‘That’s Quite A Record’: Dick Durbin Questions Judicial Nominee About Previous Rulings

last year

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) questioned pending nominees on their backgrounds.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 Thank you, Judge Kidd.

00:03 For those who are here with the nominees who have not been through this process

00:07 before, it is an interesting exercise.

00:10 Men and women come before us hoping for lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

00:16 They are questioned about their backgrounds, their competence, their integrity, and their

00:22 record under the law.

00:25 Judge Kidd, you bring one of the most lengthy records I can recall, 13,700 decisions.

00:34 Amazing.

00:35 Reversed nine times.

00:37 Nine times out of 13,700.

00:41 That's quite a record.

00:42 The American Bar Association asked lawyers and professionals in your community what they

00:47 thought of your performance as a judge, and let me read what they said.

00:52 The standing committee of the American Bar Association has the unanimous opinion that

00:56 Magistrate Judge Kidd is well qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

01:02 Eleventh Circuit.

01:03 That's a good starting point.

01:05 Having said that, expect that at least two or three of the decisions which you reach

01:09 will be very controversial and raised in this committee.

01:12 That is part of the process.

01:14 I know you are prepared for that.

01:17 So let's start in with a question, if I can, in terms of two cases.

01:24 U.S. v. Deity, do you recall that case?

01:27 Yes, Senator.

01:30 Explain to me what your ruling was in that case.

01:34 In United States v. Deity, I saw the defendant at an initial appearance, and at that time

01:42 it was on a criminal complaint, and my involvement in the case was really that initial appearance

01:52 and a detention hearing, at which time, at the initial complaint stage, he had been charged

01:59 with one count of possession of child pornography.

02:05 After hearing that evidence from the government, I placed the defendant on home detention,

02:15 house arrest.

02:16 So he couldn't leave his residence without court's permission.

02:20 He was on GPS monitoring, no contact with the victims or with any other minors.

02:26 And subsequent to that, the defendant was indicted with two additional charges of enticement

02:35 of a minor for two different victims.

02:38 The government sought a review of that decision with the district court and presented additional

02:44 evidence to the district court that it was not before me, and the district court decided

02:50 to detain the defendant, and then I think he was ultimately convicted of those crimes.

02:58 So your home confinement for pretrial was under charges that changed dramatically after.

03:06 Is that correct?

03:07 That's correct, Senator.

03:10 In addition, at the time that I saw the defendant, there was no statutory presumption that he

03:16 should be detained based on the charges that he was ultimately indicted for.

03:20 At the time that the district judge saw the defendant, there was a statutory presumption

03:23 that he should be detained.

03:25 U.S. v. King, could you explain your decision in that case?

03:31 In United States v. King, the defendant, I believe, had been charged with possession

03:36 of child pornography.

03:38 At the detention hearing, after hearing evidence from the government and hearing argument from

03:43 both sides, this was another individual that I placed on house arrest with similar conditions,

03:49 could not leave the residence without court permission.

03:51 He was on GPS monitoring.

03:54 He could have no contact with the victims or with any other minors.

04:00 And in that case, the government again presented additional evidence to the district judge,

04:08 and the district judge noted on the record that that additional evidence persuaded her

04:12 that the defendant should be detained.

04:15 And he was ultimately, I believe, he was ultimately convicted of those charges.

04:18 So the charges against this defendant, after you initially put the home confinement requirement

04:25 changed, and were increased in the district court, made a decision based on those new

04:31 charges.

04:32 Is that correct?

04:33 Senator, I believe in that case there was an indictment.

04:36 I'm not sure if there was a superseding indictment afterward, but the government presented additional

04:42 information to the district judge based on my review of the transcript regarding the

04:48 defendant's compulsions, and that caused the district judge great concern.

04:51 That information was not presented to me.

04:54 I'd like to ask you in the minute remaining, if you can, to summarize your involvement

04:59 in the Joel Greenberg case.

05:03 In the Joel Greenberg case, I was not the magistrate judge assigned to the ultimate

05:09 case, but I was the magistrate judge who saw Mr. Greenberg at his initial appearance, and

05:16 I set his conditions of release.

05:20 At some point, Mr. Greenberg violated the conditions of his release, and I ordered him

05:26 detained based on that violation.

05:29 Thank you.

05:30 Senator Lee.

‘That’s Quite A Record’: Dick Durbin Questions Judicial Nominee About Previous Rulings

Category

Transcript

Recommended