Cook County Circuit Judge Ronald Himel’s rulings have been overturned several times by appeals courts because of his tendency, as one lawyer calls it, “to shoot from the lip.”
And now, Himel again finds himself in a legal thicket as prosecutors last week charged that his comments revealed such a bias that he should be kicked off the trial of three Cook County sheriff’s officers accused of murdering a prisoner.
The son of a butcher, Himel, 60, is a native Chicagoan who has spent his career in local courtrooms. A graduate of DePaul University Law School, he worked in both the public defender’s and state’s attorney’s offices and had a private legal practice before he was appointed to the bench in 1983.
Since then, he has been rebuked by a higher court for once interrupting a defense lawyer’s closing argument 45 times. He’s been chastised for language that the appeals court said suggested that defense witnesses were “thieves, drug addicts, fornicators and welfare recipients.” And he has been criticized for calling a landmark Supreme Court decision that barred discriminating against African-Americans during jury selection “poorly written, poorly understandable … certainly wrong … ludicrous and ridiculous.”
Yet Himel’s sometimes over-the-top declarations, according to some lawyers who practice before him, are rooted in his deep passion for justice, not in any bias for one side or another. Many praise his knowledge of the law and some suggest that the current controversy has arisen in part because of the politically charged nature of the high-profile case before him.
Marijane Placek, an assistant public defender for 20 years and a lawyer with a penchant for blunt talk herself, defended Himel in a Friday interview for the way he has conducted the trial of three sheriff’s officers who are accused of the fatal beating of Louis Schmude, a prisoner in the Bridgeview courthouse holding cell, in May 2000.
Judge critical of prosecution
Placek said prosecutors are complaining about Himel only because they have a weak case and that the judge has told them so virtually from the outset of the trial.
Indeed, at the conclusion of the first day of the trial, Himel told prosecutors that he believed Schmude’s injuries were not the result of any beating. That was the same theory put forth by the defense in its opening statements, prosecutors said in an affidavit filed Thursday in an extraordinary attempt to get Himel removed from the case.
The prosecutors, Tom Bilyk and Maria Burnett, also contended that Himel used a barnyard epithet to characterize the prosecution evidence. In a conference in his chambers, Himel denied the prosecution’s description of his remarks and denied being biased against them, according to a transcript of the proceedings.
On Friday, Himel relented and sent the prosecution’s motion for a substitution of judges to Chief Criminal Court Judge Paul Biebel Jr. He set a hearing for Feb. 8 to decide the issue and, in the meantime, the trial has been suspended.
Placek noted that within the past month, “I was in his courtroom and I was yelled at, intimidated and screamed at. The prosecutors didn’t think he was unfair then. But now, when they think they can’t win, he becomes a bad judge? That’s sour grapes. Ron Himel may be eccentric, but at least he has the guts to say what he thinks.”
Veteran defense lawyer Richard Kling insists, “Ron Himel has no problem with convicting people. He’s convicted a lot more people than he has acquitted. If anything, he’s frustrated by what he perceives to be an inept [prosecution] witness. His problem is he talks as he thinks. Most judges don’t.”
Citing the pending case, Himel said it would be inappropriate to comment for this article.
Appointed to an associate judgeship in 1983, Himel first served in Traffic Court. Three years later, he moved to Night Narcotics Court in the Criminal Courts building at 2600 S. California Ave. and subsequently was assigned to hear all types of felony cases.
Off the bench, his passion is golf–an avocation that some of his friends say borders on an obsession. The walls of his fourth floor chambers are pocked with nicks from the plastic balls he uses for practice shots during recesses. Some of his friends note that the same impatience Himel demonstrates on the bench sometimes erupts on pastoral fairways and greens.
Spat over golf winnings
In 1994, he and then-fellow Judge Richard Neville had a physical dustup in the judges’ dining room in the Criminal Courts complex when they quarreled over how to split a cash prize they had won as partners in a golf tournament.
But it is Himel’s penchant for outrageous language and impatience that has been chronicled in more than half a dozen rulings by the Illinois Appellate Court. An analysis of those cases shows that both prosecutors and defense lawyers have been the target of his wrath.
On two occasions, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board has received complaints about him making injudicious comments. In 1990, the board warned, “This is the second occasion of injudicious commentary we have discussed with you, and fully expect it to be the last.” The board urged an “earnest contemplation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
More Top Picks Best Weighted Eye Masks For Migraines
One of the cases that prompted board scrutiny was an auto theft case in which Himel found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to 4 years in prison.
At the close of the case, Himel commented on the testimony of defense witnesses, saying, “I think what we have is a whole family of thieves living together pooling their resources. … They have children together. … They wake up every morning wondering how they are going to get enough drugs for the family.”
Continuing, Himel said, “They come in here and … everyone is dressed in black leather. We have black leather hats. Everyone got those at a fire sale, I’m sure. … What they told to the court is a boldface lie. … I guarantee you that everyone that [the defense] had testify is on public aid, the children are being paid for by the state, that none of these children are born in wedlock.”
The Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, noting that “nothing in the record” supported Himel’s characterizations. “We are of the opinion that the trial judge harbored preconceived notions regarding the veracity of the defense witnesses. … We also believe that defendant was not afforded a fair and impartial trial.”
`Poor choice of words’
In a 1995 interview published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Himel said: “It was a poor choice of words. I have since suffered so much for what I have said.”
Himel has been rated “qualified” or “highly qualified” by the local attorney associations, except for in 1992, when the Chicago Council of Lawyers rated him “not qualified” because of his temperament.
In 1997, he was rebuked again by the Appellate Court for telling Assistant Public Defender John Benson, who had requested a continuance, that “listening to you snivel and cry and whine about a reason for a continuance is almost enough to make a grown man want to throw up.”
Late last week, Benson said of Himel: “He tries to do the right thing. He’s a fair judge.”
Robert Cummins, a former chairman of the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the agency that investigates judicial misconduct, has been teaching judicial ethics to newly installed judges in Illinois for the past decade.
“Judges are supposed to be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses and lawyers and anybody else they come in contact with,” Cummins said. “Anyone who says that those standards aren’t tested in highly emotional cases on occasion isn’t dealing with the real world. Nobody should say for a moment that getting hot under the collar is OK, but not for a moment should that be interpreted as bias.”
“Is it a challenge to suppress these feelings–yes,” Cummins said. “And for the most part, they do. Occasionally they don’t. Should we run them out of town? No. Does that mean they call balls and strikes differently? No.”
Assigned to Himel’s courtroom in 1988, Cook County Assistant Public Defender Jean Herigodt said Himel would frequently query witnesses during bench trials and question or remark on the work of prosecutors and defense lawyers alike. But she never detected a bias in his comments.
`Just a bit more vocal’
“If I had a bad defense, I heard it,” Herigodt said. “If the state has a bad case, he is not shy about saying that. He is not that much unlike other judges … just a bit more vocal.”
In 1990, the Appellate Court reversed Himel in a case where Herigodt was the defense lawyer. Himel had cut off Herigodt during her closing argument, saying, “As long as arguments are not evidence … I don’t think I’m required to listen to your arguments.”
The Appellate Court noted that while Himel did have a crowded trial calendar, “that fact does not relieve a judge of his duty to be attentive, patient and impartial.”
Former Cook County Judge Richard Neville–Himel’s one-time golf partner–agreed that Himel had a reputation of being emotional in the courtroom–but even-handed.
“Ron Himel is a very passionate man,” Neville said. “Judges like all individuals have their own personalities. And for all the years I was at 26th and California, the reputation he had was that he was fair and didn’t play favorites one way or the other.”
Neville now dismisses the dustup with Himel over the golf prize as “a typical old man’s argument where both people were puffing” but no harm was done.