OREGON: Clackamas County Circuit Judge Ulanda Watkins invited eight elementary school students to participate in a real live hit-and-run trial while they were visiting the courthouse. The children were sworn in, placed in the jury box and given supplies to take notes. Watkins reportedly even wondered aloud whether the students were old enough to know how to write.
But the most striking moment came when the judge told the defendant that she would reach a verdict “with the assistance of my special jury.”
This raises serious questions: Were the parents properly informed, or did Judge Ulanda Watkins take the law and parental rights into her own hands? Was this really a civics demonstration, or did an actual criminal proceeding become part of a classroom exercise involving children who were far too young to understand the legal and emotional significance of what they were witnessing?
Report Your Family Court Judge: StandWithMeg.com
Criminal Trials Are Not a Classroom
For most parents, many would probably agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with teaching children how the judicial system works.
In fact, courtroom visits have the potential to be a valuable educational experience where Judges could help youth understand the Constitution, rule of law, and the responsibilities of citizens.
However, there's a BIG difference between allowing children to observe a courtroom and involving them in an actual criminal case in very close proximity to the alleged criminal.
Special Jury of 2nd Graders
These were not teenagers participating in a mock trial at school.
They were 2bd graders sitting in the jury box during a real hit-and-run proceeding involving a real criminal-case defendant.
The children were sworn in as a “jury.”
They were given materials to take notes.
However, what's even more alarming is that Judge Watkins characterized them as a “special jury” while discussing her own verdict.
Even if the children had no actual legal authority and their participation was intended purely as an educational demonstration, the circumstances raise legitimate questions about whether appropriate boundaries were maintained.
What About the Children?
The most important concern here should be the children themselves.
If you have children, you know that 2nd graders are too young for that, and they're still developing their ability to understand complex situations and process emotionally difficult scenarios
A criminal courtroom can expose children to allegations, testimony, evidence and consequences that parents may reasonably consider inappropriate for their age.
That leads to another very serious question: What did the parents or guardians know about the children's planned participation before it happened?
There is a substantial difference between consenting to a school field trip to observe a courthouse and consenting to a child being sworn in and placed in a jury box during an active criminal trial.
Were parents specifically informed that their children would be participating in the proceeding?
Were they told that the children would be presented as a “jury”?
Were parents given an opportunity to object?
Were school officials consulted about whether participation in an active criminal proceeding was age appropriate?
Those questions deserve clear answers.
The Defendant Was Not Part of a Classroom Exercise
Another side of the controversy that cannot be ignored is that the defendant was appearing before a judge in an actual criminal matter. Regardless of the eventual outcome, are Americans not entitled to a serious and impartial judicial proceeding?
Being told that the judge would reach a verdict with the “assistance” of a group of second graders could reasonably raise questions about the dignity of the proceeding and the appearance of impartiality.
Judges wield extraordinary authority over defendants, victims, witnesses and participants. The public expects that authority to be exercised with seriousness and restraint.
A judge can certainly explain how a jury works. But actually placing children in the jury box during a criminal proceeding and referring to them as a special jury creates a very different impression.
Ethics Question Is Bigger Than One Classroom Visit
The controversy is not necessarily about whether Judge Watkins had good intentions.
The question is whether the method was appropriate.
Judicial ethics are not limited to whether a judge technically violates a particular rule. Public confidence also depends on whether judges exercise sound judgment and maintain the appearance of fairness, dignity and professionalism.
That becomes particularly important when children are involved.
The judiciary should be held to a high standard precisely because judges have so much authority.
Bigger Lesson of Boundaries
Ironically, the incident intended to teach children about the justice system may have created a different lesson for the Judiciary.
Courts have boundaries.
Jurors have responsibilities.
Defendants have rights.
Judges have enormous authority.
And children deserve age appropriate environments where their participation is properly understood and voluntarily supported by their parents or guardians.
There are countless ways to teach second graders about the judicial system without placing them in the middle of an active criminal proceeding.
A mock trial could have allowed the children to experience jury service without involving a real defendant. A classroom exercise could have demonstrated how evidence is evaluated. A courthouse tour could have shown students where trials take place without making them participants in an actual case, raising far fewer questions.
Good Intentions Still Require Good Judgment
This incident should automatically be treated as proof of judicial misconduct, or at the very least, proof of serious lack of judgement.
Were the children's parents fully informed?
Was their participation specifically authorized?
Was the material appropriate for second graders?
Was the defendant's consent or objection considered?
Was the judge's conduct consistent with the ethical expectations placed on judges?
And perhaps most importantly, was an active criminal trial really the appropriate place to conduct an interactive civics lesson involving eight young children?
Those are not unreasonable questions.
The justice system teaches society about responsibility, rules and consequences. Judges therefore have an especially important responsibility to model those principles themselves.
When a seemingly unauthorized school lesson involves real defendants, real criminal allegations, and real judicial decisions, the educational value should never come at the expense of courtroom dignity, children's welfare, or public confidence in the justice system.
With some many questionable decisions being made in American Courtrooms, how can anyone trust the justice system ruled by appointed Judges like Ulanda Watkins who are playing actual kids games in real court proceedings?
More Questionable Decisions by Judge Ulanda Watkins
We have also received reports that Judge Ulanda Watkins allegedly flies the BLM (Black Lives Maters) flag in her court room.
Furthermore, Judge Ulanda Watkins has also made very questionable rulings in Family Court resulting in further injury to my son Leo. Judge Watkins knew she made the wrong ruling after our case because my EX filed her "Judgement" paperwork with an additional $800/mo for childcare after lying in court by claiming Leo was in her care at all times. Thankfully, Judge Ulanda Watkins rejected the claim for additional childcare money, but the damage from her ruling was done and my son still suffers to this day from her lack of sound judgement.
Judge Ulanda Watkins was appointed by Kate Brown, not elected. That means she's not even a "real" judge, and my son Leo is still paying the price for her lack of judgement.
Report Your Family Court Judge: StandWithMeg.com
Sources and more:
Thank you for reading Jail The Judges.
Over 8,000+ Judges, GALs, and bad actors on Public Record. We StandWithMeg.com (submit your Family Court story now)
Judge Xiomara Torres FC 2020: https://fightercries.org/oregon-judge-xiomara-torres-gives-children-to-founded-sex-offenders/
https://www.lclark.edu/live/news/38975-law-school-alumni-diversify-the-oregon-bench
