32164-rcm_2-2 Sheet No. 27 Side A

07/03/2012 13:52:34

Extrajudicial Speech

Canon 2 The language of Canon 2 is derived from Canon 3 of the 1990 Code.110 Both stress that a judge must always be and appear to be impartial.111 Rule 2.1 is similar to its predecessor in tone, however, the commentary’s interpretation of this language is quite different.112 The 1990 commentary stated, Sections 3B(9) and (10) restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary. A pending proceeding is one that has EHJXQEXWQRW\HWUHDFKHG¿QDOGLVSRVLWLRQ$QLPSHQGLQJSURFHHGLQJLVRQHWKDWLVDQWLFLSDWHGEXW not yet begun. The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending or LPSHQGLQJSURFHHGLQJFRQWLQXHVGXULQJDQ\DSSHOODWHSURFHVVDQGXQWLO¿QDOGLVSRVLWLRQ113

In contrast, the reporter’s explanation of Rule 2.1 in the 2007 version emphasizes the necessity to support judicial involvement in the community: This comment has been added ‌ to underscore the value of judicial outreach. Although undertakLQJDFWLYLWLHVWKDWHQFRXUDJHSXEOLFXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIDQGFRQ¿GHQFHLQWKHMXVWLFHV\VWHPLVQRW DGXW\RIMXGLFLDORI¿FHSHUVHVXFKDFWLYLWLHVSURPRWHSXEOLFFRQ¿GHQFHLQWKHFRXUWVDQGWRWKDW extent facilitate the courts’ mission.114

Rule 2.10 and its subsections are heavily focused on the issues surrounding extrajudicial VLOHQFHDQGVSHHFK7KHUHRUGHULQJRIWKLVUXOHUHĂ€HFWVUHDOFKDQJHVLQVXSSRUWRIH[WUDMXGLcial speech. ,QLWLDOO\5XOH$ GLUHFWO\DGGUHVVHVWKHVSHFLÂżFFLUFXPVWDQFHQHFHVVLWDWLQJH[WUDMXdicial silence: A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.115

32164-rcm_2-2 Sheet No. 27 Side A

7KLVODQJXDJHLVDOPRVWLGHQWLFDOWRWKHÂżUVWVHQWHQFHRI&DQRQ% IURPWKH&RGH116 The commentary explaining subsection (A) also states that this restriction is essential “to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.â€?117 Rule 2.10(D) is a positive restatement of a sentence from its precursor, Cannon 3B(9).118 :KLOH&DQQRQ% GLGQRWIRUELGPDNLQJSXEOLFVWDWHPHQWV5XOH' VSHFLÂżFDOO\ DOORZVMXGJHVWRÂłPDNHSXEOLFVWDWHPHQWVLQWKHFRXUVHRIRIÂżFLDOGXWLHV´119 The shift in emphasis is important, as the Code moves from grudging acceptance to encouragement of extrajudicial statements by judges.

R EY NOLDS C OURTS & M EDIA L AW JOUR NAL

ReynoldsSpring.indb 197

07/03/2012 13:52:34

bar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct.html 110. ,G. at 12: “Canon 2 addresses solely the judge’s professional duties as a judge, which constitute part of Canon 3 in the 1990 Code.â€? 111. ABA 2007 C ODE &DQRQ$-XGJH6KDOO3HUIRUPWKH'XWLHVRI-XGLFLDO2IÂżFH,PSDUWLDOO\&RPSHtently, and Diligently. 112. ABA 2007 CODE5XOH*LYLQJ3UHFHGHQFHWRWKH'XWLHVRI-XGLFLDO2IÂżFHÂł7KHGXWLHVRIMXGLFLDORIÂżFHDVSUHVFULEHGE\ODZVKDOOWDNHSUHFHGHQFHRYHUDOORIDMXGJHÂśVSHUVRQDODQGH[WUDMXGLFLDODFWLYLWLHV´ 113. ABA 1990 C ODE , Canon 3, Commentary. 114. Reporter’s Explanation of Changes, ABA 2007 C ODE , supra note 104, at 13. 115. ABA 2007 C ODE , Rule 2.10, Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases. 116. Reporter’s Explanation of Changes, ABA 2007 C ODE , at 24. 117. ABA 2007 C ODE , Rule 2.10, Comment (1). 118. Reporter’s Explanation of Changes, ABA 2007 C ODE , at 24. 119. ABA 2007 C ODE , Rule 2.10(D).

197

7/3/12 7:57 AM