Opinion
S08O0357
DECIDED: NOVEMBER 30, 2007
Petition for mandamus.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Christopher M. Quinn, Michele T. McCutcheon, Fani L. Willis, Clinton K. Rucker, Brett E. Pinion, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellant.
Order of the Court.
The District Attorney for the Atlanta Judicial District has filed as an original action in this Court a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition to issue against the superior court judge presiding over a criminal case prosecuted by the petitioner. The 1983 Georgia Constitution gives the Georgia appellate courts and superior courts original jurisdiction to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction. Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV. In Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436, 437 ( 306 SE2d 655) (1983), this Court specified the procedure to be followed before seeking to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a trial judge:
The superior court judge, citing Isaacs v. State, 257 Ga. 126 ( 355 SE2d 644) (1987), and his obligation to remain fully impartial, has informed this Court he will not file a response to the petition unless directed otherwise by this Court.
[S]uch a petition may be filed in the appropriate superior court. Being the respondent, the superior court judge will disqualify, another superior court judge will be appointed to hear and determine the matter, and the final decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court for review.
In Carey Canada, Inc. v. Head, 252 Ga. 23, 25 ( 310 SE2d 895) (1984), this Court held that the procedure enunciated in Brown was applicable when this Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition was invoked. Inasmuch as petitioner has not followed the Brown/Carey Canada procedure in this case, the petition is dismissed. Furthermore, where, as here, the underlying subject matter of a petition for writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition is a criminal prosecution and the trial court's rulings therein, the prosecution may not use a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus and the Brown/Carey Canada procedure to circumvent the statutory limitations on the State's ability to appeal found in OCGA § 5-7-1(specifying rulings the State may appeal) and in OCGA § 5-7-2 (setting forth the procedure the State must follow to obtain review of the specified rulings). Howard v. Lane, 276 Ga. 688 ( 581 SE2d 1) (2003). But see Patterson v. Faircloth, 256 Ga. 489 (6) ( 350 SE2d 243) (1986).
Petition dismissed. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P. J., who concurs in judgment only.
I agree with the Court that this original action has not been pursued through proper legal channels. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write separately to express my deep disappointment at the lack of progress in the underlying criminal case.
Although it is not perfect, the judicial system of the United States is the envy of the world. That is why our legal system is so often the model that emerging democracies adopt in the march of freedom around the world. Lawyers and judges are the directors and guardians of this rational system of justice. Under our system, all lawyers, whether representing the state or the defense, have a duty to pursue their clients' interests zealously, but to do so in a professionally responsible manner. As officers of the court, counsel for both the prosecution and the defense have professional responsibilities, not only to their clients, but to the judicial system itself. The lawyers for both sides have a common duty to make reasonable efforts to expedite pending litigation in a manner consistent with their clients' interests. Neither side is allowed to seek to derail the trial process entirely.
Judges also have professional duties as neutral arbiters between the prosecution and the defense. One of the primary responsibilities of a trial judge is to maintain control of the proceedings and to ensure that neither side, whether by design or otherwise, is able to disrupt the prompt and orderly administration of justice. Moreover, every judge must, at all times, discharge his or her duties in a manner that promotes public respect for, and confidence in, the judicial system. Far more difficult and complex cases have been tried in this state without generating the degree of contentiousness and delay that has plagued this one.
Nevertheless, at this point, the case does not yet call for this Court's intervention through some extraordinary exercise of its "inherent power to maintain a court system that provides for the administration of justice in an orderly and efficient manner." However, I strongly urge the attorneys for both sides, as well as the trial judge, to reexamine their actions thus far in light of their professional duties and to proceed in a manner calculated to achieve a fair and expeditious resolution of this matter.
Waldrip v. Head, 272 Ga. 572, 576 (1) ( 532 SE2d 380) (2000).
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins in this concurrence.