Now what’s Maine’s Judicial Supreme Court up to, in allowing one of its judges, Caroline Connors, to argue via the newspaper (“Maine high court justice argues she did not act wrongly,” Jan. 6), instead of presenting it in court? How come a supreme court judge is not in a courtroom, like lower court judges are required to be, re: wrongful acts?

Last month, the Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended Connors appear before that committee, and be reprimanded for her wrong; thus announcing its predicted decision, before hearing the case. How nifty!

Attorney James Bowie represents Connors, and apparently is just as happy to argue the case in newspaper print, because that is just what he is doing. Too, Bowie wants the matter resolved before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, rather than “some other ad hoc grouping of inferior judicial officers.”

I recommend Bowie read Matter of Benoit, 532 A2d 1381, a Maine supreme court decision 38 years ago. I was a Skowhegan District Court Judge that sentenced nine drunk drivers, over a period of months, to lawful fines and jail terms due to outrageous facts. Each defendant understood the charge and represented themselves. In each case, a lawyer in Skowhegan phoned a lawyer in Augusta to file an appeal.

On Jan. 13, 1986, the Superior Court vacated the sentences and sent them back to Skowhegan District Court. The supreme court decision gave no Superior Court reasons for that action. And the supreme court’s decision in my case reported none. On Jan. 24, 1986, I wrote letters to newsprint editors explaining the fact of each case. At that moment, the cases were not in my court according to the fact that an attorney for the defendants felt it necessary to file a motion Feb. 5, 1986, to recuse myself from the cases. That became effective Feb. 19, 1986; 11 days after the date of my letter, and 26 days after my letter existed.

Factually, the supreme court erred in ruling the nine cases were back in my court when I issued my letter. The supreme court claimed I had read the Superior Court’s ruling, but not when it occurred.

Two other errors were committed by the Supreme Judicial Court in my matter:

In the court’s decision of 523 A2d 1381, it ruled that when an attorney notified the court that he believed Judge Benoit was in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the court never gave Benoit an opportunity to be heard. Arguably, a denial of due process and fairness.

In the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision of 523 A2d 1381, the court ruled that the Superior Court (Somerset County) in nine criminal cases, “vacated sentences that had been imposed by Judge Benoit in his capacity as resident judge.” I was never given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of legality.

Arguably, a denial of due process and fairness.

John Benoit

Manchester