If the prosecution and the defense are both unhappy with the way a judge handled a case, he or she either wielded the gavel superbly or poorly. In the case of Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Donna Jo McDaniel, we fear it is the latter. It’s time for Judge McDaniel to cease hearing sex crimes cases because too many questions have arisen about her demeanor and fairness toward defendants.
In a highly unusual move, the county district attorney’s office joined the county public defender’s office in seeking Judge McDaniel’s removal from a rape case, telling a Superior Court panel that she had violated defendant Anthony McCauley’s rights by failing to give him the opportunity to speak during a resentencing. But the larger question hanging over the appellate court hearing was, as Deputy District Attorney Michael Streily put it, whether Judge McDaniel has demonstrated a pattern of bias toward sex offenders and should be referred to the Judicial Conduct Board, the agency that investigates misconduct by judges.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys rarely find themselves reading from the same script. Rarely do they criticize judges so openly. But none of this should have surprised the three-judge appellate panel in the McCauley case because the Superior Court itself has had sharp words for Judge McDaniel over her handling of other sex cases. Twice, it’s ordered her to resentence defendants because she gave them too much prison time. In each case, thumbing her nose at the judges above her, she imposed the same sentence again.
In ordering the resentencing of one of those defendants in January 2017, Superior Court expressed concern about a “possible emerging pattern” of bias in Judge McDaniel’s treatment of sex offenders. Her handling of the McCauley case provides additional cause for concern. Now, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the Superior Court all have called her fairness into question. That’s telling.
Judge McDaniel’s demeanor also is problematic. She has harshly criticized defense attorneys for pursuing their clients’ rights in appellate courts, alleging at one point that the public defender’s office had made it a “mission ... to attack” her sentences for the purpose of finding fault with her. She also has warned that the public defender’s credibility could become “strained” and that such a situation could prove “harmful to other criminal defendants who may actually have meritorious claims.”
Let’s break this down. Defense attorneys are supposed to zealously represent their clients and ensure their rights are respected. That means using appellate courts when necessary. That’s why those courts exist, and the greenest law student knows this. Second, no competent, fair-minded judge ever should let the reputation of an attorney color the outcome of a defendant’s case. The greenest law student knows this, too.
Sex offenders aren’t likable, and may even be despicable. But for the justice system to work, their rights must be respected and their cases adjudicated in strict conformance with the law. Judge McDaniel has exhibited questionable behavior toward defendants and attorneys, and she has flouted the rulings of an appellate court. In trying to defend her conduct, she has created additional questions about impartiality that could give other defendants a basis of appeal before they ever walk into her courtroom. Regardless of whether the Judicial Conduct Board gets involved, it’s time for her to move on to a different docket.
First Published: April 22, 2018, 4:00 a.m.
