A group of local attorneys met with the media last week to express their disapproval of a proposed judicial redistricting plan.
Several local barristers spoke out against the plan, which would take DeKalb out of the present 13th Judicial District.
Under the proposal, DeKalb County would  be served by different judges, a different district public defender and a different district attorney general.
General Sessions and Juvenile Court Judge Bratten Cook, II, who is also president of the DeKalb County bar, said judicial redistricting is unnecessary, and noted that a recent study on judicial redistricting resulted in the same conclusion.
“We are unanimous in our opposition to this,” Cook said of himself and local attorneys.
“To me, one of the important factors is the tax dollars that this is going to cost. It will cost millions of dollars. The state of Tennessee is not flush with money, and it’s our money that they're talking about spending. In fact, just four years ago they (the state) spent some $250,000 to $300,000 and hired an independent company to make a study of redistricting the state. The summary of that study says we don't need it.”
Cook said he saw no reason to think that the state of the judicial system has changed drastically in the time since the study.
“There is nothing substantial or insubstantial that has changed in the last four years. It’s ridiculous to say just because nothing has happened since 1984, let’s go in and make something happen.
“If it’s not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed,” Cook said.
The study Cook spoke of, a 2007 inquiry by the Justice Management Institute and the Center for Justice, Law, and Society (CJLS) at George Mason University concluded that “JMI does not recommend that judicial redistricting occur at this time.”
The report stated that the criteria  used to  field the report “included caseload per judge, weighted caseload, and population as the key factors used in other states to determine judicial boundaries.”
The report “found slight differences in a handful of districts, but none of significant magnitude to warrant redistricting.”
“This report talks about the weighted caseload that is one of the methods that Tennessee uses to determine where we need to put judicial resources,” Cook said.
“You cannot use population to say we need or don't need another judge, it's the caseload, so you can't go by population, but it’s my understanding that's kind of what they are wanting to do on redrawing the lines.
“Surely to goodness the legislature can spend our tax dollars better on education and other important issues than spending it on redrawing district lines for the judiciary when it doesn't need it,” Cook said.
Local attorney Hilton Conger said he feels that the 13th district operates efficiently, even though it contains a relatively large number of counties.
“If you look at the current 31 judicial districts, the 13th Judicial District that we're in has the most counties,” conger said. “It may not be the largest populated district or the largest geographic district but it has the most counties of any. It has seven counties. No other district has seven counties in it.
“Our five judges in those counties say they're not overworked or under-worked,” Conger continued. “They are disposing of cases as they should be disposed of.”
He said he believes lawmakers are on the wrong track if they hope to improve the judicial system.
“They give lip service by saying it is to get speedier trials so you won't have prisoners waiting in jail or litigants waiting.
“Justice delayed is justice denied, I agree with that, but I promise you that in our district, which has more counties than any in the state, you can get a trial on any kind of case, a jury trial or bench trial,” Conger said.
“If you really pushed for it and both sides cooperated, you could have a jury trial in less than six months. There is not a judge in our district that wouldn't accommodate you or find the time for it. All you have to do is come to our docket settings. The judges routinely ask the question at the beginning of the docket setting, ‘Does anybody have a case they want to get tried?’ They say ‘I've got the time,” said Conger.
Local attorney and former state representative Frank Buck said the proposed plan would spread DeKalb’s district out much too far for litigants and officials to travel practically across the district.
“The purpose of any judicial system is not for the benefit of the lawyers, “ Buck said. “It’s not for the benefit of the judges. It’s for the benefit of the public.
“When you look at this map, if I were a lawyer in Tullahoma and I was getting some lady's child support, I might have to go from within 30 miles of Alabama all the way to within 20 miles of the Kentucky border if I were in Judge Wootten's court in Macon County. Judge Wootten is an excellent judge. It’s not the judges, it's the geography that's crazy,” Buck said.
“We’ve come a long way in the 45 years that I’ve been practicing, and we have a lot better judicial system,” Buck noted. “Why would we want to mess it up?”
Sarah Cripps said a new set of judges and a new district attorney general would mean a new learning curve for everyone involved.
“The redistricting would inject so much unpredictability for the lawyers who are trying to render good representation for our clients,” Cripps said. “We have working relationships that are good with our district attorney, with our DCS attorneys, and with our judges.
“I'm not saying we can predict outcomes, but when a client comes to you, or if you're a mediator and you can talk with some sense of assuredness as to what a judge might do in a case, or you know how the judge likes motions or certain things filed then that is important.
“All of this is going to be re-learning for everybody,” Cripps continued. “It will be for me, and I assume it will be for others if you're not familiar with a judge.
“We're not going to have relationships that we've built with the district attorney's office, with the public defender's office, with the Department of Children Services and their case managers and attorneys.
“To me that doesn't help anyone. Most of all it doesn't help our clients. That's what we're all about is trying to help our clients in the best way we can. This is going to thwart those efforts significantly.
“We have excellent judges in this district,” Cripps continued. “From General Sessions and Juvenile Court to Circuit, Chancery to Criminal Court, we are blessed with uniformly excellent judges. I want the district and the citizens of our county to continue to have that type of system to work for us.”
Cook also said that losing judges who are familiar with local case histories would be detrimental to the process.
“So often you have people that come into court involving matters concerning their children, and those cases continue on and on for years,” he shared. “If you go in front of a judge, like Judge (Ronald) Thurman or Judge (John) Maddux. They are familiar with the case. They are familiar with what has happened over the years.
“If we end up getting stuck in another judicial district,” he went on to say, “then all of a sudden that new judge comes into court and the litigants come in and that judge knows nothing about the case. They've got a whole new learning curve. How is that fair to the litigants? That's who the system is for is them.”
Attorney Jim Judkins said he felt that the plan was not economically sound.
“What I look at is the overall economic effect on state and county resources,” Judkins said. “For a deputy to have to transport a prisoner several counties away for a hearing, that's going to cost the state or that county a whole lot more money. I don't really see it as the most efficient way to do business here in the district. I'm opposed to it.
“I think when you have the D.A., the public defender, and just about every judge around here saying we are opposed to it along with the lawyers, I think that speaks volumes about redistricting in this particular county,” Judkins concluded.
“I'm with my fellow attorneys,” Jeremy Trapp added. “I don't see any benefit this is going to create. I think it's a mistake.
“I go to a lot of different counties and practice law in front of a lot of different judges, and I haven't met one that's for this, or who can tell me how this is going to help things or make things better, so I'm opposed to it,” Trapp shared.
Circuit Court Clerk Katherine Pack said the plan would cause turmoil in her office as well.
“We in the clerk's office, we're kind of the in-between of all these lawyers, the D.A's office, and the public defender's office,” Pack said. “We have a really good working relationship with all of them. Like everybody else, it’s going to be a learning process just to get this transitioned over to something else.
“It's just almost beyond what I could think of that we will have to do to accommodate this,” Pack continued. “I am opposed to it simply because I love working with our D.A.'s office. I love working with the attorneys. I love working with the public defender's office. I feel like we all have a good working relationship. I just hate to see that start from the ground and have to be worked up again.”
“As the newest attorney I haven't practiced in front of these Circuit and Criminal Court judges and Chancellor as much as everyone else here,” said Jon Slager, “but when I hear (attorneys) that have practiced in front of them for years on end say that everyone is unanimously against it, I can't think of one reason to be for it.”