Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

High Profile, Small Town

Respect your local media.
Appoint a media bailiff.
Recruit a mentor for moral support.

Those were three, key lessons learned by Chelan/Douglas County Judge T. W. “Chip” Small when he tried a recent super-high profile case in the small town of Waterville.

In November, Small presided over one of the year’s most highly publicized and controversial trials, State v. Roberson, or as it was known to the rest of the world, the “Wenatchee sex-ring case.”

The “sex-ring” case actually involved many trials against individual members of the Pentecostal Church of God, alleged to have sexually abused children at the church. The first case, heard by Judge John E. Bridges, involved charges against the church’s Sunday school teacher.

The Roberson trial — the “finale”— was heard in Douglas County Superior Court, in a town surrounded by wheat fields, with slightly more than 1,000 people.

Charged with sexually abusing their daughter and leading “sex orgy” abuse against other children, pastor Robert H. Roberson and his wife, Connie Lee Roberson were eventually found not guilty of all charges.

Cameras in the courtroom

“[Once] I had been contacted by Court TV to broadcast the entire trial live, with gavel-to-gavel coverage and a trial lawyer and a law professor available to comment throughout the trial...I knew,” the blitz was on, Small said. After talking it over with others, Small declined Court TV’s invitation. Later, he would decide to ban cameras from his courtroom altogether.

For pretrial hearings, Small anticipated heavy local and state media coverage. To make sure everything ran smoothly, he designated a media bailiff, [Tammi Clark] then issued a court order on media coverage.

That order stated, “The use of any camera in the courtroom shall be prohibited unless the camera person is a representative of the media and has obtained the permission of the Court which shall determine the use and placement of the cameras in the courtroom. All camera persons must be familiar with the Bar-Bench Press Guidelines as published by the Washington State Bar Association and the contents of this Order and agree to abide by the terms of this Order.”

Small’s order also included provisions for a small number of still cameras, allowing one video camera following voir dire (which others could hook into or “pool” on) and a limited number of audio recorders. Generally, the media adhered well to the order. But the judge began to have second thoughts about letting cameras into his courtroom.

“I thought about the Midas guy that does brake jobs. I thought, here is a guy that works eight hours a day, putting brakes on all of these vehicles. How would he like it if the national media wanted to broadcast live on national television, every brake job that he does for the next four to six weeks, with a master mechanic to comment on what he’s doing,” said Small. “And I thought...I think that would affect his job,’ you know? He is just not going to be comfortable doing that, and I don’t see how I am any different, or the lawyers, or the parties, in this particular case. But I do think there are cases where it is good to have them in the courtroom.”

He quickly learned banning cameras in the courtroom would not lessen the media circus atmosphere surrounding the outside of the courthouse.

“They [reporters] looked like an infantry with cameras as bazookas every time we would have a recess...just lining the sidewalks with media trucks everywhere.”

Relationship with reporters

Despite a few problems with uncooperative reporters, Small says his relationship with the media remained cordial throughout the trial.

“[OAC public information officer] Bob Henderson advised me to be sure to be deferential to the local media....keeping them informed really helped,” said Small.

He also made a point of meeting in chambers with individual representatives from the national media, “so that I could come eyeball to eyeball with them and say ‘If you violate the court’s order, you may end up going to jail.’ Then I would smile, and they would at least know the court was serious, and so we didn’t have many problems,” explained Small.

The personal toll

Presiding over a high profile trial can take a personal toll. While Small said he appreciated the challenge of the case while it was underway, he didn’t realize at the time how much stress he was actually under.

Small said he found it “particularly gut wrenching” when defense lawyers moved to disqualify him from the case. “After I had denied the motion...one of the deputy bailiffs came up and told me he had run into one of the national media people who had reported on fourteen really high-profile cases over the last seven years. In every single one of those, the defense had brought a motion to disqualify...[the reporter] was bored when they were making the motion. But I did not know that at the time, and for me it was really gut wrenching.”

“Knowing that those things happen in these type of cases, I think will at least relax you a little bit...don’t take it personal, just do what you think is right.”

The value of a mentor

Realizing that consulting with someone who had been through the same experience would have a calming effect on his psyche and improve his performance on the bench, Small contacted the American Bar Association’s newly formed mentor program. They put him in touch with Laurence C. Gram--the Milwaukee, Wisconsin judge who presided over the Jeffrey Dahmer cannibalism case.

“It was consoling to speak to someone who had gone through it, and he was absolutely right--it is extremely pressure-packed and difficult throughout the trial, but it is a lot easier afterward, and you can begin to laugh about some of the things that happened.”

After the case

In the end, Small felt he benefited from the challenging case--for one thing, it makes a grueling, fully-loaded court calendar seem easy.

“The very day after the verdict, I had an extremely large criminal calendar in the very same courtroom. There was no one there except the defendants, their attorneys and the prosecutor. The clerk [Juanita Koch] and I looked at each other and we couldn’t believe how relaxed this was. Normally, we would have been pretty stressed, but compared to the stress involved with the previous case it was a piece of cake.”

“I think my wife summed it up,” concluded Small. “She said before the case she was excited to see my name in the paper. After the case, she was excited not to see my name in the paper.”

THREE LESSONS LEARNED

When lightening strikes: Three pieces of advice for judges who find themselves presiding over a high profile case:

• Appoint a media bailiff: “I think one of the things I appreciated having was a media bailiff. I had one court staff person that was there making sure all the media checked in so we knew who was present throughout the time, and was a go-between so I wouldn’t have to deal with them all the time...she was kind of the spokesperson, and that really helped.”

• Respecting the local media: “The lesson about being very respectful to the local media is extremely good advice. I think you need to keep them informed.”

• Have a mentor: “Having a mentor is very helpful. I talked to Judge Fox from King County as well (as Wisconsin Judge Gram) off and on. It is just nice to be able to get your feet back on the ground....and not get too excited about things. I think I can do that a little bit better now, having lived through the experience--but I don’t want to get callous. It is kind of a fine line...but having those fellow judges [to talk with] really helped.”

See also, A Manual for Managing Notorious Cases, by Genevra Kay Loveland and G. Thomas Munsterman, National Center for State Courts, 1992