Few public roles carry greater responsibility than that of a judge. Courts occupy a unique position within our system of government. They are entrusted with protecting constitutional rights, resolving disputes, interpreting the law, and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially. Yet despite the critical importance of the judiciary, many people have only a limited understanding of what judges actually do and the challenges they face in carrying out their duties.
Popular portrayals often reduce judging to dramatic courtroom moments, swift decisions, and definitive pronouncements. The reality is considerably more complex. Judicial service requires the careful balancing of legal principles, factual evidence, procedural safeguards, and human consequences. Every decision carries weight, and every case represents lives, families, businesses, or communities that will be affected by the outcome.
Having served as a Circuit Judge for nearly two decades, I learned that the work of judging is defined not by authority, but by responsibility. I was sworn in on a Friday in 2000, and took the bench on Monday where a Products Liability case was waiting as my first jury trial as a judge. It had been set and transferred to me. Instead of celebrating my swearing in all weekend, I spent the entire weekend reading products liability law to familiarize myself with every point of law I thought I might need to know during the approaching Monday morning trial. This was my job, and I took that responsibility extremely seriously.
There are very few individuals who know what the life of a judge is like. It is much different in a rural community, and I had the privilege of serving as judge in four (4) Eastern Kentucky Counties where we did not have a family court. I presided over civil cases with amounts in controversy over $5000.00 to millions, criminal cases which carried a potential prison sentence of one year to life or death, property and boundary disputes, eminent domain/condemnation, foreclosure, and family law cases including divorce, custody, child support, termination of parental rights and adoptions. This was my life and such a privilege.
With the privilege comes much responsibility. The responsibility includes not making yourself available for ex-parte communication. In small communities, it is difficult to go to the grocery store, Walmart, or a restaurant without seeing individuals who are appearing on cases in court. It is also difficult when someone with a loved one in jail, or entrenched in a custody battle comes up and tries to talk about the case or their loved one’s case. When someone has ex-perte communications with a judge about a case, the judge has the obligation to disclose that communication and to recuse from the case. Recusal may result in the case being transferred to an out of circuit judge which may require the litigants to travel quite a distance. Thus, going out in public is often a difficult task, and Judges tend to retreat into isolation. In a small town thought isolation is dangerous. People talk and spread untrue rumors about why a judge may not be as social as the judge once was, when in actuality, it is to avoid the appearance of impropriety as required by the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
As a mother of three, and judge of four (4) counties, I had court in one of my four counties every Friday. I recall numerous Friday nights when I would lovingly tell my children not to open the door if the door bell rang. That day, a Friday, I had revoked bonds, sent numerous people to prison, removed children from parents, issued orders affecting individuals rights to property they may have believed they owned, and a plethora of other cases. In Eastern Kentucky, there are two things that individuals will kill for; their children and their property. I had roughly two-thousand phone numbers in my cell phone and told my children, if someone I know is at that door, they will call me; if not, do not answer the door.
In that vein, as a judge I had approximately nine (9) serious death threats. The first experience I had with a death threat was early in my career when a jury trial was getting ready to take place in Montgomery Circuit Court on a case involving Amos Stiltner who was accused of making plans to kill my then bench mate, Bill Mains, and my former boss, Commonwealth Attorney George Moore. On my way to work on the morning of the trial, I knew the trial was going to start that day and was interested in having the monitor on so I could watch it while I worked. There was a special judge and a special prosecutor. My cell phone rang as I was driving to work that morning. I answered and it was the Kentucky State Police. They advised me not to park in my designated parking spot on the side of the Montgomery County Courthouse, with a sign that read “Circuit Judge Parking.” I asked them the reason for not allowing me to park in that spot and was told that Amos Stiltner had also talked about killing me. I asked the officer why Stiltner had not been charged with threatening to kill me and was told that Stiltner had not formulated a plan to kill me, he had just mentioned that he wanted to kill me too. Other threats included threats by drug traffickers/manufacturers to kill me by getting on the roof of the old police department and shooting me when I pulled into my parking spot. I moved my spot to park behind the courthouse next to the sheriff. I had an ongoing, one year + death threat from an individual I sent to prison for murder. This man rammed his vehicle into a vehicle carrying his wife, and daughter, and was driven by his wife’s brother and his wife as a passenger. The Defendant rammed this car carrying precious cargo, his daughter, over an interstate bridge overpass, killing the brother in law. The 911 call with the screams of the victims in the car was chilling. I received a death threat from an individual whom I did not rule in favor of in a boundary dispute. This person reported to Kentucky Chief Justice John Minton that she intended to kill me. I was removed quickly from the bench by the Kentucky State Police for my safety, but once told of the threat, I did not feel afraid. I was summoned off the bench by the Kentucky State Police because they believed an attorney was suicidal or homicidal. I returned to the bench because I was in the middle of a custody case involving teenagers and the father had flown in from the far western part of the United States, maybe Oregon, and I felt obligated to have and conclude that hearing so that the father didn’t bare the expense of coming back to Kentucky unnecessarily, and to give the children and the parties closure. I concluded the hearing and that evening I learned that the attorney had taken his own life. There were other death threats, but as time goes by, the memory of the death threats fades, but I cannot help but wonder what the life of my children was, and whether my chosen profession caused them emotional harm.
Being a judge is not just a job, it is your life, it is 24/7. It is your identity. You must be willing to give up what is necessary in your particular community to be the best, most competent, unbiased and trusted judge. It is dedication to the ideals of equality for all, in an expedient system of justice. While people forget the human factor of decision making by a person and not artificial intelligence, it is the human factor that takes time, but a decision must be made expeditiously to justice. As stated by British statesman and former Prime Minister William Eward Gladstone in a speech in 1868, Justice delayed is justice denied. The phrase was later adopted by Martin Luther King, when he said in 1963 about the letter from the Birmingham jail, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Every Case Represents Real People
One of the most significant misconceptions about the judiciary is that judges deal primarily with legal issues rather than human circumstances. No two cases are ever exactly alike and that is why I loved my job. You cannot nor should you ever treat any two cases alike simply because they are both custody cases, both cold check cases, both drug cases,both burglary cases both termination of parental rights cases. We all come to adulthood with different life experiences. Every case should be reviewed based upon its own extraordinary and unique facts.
Since my retirement in 2019, I have had the opportunity to observe courts all over Kentucky, from Paducah to Pikeville. One disturbing observation is that newer judges tend to treat every case alike. Judges don’t want to listen, they just want the case over. That is not a judicial attitude. I believe that this downward fall of judicial inquiries into cases is a result of lack of training, immaturity, and in some cases simply the wrong person being elected as a judge. It is upsetting to see a judge turn down a child’s request to speak to a judge in chambers, on the record. It is upsetting to see judges in criminal cases not see options and potential and not to have the insight to see the difference between someone just making a stupid mistake and someone who is actually criminally minded. This obviously comes with experience. I was sent for training by the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts to the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada for three weeks. While there, attendance was mandatory from approximately 8:30-5:00 p.m. I made lifelong connections with judges across the United States, connections whom I could call and discuss important issues with and obtain an unbiased opinion from a judge out of state. As one of two Circuit Judges in a four county circuit both judges had opposite schedules and rarely even saw each other, so having the ability to pick up the phone and call another judge from another state was invaluable. Also, I learned tremendously about being a judge while at the National Judicial College in Reno, an experience that judges shortly thereafter were not provided. Several years later, I was asked to help train new judges at the Administrative Office of the Courts where new judges were trained as opposed to sending them to the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. Now the older judges who attended the National Judicial College are retired, as am I. Sadly the state of the judiciary is not the same.
While judges are certainly called upon to interpret statutes, evaluate evidence, and apply legal precedent, every case ultimately involves people. Behind every file are individuals whose lives may be profoundly affected by the court’s decisions. It was for that reason that I worked tirelessly at night and on weekends to get opinions out for her nearly 2000 cases. It was important for litigants to obtain closure, whether that was in their favor, or not in their favor a final order gave them the opportunity to appeal and move on. One of the absolute worst things a judge can do is to sit on a case or cases and not make important decisions expeditiously. That file is someone’s life. Every day that person is calling their attorney’s office and is asking, “have you gotten an order yet?, have you heard anything yet?” Each and every one of those phone calls to their attorney costs money, money that often litigants in lengthy litigation do not have. Not only is there a financial strain for litigants who have a looming order waiting to be entered by a judge, but there is a profound emotional price to be paid by litigants. What they are fighting for can be the most important thing they have ever fought for in their life. A judge should never ignore, nor forget that fact. GET THE DECISION OUT!!! STOP THE ANTICIPATION!!! Only those of you who are judges have the ability to end the litigation in a fair way, and to allow the losing party to move on to appellate court.
Criminal cases may involve victims seeking justice, defendants facing the possibility of incarceration, and families struggling with the consequences of difficult circumstances. Domestic relations cases often concern the future of children, parental rights, and family stability. Civil disputes may involve livelihoods, property, financial security, or matters of personal reputation.
Judges must remain focused on the law, but they cannot ignore the reality that legal decisions have human consequences. The challenge lies in balancing empathy with objectivity.
The role of a judge is not to decide cases based on emotion. It is to ensure that each matter receives careful consideration under the law while recognizing the significance of what is at stake for those involved.
Judicial Impartiality Requires Constant Discipline
Perhaps no principle is more important to the legitimacy of the judicial system than impartiality.
Judges are expected to set aside personal opinions, political beliefs, outside pressures, and public sentiment when deciding cases. This expectation is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the courts.
What many people do not appreciate is the degree of discipline required to uphold this standard every day.
Judges encounter cases involving deeply emotional subject matter, conflicting testimony, and circumstances that may generate strong reactions among members of the public. Yet personal feelings cannot become the basis for judicial decisions. I recall sitting in court, presiding over a shaken baby murder case. The 911 call was played in the courtroom. The 911 call was excruciating. There was not a dry eye in the courtroom, but I sat there composed while I thought of the love I have for my own three children. The moment I got into my car, the tears flowed.
The law must remain the guiding force.
This responsibility often requires judges to make decisions that may be unpopular with one side or even with the broader community. Judicial independence exists precisely because courts must be able to apply the law fairly, regardless of external pressures. I have experienced numerous incidents that made it hard to be me. Several incidents come to mind. One involved the condemnation of a spring on the outskirts of the county. The spring was situated on a beautiful farm and had boasted the spring for as long as anyone could remember, and had stories about settlers to Montgomery stopping to water their horses at this spring when they came to settle the county or were passing through. The spring had a well house over it and was iconic. The State Department of Transportation received appropriations from the Legislature to widen the road in the area of the spring because there was a sharp curve which had caused several deaths. I had driven by that spring house regularly and knew its history. I drew the condemnation case of the spring and am sure that I appeared to the State to be biased in not wanting to condemn the spring and allow a road to go through the location of the spring. The case drug on much longer than it should have, and I all but begged the state to come up with a different plan that wouldn’t take the spring. After much research and consultations with surveyors, I realized that there was no alternate route. It saddened me and it was agreed that the spring house would be moved to a location visible from the road, but that the state had the right to condemn the spring and the property on which it sat.
On another occasion I was appointed special judge in Powell County. Stanton had few ordinances and a mulch plant had been opened near town. Numerous residents filed a complaint in Circuit Court complaining about the smell. I went to Powell County and sat on the case, listened to the individuals complaining and smelled the smells. The individual who opened the mulch plant was a very nice man who had hit upon a productive industry. Powell County sits at the edge of the Daniel Boone National Forrest and lots of wooded area. Mulch is created by trees. It was natural that a mulch plant exist in Powell County, but it was definitely too close to town. I sustained the motion for injunctive relief and the mulch plant had to move.
The absolute worst was Michael Dunn. Michael Dunn was the very first jury trial of my bench-mate, Bill Lane. Michael Dunn was accused of sexual abuse and was absolutely no stranger to the court system. He was convicted of sexually abusing a young boy multiple times. Because my chambers was in Montgomery County behind the courtroom, I watched the entire trial. As a Prosecutor, allegations of sexual abuse were made against Dunn by a young girl, but the mother moved the child out of state before trial and the case was dismissed. Additionally, Dunn had been accused of shooting in the back the driver of a 4-wheeler who drove across Dunn’s property. The 4-wheeler driver was killed by Dunn. The then Commonwealth Attorney went to the scene and picked up shells from the gun that shot the 4-wheeler driver and then that case was dismissed. I watched the majority of my colleague’s first trial while I worked in my office. Dunn received many years in prison, appealed his conviction directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court as a matter of right, and the conviction was upheld. Thereafter, Dunn filed an RCr 11.42 Motion for ineffective assistance of counsel because the jury instructions were identical. Instead of outlining for the jury counts that stated that the sexual abuse occurred in the barn, in the woods, in the bedroom, they all stated, that Michael Dunn simply committed the offense of sexual abuse by abusing X. The jury found not guilty on one of the many counts and it is my belief that that one count that the jury refused to find guilt on was one count of anal sex which the victim, a young boy, refused to talk about. The Kentucky Court of Appeals sent the case back for a new trial. Bill Lane recused and the case was then transferred to me. Dunn’s Attorney moved for dismissal based upon res judicata, but I ruled that the Court of Appeals had sent the case back to me to re-try and that was what I intended to do. The attorney for Dunn then filed a writ directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court. I ruled that all counts had to be tried again because the conviction took a unanimous verdict to convict and a unanimous verdict to acquit, and because all counts were worded the same, I, as a judge, could not tell which charges Dunn was convicted of and which charge he was acquitted of. The Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed with me and ordered me to immediately release Dunn. I did as I was ordered, by it made me sick. Thereafter, even though I was not the one who gave the jury identical instructions, my name was listed as the judge who made that mistake because I was the last judge to have the case. That case haunts me.
The measure of a sound judicial decision is not whether everyone agrees with it. The measure is whether it is grounded in the law, supported by the facts, and consistent with the principles of due process.
The Weight of Decision Making Is Often Invisible
Many professions involve important decisions. Few require decisions that can alter the course of another person’s life. For that reason I read every pleading that came before me in each and every case. I once needed to have a special judge cover my dockets for a period of time. My normal practice was to have attorneys send me copies of all motions and pleadings filed with the clerks in each of my four (4) counties. I had my staff attorney or secretary put each pleading and responsive pleading in order as it appeared on the docket and attach the entire docket to the stack of pleadings to be heard the following day. I took this stack of pleadings home and read each and every pleading and responsive pleading so that I would know everything I could know about the case prior to the attorneys appearing on the case the following day. Because I was going to be out of the office, I had my staff collect and place ion order all the pleadings for the upcoming motion docket and took them to the judge who would be filling in for me. To my shock and horror, the judge said he didn’t need to read them. He said, “I was a District Judge and we fly by the seat of our pants.” I was sick that this person was going to be taking over my duties and ignoring justice by not knowing everything he could know to make a fair and reasonable decision that was based upon the facts. People deserve better, and my people and attorneys were used to someone who cared about them.
Judges routinely make rulings that affect personal liberty, family relationships, financial futures, and public safety. In some cases, the consequences may be immediate and profound.
What the public rarely sees is the extensive preparation that precedes those decisions.
Judges spend countless hours reviewing motions, examining legal authorities, studying evidence, and considering competing arguments. Complex cases often require substantial research and deliberation before a ruling can be issued.
The responsibility does not end when court adjourns. Judges frequently continue reviewing matters long after hearings conclude, knowing that accuracy and fairness depend upon careful analysis.
The public may only observe the final ruling. The thoughtful process that produced that ruling often remains unseen.
Managing a Court Involves More Than Presiding Over Hearings
Another common misconception is that judges spend most of their time in the courtroom.
While courtroom proceedings are certainly a visible component of judicial service, judges also carry significant administrative responsibilities. Courts must function efficiently, maintain compliance with procedural requirements, manage schedules, oversee case flow, and coordinate with numerous stakeholders throughout the justice system.
As Chief Circuit Judge, I learned that effective court administration is essential to the delivery of justice. Delays, inefficiencies, and resource challenges can affect public confidence just as surely as judicial decisions themselves.
Judges must therefore balance their adjudicative responsibilities with leadership responsibilities that support the operation of the court as an institution.
The goal is not merely to resolve individual disputes. It is to ensure that the judicial system remains accessible, effective, and worthy of public trust.
Public Confidence Is Earned Daily
Courts possess neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword. Their effectiveness depends largely upon public confidence in their integrity.
Every interaction within the courtroom contributes to that confidence. Litigants deserve to be heard. When I hear that Judges will not let pro se litigants speak in court it makes me extremely upset. The court system is for everyone. These judges need to be reported. They should not be allowed to preclude individuals from the process simply because they cannot afford to hire an attorney. Attorneys deserve a fair opportunity to present their arguments. While arguments cannot go on forever, each attorney deserves the opportunity to argue their case. Often motions will be filed and ruled upon prior to motion docket. If an attorney filed a CR 59.05 motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate, that attorney should be heard. The second motion should not also be summarily dismissed or ruled upon without argument. Members of the public deserve assurance that decisions are made according to law rather than personal preference. In the end, everyone deserves their day in court. I have seen judges cut off litigants and attorneys. I understand when attorneys or pro se litigants go on for too long, but a judge should not say you have five (5) minutes to present your case. Court cases involve matters relating to people’s lives. Let them have their day in court and let them feel heard!
Trust is built through consistency, transparency, professionalism, and respect for the judicial process.
This obligation extends beyond individual cases. Judges serve as stewards of an institution that has a profound impact on democratic governance and civil society. Protecting the credibility of that institution is among the most important responsibilities of judicial service.
A Commitment to Fairness Above All Else
The most important lesson I learned from my years on the bench is that judging is ultimately an exercise in service. Listen, be kind, make a ruling based upon the law and get it out as quickly as possible to prevent the stress of anticipation.
It is not about power, prestige, or personal recognition. It is about ensuring that every individual who enters the courtroom receives a fair hearing and an impartial application of the law. On my first day as a Circuit Judge, I received a phone call from someone with whom I attended law school and was now a District Judge. He asked me, “how does it feel to be king?” I was taken aback. I told him that was not how I viewed my position. He insisted that I would come to see it that way, but I never did. When I saw a judge who saw their position in that way, I called it, “Judgitis.”
Judges do not have the luxury of deciding only easy cases. They are called upon to resolve difficult disputes, confront complex legal questions, and make decisions that carry significant consequences. The responsibility is substantial, and the obligation to remain fair never diminishes.
At its best, the judiciary serves as a stabilizing force within society. It provides a forum where disputes can be resolved peacefully, rights can be protected, and the rule of law can prevail over uncertainty and conflict. Because we are dealing with conflict resolution, it is so important that decisions be rendered expeditiously. I know this is not the first time I have said this, but if you are a judge and are reading this, please rule as quickly as possible to put stability into the lives of those you serve.
The work occurring behind the bench is often unseen by the public. Yet it is within that quiet, deliberate process of analysis, reflection, and decision making that the principles of justice are put into practice each day. For those entrusted with judicial service, there is no greater responsibility and no greater privilege.