Can a Judge Be Held Liable for a Wrong Daubert Decision

[7HORSES]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Tenn.

Can a Criminal Court Judge be held liable in Civil Court for a wrong Daubert decision that violated a defendant's Civil Rights to a fair trial?

[cdwjava]

The method of addressing what you believe to be an improper decision is to appeal it, not try to sue someone with judicial immunity.

Is there a reason you cannot appeal the decision by the court?

[7HORSES]

The method of addressing what you believe to be an improper decision is to appeal it, not try to sue someone with judicial immunity.

Is there a reason you cannot appeal the decision by the court?

The trial was 10 years ago. The error is a new discovery after reviewing the 1,600+ page trial transcript. One important undisclosed fact is that the defendant was declared totally disabled mentally and physically by the SSDI pre trial and was not capable of defending himself.

[aardvarc]

After 10 years, it's a moot issue either for any type of civil case OR appeal.

[cdwjava]

The trial was 10 years ago. The error is a new discovery after reviewing the 1,600+ page trial transcript. One important undisclosed fact is that the defendant was declared totally disabled mentally and physically by the SSDI pre trial and was not capable of defending himself.

Then how could the judge be held personally accountable for information not produced at trial? The court rules on motions presented to it, they do not generally seek out facts on their own. The fact that SSDI might have found someone incompetent is not the same as finding someone legally incompetent to aid in their own defense. That would have been an issue for the defense to raise, not for the court to glean via osmosis.

The legal remedy would have been an appeal. After ten years, I cannot see that is even an option any more. I would venture that a civil suit against a judge is completely off the table.

[BOR]

The legal remedy would have been an appeal. After ten years, I cannot see that is even an option any more. I would venture that a civil suit against a judge is completely off the table.

Even contemporaneously, no legal dice, only in RARE circumstances can a Judge be sued and it permitted to go forward, it is like trying to sue the President for offical acts, the SC said a big NO to that also.

[cdwjava]

Even contemporaneously, no legal dice, only in RARE circumstances can a Judge be sued and it permitted to go forward, it is like trying to sue the President for offical acts, the SC said a big NO to that also.

I try never to say never, because the moment I say that someone can NOT do it, they will find a case where it was permitted. Hence my comment that I would guess that such a suit is "off the table."

[Mr. Knowitall]

I guess it could turn out, years later, that the judge had accepted a bribe or engaged in similar misconduct - but in that case a suit would no longer really be about the evidentiary ruling itself.

A determination by SSDI that a person is not capable of employment does not translate into a finding that the person would not be competent to stand trial. So if the issue here is that the judge excluded the SSDI information and based its ruling on competence on actual medical evaluations and reports, that would be an appropriate ruling.

[7HORSES]

The physician that initiated testing that lead to the disability claim being proved is the urologist that qualified according to Daubert. He had two other partners that could have also given expert testimony. Instead the defendant's attorney ( former DA ) asked the court to allow a Cosmetic Surgeon ( character witness ) to testify as to the defendant's urological history. The Judge and Ass. DA agreed. Hence forth the absolute mess. Even if everone in the court room is an incompetent idiot, the Judge should have assumed his "gatekeeper" role. Prior to this decision, the same Judge stated that another physician was not qualified to be an expert witness reguarding a different matter ( in the same case ). I have read in rare circumstances a court may deem an issue of significant legal or constitutional importance to justify a ruling even though the issue may be considered moot in relation to the parties. I think that it is worth a shot considering all the other constitutional violations brought forward. Another was the prosecution, in closing argument, calling the defendant " a sexual predator." The 50 year old defendant had never even had a speeding ticket. No prior anything. A very reputable professional person. The SSDI stated that the defendant was "disabled" before he ever sat down in court because of a brain injury.

[Mr. Knowitall]

So the defendant asked the judge to accept his witness as an expert. The prosecutor agreed with the defendant's request. The judge did as the defendant requested. Even if there were a Daubert issue, and that's in no way apparent from what you've posted, it would be a dead issue as an "invited error" - you cannot ask the court to do something and then later claim that it's an error requiring reversal.

This isn't something you can hang on the judge, and doesn't even in your most wild dreams constitute a basis for suing the judge.