Who Needs Educated Judges Anyway? Nevada and Its Developing Judicial Issue

            We spend a lot of time talking about juries, what they should be and what they represent, but it can be easy to lose sight of how they work as a cog in the machine that is criminal justice. There are a lot of different parts, but one of the most important parts is the judge. Having a judge there helps make the process operate more smoothly, and they are generally there to make sure that the trial runs in line with the principles of the criminal justice system. Not only do they play referee during the trial itself, or judge whether a plea deal is satisfactory, but they also do things like instruct the jury on the operative law and answer any questions the jury might have during deliberations. But what happens when a complex legal case comes along, and the judge doesn’t even have a legal education?

            This is a problem that is occurring more and more in Nevada. Nevada, like many other states, used to have a lot of trouble with making sure judges had legal educations in far flung rural counties. Slowly, though, as the legal profession became more common and laws became more and more complex, most states moved away from this model. But the issue persisted in Nevada, where many of their judges in rural areas still have no legal education requirement. Nevada is one of 8 states that has no such requirement. For the most part, judges that do not have legal educations are limited in what sorts of cases they can adjudicate. In Texas, for example, they are only handling very small cases, or cases where there are not many complex legal themes at play. For the most part, they aren’t dealing with cases that involve the need for jury trials. 

            The Supreme Court of Nevada, in a decision from last September, ruled that in order for a person’s gun rights to be taken away in the wake of a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence, they should be afforded a jury trial. Of course, the deprivation of someone’s rights should be an issue of utmost importance, so it makes sense that there should be a jury trial first. And the taking away of guns from those convicted of domestic violence is a good thing as well, as who knows what can happen within the throes of an domestic argument. But the decision had what many see as an unforeseen and problematic aftermath. By requiring that a jury trial take place, Nevada courts were by a domino effect granting judges with no legal education the right to hear jury cases. 

            This is very problematic. How can a judge guide a jury through a complex legal field without having a legal education of their own? How can they help lawyers craft a jury charge, answer jurors’ questions, or help them navigate confusing case law? It seems to be asking a lot from these judges, who may not be any more educated in a complex criminal justice system than the very jurors that they are supposed to be helping. And what’s at stake is a very important thing. With specific regard to the domestic violence cases, you are choosing between taking away someone’s Second Amendment rights or the even worse outcome of allowing a potential domestic abuser to go home to his or her spouse with their guns still laying around the house. These are important decisions, and lives are literally at stake. It’s one thing to be judged by a jury of your peers, but when the judge, who is supposed to be the main source of legal knowledge to the jury and play referee during the trial, is also a peer, is justice able to be done without hindrance?