Election 2010: 19th District Court Judge

As part of its general election coverage in Lincoln County, The Western News will publish information about candidates and ballot measures over the next few weeks. More than 2,000 absentee ballots were mailed out to Lincoln County voters this week and the polls will be open Nov. 2 to fill seats in the state house and senate, the county, the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as determine four state ballot measures. In an effort to provide readers with an unbiased election package, candidates are given identical questions with word limits.  Jim Wheelis and Robert Slomski are running for a six-year term as justice of the 19th Judicial District Court, the highest court in Lincoln County.

Robert Slomski

Age: 58

City of residence: Libby

Background: I graduated from the University of Montana Law School in 1979 and spent the next year serving as a law clerk to the Montana Supreme Court. Overall, I have 30 years of experience working as a prosecuting attorney in Montana. I have served as an officer and member of the board of directors of the Montana County Attorneys’ Association. My wife, Cheye Ann, and I have owned our home and lived in Libby since 1999, and I have served as deputy Lincoln County attorney since 1999, working out of the county courthouse in Libby.

Jim Wheelis

Age: 68

City of residence: Libby (since April)

Background: Graduated from Texas Law School in 1971. Passed Montana bar 1973. Practiced civil and criminal law in Missoula, then served as a Montana district judge for 10 years. Practiced in Montana Legal Services, then as a public defender and prosecutor in Libby. I was also an appellate judge on the Flathead Reservation Court of Appeals. I served eight years with the Montana Attorney General on criminal appeals, then three years as head of the appellate section of the statewide public defender. I have also served as an administrative law judge for several state agencies.

What has been the greatest accomplishment in your legal career?

Slomski: The greatest accomplishment in my 30-year legal career as a prosecuting attorney in Montana has been my successful prosecution of a large number of very serious crimes. I have successfully prosecuted several deliberate homicide jury trials, as well as major cases involving sexual offenses against children, criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and other serious crimes. I feel a great sense of accomplishment when my hard work on these cases results in convictions that have been upheld on appeal. I believe that my career serving the public as a prosecutor has helped uphold the law and protect the citizens of our community, and I am proud of that accomplishment.

Wheelis: I believe my greatest accomplishment was conducting the trial of a person charged with the homicide of a police officer. The officer had stopped the defendant on a report that he had driven away from a service station without paying, and the evidence showed the defendant shot the officer as he approached the defendant’s car. The first trial (before a different judge) ended in a hung jury. I accepted jurisdiction for the second. The defendant was convicted, and I sentenced him to life without parole. The conviction survived review before the Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The trial took two weeks to reach the jury and required argument and rulings on several novel evidentiary and legal issues. More importantly, however, because of strong public feeling, the case required more effort and attention than I had ever needed simply to ensure a fair trial.

Imprisonment is the most expensive sanction during sentencing. Would that fact impact your decisions, and if so, how?

Slomski: While the expense of incarcerating criminals is substantial and is always a consideration to our lawmakers and taxpayers, it would not be my primary consideration in sentencing offenders for their crimes. My primary consideration as a judge would be the protection of the public. Because imprisonment is such an expensive sentencing sanction, our laws require courts to first consider sentencing alternatives other than incarceration for non-violent offenders. However, public safety requires the incarceration of violent and repeat offenders. Leaving repeat offenders on the street on probation can sometimes end up costing as much as incarceration over the long term when they re-offend. As a judge I would not be blind to the fact that imprisonment of offenders is a costly sentencing sanction paid for by the taxpayers, but the expense of imprisonment is a secondary concern compared with the concern for public safety.

Wheelis: I’m not sure I agree that imprisonment is the most expensive sanction unless that is measured solely by actual monetary cost to government entities. If the risk of further crimes is taken into account, I would argue that imprisonment is generally the less expensive alternative, even though “risk” is an intangible.

In any event, I would not consider the expense of imprisonment in sentencing because imprisonment, when merited, is the most effective means of protecting the public from further violent or other crimes. In my view, that’s foremost.

What current or past judge serves as an inspiration to your approach to judicial excellence and why?

Slomski: Judge Roy Bean, for his no-nonsense Western justice! Actually, for many years I have admired Justice William O. Douglas, who was appointed to the Supreme Court during the Great Depression, and who sat on the court for more than 36 years. Justice Douglas has served as an inspiration to me because he was a tireless champion of our individual rights under the Constitution. I have come to admire judges who thoughtfully practice the conservative principle of judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is the concept that a judge applies the law as it is written and does not, under the pretext of interpreting the law, interject his own personal beliefs into his decisions as a judge. If elected, I pledge to exercise judicial restraint by following the laws of our land and upholding the Constitution.

Wheelis: Gordon Bennett, a district judge in Helena for about 20 years, is my model. I practiced before him before I became a district judge and consulted with him often after I was on the bench. He was decent and respectful to everyone before him – witnesses, jurors and attorneys alike – and he did not need a display of temper to show he would brook no nonsense. He was genial and approachable, but I never observed his tolerating any off-the-record discussion about cases. He made his rulings promptly, he was thorough, and he was always fair, even when the participants’ and the public’s emotions ran high.

Just before I took office, he warned me that deference a judge receives comes from the position, not from a judge’s personal attributes. He said, “You’ll get respect because of the job. Don’t forget that, and don’t let it go to your head.”