What is particularly regretful about the demands of certain "victim's rights" advocates that Judge Kenneth Walker resign is that they seem to know nothing about who Judge Walker is. He is respected in the community as a no-nonsense, fair and courageous judge. Unlike many other judges I've appeared in front of as a criminal defense lawyer, he neither fears nor pledges fealty to the prosecutor's office. He is known for treating people who do not typically feel comfortable in court -- such as poor people and ethnic minorities -- with patience and compassion. Anyone who says Judge Walker is "anti-victim" does not know him as a judge.
Contrary to the extremists in the victims' camp -- who are usually encouraged if not actually led by prosecutors -- no participant in any proceeding is entitled to ramble on endlessly, especially on matters peripherally relevant to the proceedings, without risk of an abrupt judicial course-correction. That is a good thing. Judges need to maintain control of their courtrooms and are granted wide discretion in determining when a matter has been fully aired.
If Judge Walker cut off a victim after letting her talk for 20 minutes, I'd wager that he had a very good reason. Twenty minutes is longer than most state court sentencing hearings take in their entirety and longer than the time required by any of the thousands of defendants I've represented to exercise their right of allocution. Here, the parties had already agreed to the sentence, the victim's statement was likely already provided to all parties, and the judge undoubtedly had many other hearings ahead.
Judge Walker is under continual pressure to handle more cases with fewer resources, as are all of our judges. Perhaps we should respect his experience in knowing the difference between a fair proceeding and a publicly-funded soap opera audition.
Robert Reid, North Portland