38

It is true that judges in the US have absolute immunity from any lawsuit for damages arising from their performance of judicial functions. This applies even if those actions were corrupt, malicious, or illegal. The only exceptions to a judge's immunity to a lawsuit is if the conduct alleged was not a judicial action, or if the judge was acting in the ...


24

NO If there were no extenuating circumstances (or they should not have been looked at as they were not presented), the losing party can petition for reconsideration and appeal the decision as a matter of law. The Judge/court of appeals then reviews the case and decides if the verdict stands. But you can't plead new facts at that stage, so if the losing side'...


19

To answer the titular question: No, judges do not have immunity against criminal conduct in office. A recent notorious examples was the 2008 "kids for cash" scandal in which two Pennsylvania judges were convicted of numerous crimes for sentencing juveniles to for-profit detention facilities that gave them kick-backs. Update: A "shocking" new case I just ...


9

YES There is a way to hold a judge accountable for harm caused by a bad decision: vote him out of office. Judges undergo a retention election every 6 years. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission also reviews state judges, and you can file comments indicating whatever problem you want to complain about. There is no way to achieve the desired ...


5

At common law, judicial immunity does prevent judges from being charged with crimes committed while acting as a judge, as well as protecting them from civil lawsuits. But as observed in other answers, American judges are occasionally convicted of criminal offences as a result of their conduct on the bench. When judicial immunity has been raised, courts have ...


3

Yes and No. The Federal U.S. Government as well as each individual state and territory claim Soverign Immunity to a limited degree. In the case of Federal Government, they claim Soverign Immunity to a near limitless degree (more on this in a moment), while States and Territories claim "State Soverign Immunity" which grants them immunity with ...


3

First, the proper immediate action is to - while not leaving the judicial branch - appeal up to the next higher court. In federal courts, the lowest levels are district courts, which issues decisions appealable to the circuit courts, whose decisions are sometimes able to make their way to the Supreme Court by submitting a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. ...


2

Poland introduced a judicial disciplinary panel and faced opposition from most of the other EU members.


2

Appellate judges make holdings on matters of law, and generally defer to the fact-finder in a given case (the jury, or sometimes the judge) on factual matters relevant to a case. So in a case that involved certain mathematical arguments, they would generally leave it to the jury to decide whether those arguments were reliable. Put simply, Appeals courts don'...


2

This is one of the things that the Prosecution is required to inform the defense of under Brady Disclosure and the Defense may raise issue with the testimony being less than reliable in part because the witness is benefiting from a quid pro quo for testimonial evidence. Brady Disclosure gets its name from the landmark SCOTUS case Brady v. Maryland which ...


1

No. Holding a judge accountantable will inevitably lead to injustice, as the judge will weigh every decision not on what the law says or what is fair or best for society, but what will be most benefit/least damaging to the judge. Once they have to take risk into consideration the corresponding benefit will naturally follow. The most we can do without ...


1

In the US, judges get and keep their jobs in a number of different ways: this is how matters of judicial quality (when not involving misconduct) are handled, by voting the bum out of office. For example, state Supreme Court justices in Washington are elected by the voters to 6-year terms. Superior and district court justices are elected for 4 years. The ...


1

A judge does not have to address every argument raised in their judgement Otherwise every judgement would be absurdly long. All the judgement needs to demonstrate is that the judge turned their mind to the arguments. The judge accepted X - implicit in this is the rejection of B. The judge has considered A and X and stated their reasons why they like X over ...


1

Court Registrars, in the performance of their duties, have the same immunity from civil action as judges i.e. total immunity They cannot be sued: period. Even if they act corruptly or maliciously - although they can be criminally prosecuted for that.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible