EDITORIAL: Awful judgment

Parents warn children against doing all sorts of things. Kids often go ahead and do some of those things anyway, just to see if the sage advice held true. When that happens, kids can be excused as being, well, kids. It’s how they learn.

But when adults are given fair warning about a potential misstep, and they deliberately go against the guidance of their peers or superiors, there is no excusing such arrogance.

Welcome to the world of Clark County District Judge Jessie Walsh, who inexplicably made it possible for Deputy Public Defender Lauren Diefenbach to serve on a grand jury.

As the Review-Journal’s Francis McCabe reported last week, Ms. Diefenbach was selected to be a grand juror, requiring her to join 16 others in service for a full day once a week for a year before being discharged. That puts her in a position to investigate and indict criminal suspects who subsequently could require the representation of a public defender. But Ms. Diefenbach’s presence on the grand jury creates an obvious conflict of interest for the public defender’s office. The office would have to recuse itself from any indictment involving Ms. Diefenbach’s participation, forcing the county to hire private counsel for each such defendant. Because the public defender’s office represents about 40 percent of the criminal caseload in Clark County, this conflict could lead to a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars and a lot of unnecessary administrative work.

Mr. McCabe cited the lengthy process by which Ms. Diefenbach was selected. Potential grand jurors are first asked to fill out a questionnaire. From there, 100 names are presented to District Court judges at a meeting. In order of seniority, the judges select one name from the pool of 100, until 55 names are inside a bingo-style hopper. Seventeen names are then randomly selected to serve on the grand jury, and 12 alternates are named.

The judges had ample information on all 100 prospects, and Mr. McCabe noted that before the selection process began, judges pointed out the conflict of interest that would result if Ms. Diefenbach were selected. Yet Judge Walsh still decided to include the deputy public defender among the 55 names in the hopper — meaning that, with 17 grand jurors and 12 alternates, there was a better than 50 percent chance Ms. Diefenbach’s name would be drawn. Sure enough, her name was drawn.

If Judge Walsh was trying to make a case for judges to be appointed rather than elected, she did so in smashing fashion. Even Ms. Diefenbach was at a loss for words, telling Mr. McCabe in an email that she didn’t “know what to say” about her selection. But it’s not totally surprising. Judge Walsh has long delivered some of the lowest ratings in the Review-Journal’s judicial performance evaluations, which survey practicing attorneys. But she’s quite fond of the plaintiffs bar, which will spend whatever it takes to keep her on the bench. In fact, Judge Walsh is running unopposed in this year’s election precisely because no attorney is willing to take on the deep pockets behind her. So voters won’t be able to hold Walsh accountable for her staggering incompetence.

But the court can still clean up her mess. It must do so by removing Ms. Diefenbach from the grand jury. And, for willfully ignoring sound advice, perhaps a good scolding is in order for Judge Walsh, too.