Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

A lapse in judgment

No institution did more in recent years to clean up Hillsborough County's judiciary than the state Judicial Qualifications Commission. But the agency tarnished its legacy by prosecuting Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder on dubious charges of plagiarism. Two years of investigative work produced a dearth of evidence, yet the JQC continued to fritter away its resources, Holder's money and the elected judge's reputation on at best an uncorroborated, circumstantial case. That is a lapse in judgment that dismissing the charge would only start to redress.

It is difficult to criticize a board whose courage and diligence brought needed change to a closed, corrupted judicial system. The panel helped force a half-dozen judges from the bench, and the JQC's fair approach reassured the public that many fine judges served on the large Tampa circuit. Both signals were helpful in restoring trust in the judicial system.

Holder's prosecution tarnished that record. The JQC, acting on a tipster's word, argued that as an Air Force reservist Holder cribbed a paper for a military course. No one ever found Holder's original paper, authenticated the copy as his or subjected the tipster to much rigor about how the documents were slipped under his door. Lacking evidence, the JQC pulled a prosecutor's trick, forcing Holder to disprove his guilt - a strategy that, during Holder's trial this month, only served to highlight the red flags prosecutors brushed aside, from testimony supporting Holder's story to his instructor's concern the copy was suspect, from the Air Force's decision to drop the charges to legitimate questions about whether the complaint was a frameup.

Regardless of whether the case was payback for Holder cooperating with a federal probe of courthouse corruption, the JQC reversed the presumption of innocence by bringing forward a flimsy case. The six-member commission panel that heard the case is expected to rule within weeks whether Holder should be reprimanded or even removed from the bench. Its decision will say less about Holder than the JQC's priorities and the standard of proof it expects the judiciary to follow by example.

[Last modified June 18, 2005, 01:36:03]