They recalled Aaron Persky. Judge Michael Corey in Alaska felt the sting. And Judge Ralph Strother is next on the list. But it’s unlikely that you’ve ever heard the name Donna Jo McDaniel.
Longtime Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Donna Jo McDaniel, who recently was removed from two sex offender cases by the state Superior Court, has submitted her resignation.
She was on the bench for 33 years. She served as administrative judge for a while. And she was removed from two sex offender cases. So why didn’t the mob go after her, pitchforks in hand?
In it, the judge wrote that she was honored to serve previously as the administrative judge in the criminal division and also as the county’s first female president judge.
“However, above all, I am most proud of my role in establishing the specialty courts of domestic violence and sex offender court,” she wrote. “I have strived to lead my courtroom in a judicial style that empowers victims of domestic and sexual abuse, while maintaining the rights of the accused.”
That’s a curious turn of phrase, “empowers victims of domestic and sexual abuse.” But she does say she maintains the rights of the accused, so what could she be talking about?
Judge McDaniel, 72, has long been heralded for sticking up for victims — often giving them a voice they may otherwise not have felt they had.
It was common for her to address victims of sexual assault — both adults and children — at the conclusion of their cases to commend them for their courage in testifying. She often gave them words of encouragement, too, to try to help them move forward.
Surely there is nothing wrong with commending victims at the conclusion of their cases. By that stage, their victimhood has been established and, as victims, their courage in facing the person who harmed them is worthy of commendation. To be clear, it’s entirely different to commence a prosecution with the belief that the accuser is a “survivor” than it is after the facts have been found.
So why, but why, was Judge McDaniel compelled to retire, to resign her commission?
But in recent years, Judge McDaniel has come under fire from the Pennsylvania Superior Court for what it considered to be a pattern of over-sentencing sex offenders before her.
Twice, the appellate court has returned cases to Judge McDaniel for resentencing because the penalties she meted out were longer than the law called for, and twice, she sentenced those defendants to the same penalty.
Sentence someone perceived to be a sex offender below whatever the mob on social media decides is the “right” sentence and be destroyed, publicly castigated and ripped to shreds. But sentence a sex offender to more than the law allows, and then do it again on remand, and not a peep from the woke.
The appellate court, however, performed the unpleasant function of reversing a judge who abused her position to be overly harsh, overly carceral, because she had a particular hatred of an offense such that she wouldn’t allow the law to prevent her from wreaking vengeance. The Superior Court did its job. It applied the law, even when the defendant was of the hated sort by the judge at sentence. Even when there was no mob to demand, no petition for redress, because the punishment didn’t sate their lust for retribution.
But Judge McDaniel wasn’t always like this, apparently.
Late last month and again this week, the state Superior Court removed Judge McDaniel from presiding over the two cases. In one instance, it said she demonstrated animus against not only the defendant but also his attorney; in the other, the appellate court said the judge’s behavior cast “ample doubt” on her ability to remain impartial in the defendant’s case.
“It’s somewhat out of character for someone who has served that long and faithfully,” he said. “Hopefully, this will bring it to an appropriate conclusion.”
After 33 years on the bench, what could possibly have changed, have caused a judge to suddenly disavow her fealty to law to use her authority to exact vengeance on sex offenders, not to mention the lawyers whose duty it was to defend them? Why now?
There is no mob going after Judge McDaniel. If anything, she’d get a prize for her harshness, for her fearlessness in not letting the limits of law prevent her imposing unlawfully severe punishment. The message of Judge Persky is unmistakable, but the message isn’t just that any judge being fair, being remotely merciful to a hated defendant will be crucified on social media, but that judges who hate sex offenders are now empowered to impose life plus cancer no matter what sentence the law provides, and there will not be a peep of negativity from the otherwise woke.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s fascinating to me that “the system” was willing to upset the status quo in a case like this. The near unanimity with which the trial court’s conduct was rejected may be unprecedented in a sex offender case. I cannot imagine it was easy for the assistant district attorney to concede to the appellate court that the trial judge was incapable of fairly and impartially handling the case.
Unfortunately, the Persky Effect will touch every sex case, while this incident will only affect the extreme.
It was remarkable that the PA Superior Court, as well as the people involved, showed the integrity to do so in this instance. It’s not as if that happens very often.
Could be altruism and a sense of justice. But it could also be that a judge who keeps imposing impermissible sentences and/or won’t do the work and make the record necessary to justify above-sentencing guideline range sentences is creating a bunch of unnecessary work for the prosecutor’s office.
I’m surprised that the DA’s are not being looked at as well. Being that they also are responsible to make sure that the case has appropriate sentences given.
Do you think its possible, considering the victim ’empowerment’ rap, that she restrained her bias for all those years as a form of job security? Tired of it all and ready to retire…” lets nail some of these monsters like i always wanted to, and let the chips fall wherever..”
Not just possible, but very likely. It makes one wonder how many maxed out sentences she imposed that might have been, and should have been, less given a less prejudiced judge.
Presumably the two defendants were members of some privileged group such that they had no redeeming qualities sufficient to entitle them to invoke limitations in the sentencing laws. This is suggested all the more by the fact that they could afford to take appeals.
Like male?
Good. If she can’t keep her cool on a routine sentencing remand, she shouldn’t be doing the sentencings. You look at the original remand and it was innocuous: We can’t tell if you imposed a mandatory minimum sentence; that mandatory minimum statute was declared unconstitutional between the initial charges and sentencing in the case; if you didn’t consider the mandatory minimum then the sentence was fine, but if you did you need to resetence. What a lousy hill to get pissy about and die on.
Is keeping her cool the same as feeling empowered to indulge one’s outrage? I hear judges can, on occasional, sentence with a vengeance.
As long as you sentence with a vengeance dispassionately and with a modicum of respect to counsel….
She already felt empowered to indulge her outrage. But you’ve got to play the game to get what you want. Unless of course she’s a masochist who wanted to get bench-slapped, in which case mission accomplished.
So the dispassionate vengeance is good? I need to remember that.
best served cold
Vengeance with the facade of dispassion. Good? Eye of the Beholder. More effective at getting what you want? Absolutely.
I wonder whether I’m the only person who appreciates your wit in the url space.
Why the qualification?
I am so glad to hear that this person is leaving. i have personally watched her give out sentencing that is far beyond the norm. I have watched her put provisions on a case that was so severe it made no logic sense to anyone. Thank God she will be gone. now the scales can be fair again.