers, a supervising attorney for the Pima County Public Defender’s Office, said Hale has given her opportunities to argue her case in the numerous times she’s appeared before the judge, and said Hale doesn’t allow “BS” in her courtroom.
Clarence Boykins, former president of the Tucson-Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce, said Hale’s extremely qualified, even more so than some of her peers. Annie Sykes, vice president of the NAACP Tucson, wrote Hale has “fairness, ethical values and integrity,” and contended the commission unfairly labeled her as a “bully.”
Rev. Amos L. Lewis of the Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church also expressed Hale is has been unfairly labeled as a bully, and referred to her as “respectful and good-natured.” He said her legal experience makes her well qualified as a magistrate, and she volunteers extensively outside the courtroom.
Michael Bloom, a private attorney who’s worked in Tucson for more than 40 years, says the merit commission’s unanimous recommendation carries a lot of weight.
“When attorneys publicly question a judge's competence, the attorneys risk the judge retaliating against the attorney and the attorney's clients if the judge is retained,” he said. “For those reasons, when a large number of attorneys, both prosecutors and defense attorneys and public defenders, come forward to publicly question a judge's suitability to sit on the bench, it is highly significant.”
While St. Louis understands the fear of retaliation among some officers of the court, he felt speaking out against Hale’s conduct was a matter of due diligence for the integrity of the legal system.
“I mean, yeah, she's been rude to me. But to be honest, that's not why I'm speaking out about it. I've been a lawyer for over 30 years, I have skin like an elephant. I don't particularly care,” he said. “But what I care about is some 19-year-old kid who comes in front of her who is going to get run over because they don't know what to do in court and she's just going to shut them down with her demeanor. That's my concern.”
Bloom emphasizes the important position city court judges have, as many defendants are unable to obtain counsel to guide them through the charges brought against them.
He said, “City court magistrates perform an exceptional function — it is very important that it be done well. They require an excellent judicial temperament.”
