The single most telling word in King County Superior Court Judge Michael

Published 7:00 am Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The single most telling word in King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey’s response to charges of misconduct may be “But.” In his answer last Friday to a June 8 accusation by the state Commission on Judicial Misconduct that he abused his position by publicly advocating for convicted murderer Amanda Knox, Heavey says, yes, of course, he’s a judge. “But,” he adds, he is also “a father of three, a husband of twenty-five years, and an involved member of his community with a strong commitment to human and legal rights.” He couldn’t just close his eyes to the injustice he was perceiving.His response makes clear he plans to argue his off-bench activism is justified, saying he struggled to balance being both jurist and concerned citizen, and asking where the CJC would draw the line in this unusual case. The judge, whose daughter went to school at Seattle Prep with Knox, publicly announced his support for Knox in 2008 after she was accused of a headline-making murder in Italy. Heavey wrote to the Italian council that regulates judges to ask that the case be moved out of Perugia, Italy, arguing she couldn’t get a fair trial there. He also complained about the tactics of the Italian prosecutor, police and prison officials, saying Knox was “in grave danger of being convicted of the murder because of illegal and improper poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion.”The CJC said those actions violated the judicial canons that require judges to “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary” and “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, ” including using their offices to “advance the private interests of the judge or others.” Heavey’s biggest problem may be that he clearly stepped over that judge/citizen line by, the CJC says, using his official time, office supplies and court employees to draw up letters in support of Knox. But “At the time he wrote his letters,” Cassandra L. Stamm, Heavey’s attorney, says in the response letter to the CJC:Judge Heavey was unaware that a judge could instead have personal stationery printed which bears the title judge but which could not be confused with official stationery. In these respects, Judge Heavey agrees that his communications could have been better framed in order to avoid any possible misunderstood appearance of impropriety. The CJC’s more difficult task will be deciding the extent of activism permitted when a judge perceives an injustice. Heavey argues he didn’t step out of bounds in supporting Knox.”The interplay of all a judge’s prohibitions, duties and rights,” says Stamm, “creates a ‘dynamic tension’ with which Judge Heavey has struggled since the Summer of 2008. As described by our Supreme Court, this tension is inherent in the system into which judges are elected since ‘[t]hey remain citizens who are entitled to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, including the right to freedom of speech, yet are forbidden from being biased or partial, or appearing to lack impartiality.'” From that philosophical struggle emerged Heavey’s decision to take “appropriate action,” Stamm added, “because he believed it necessary given the great injustice he observed in the case of Amanda Knox.” No date has been set for a hearing on the charges against Heavey. The CJC can dismiss the charges or admonish, reprimand or censure a judge. It can also recommend the state Supreme Court suspend or remove a judge.