As we reported in our February 17th post entitled An Unusual Dissent, Idaho Supreme Court Justice Daniel Eismann’s very alarming allegation in the lead paragraph of his dissent in Judy Nield v. Pocatello Health Services was initially reported by the Idaho Statesman in its news story headlined Idaho Supreme Court Justice Daniel T. Eismann at odds with three of his colleagues.  That story was apparently put on the Associated Press wire, and a couple of Idaho newspapers picked it up and ran knockoff articles.  As far as we can tell, that has been the extent of the news coverage.

We wonder why so few Idaho news media have shown any real interest in pursuing this news story or even commenting editorially.  We would think that when a respected and credible Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court alleges in an opinion that three of his five fellow Justices, “… determine[d] the desired result [in Nield] and then twist[ed] the law and/or the facts to justify it,” that would get the attention of even the most lackluster of Idaho’s news media.

About the only editorial comment we’ve seen was in Reader’s Opinion piece by David Adler in today’s Idaho Statesman.  Adler is the Cecil D. Andrus professor of public affairs at Boise State University, where he serves as director of the Andrus Center for Public Policy.  The title of his opinion piece was Recent condemnation of judges is remarkable.  

It is as if Idaho’s news media/skewsmedia are afraid to pursue this as a news story.  We agree that if Justice Eismann’s allegation can be substantiated, its effect would be as OpenCdA reader “up river” commented:

Justice Eismann’s public and official allegation literally shakes the foundation of Idaho’s legal system. His allegation cannot be ignored. It cannot be written off as a ‘spat’ between Justices. Justice Eismann’s allegation is the most serious charge that can be made under our system of law because it is made against the persons who have the ultimate authority, and attendant responsibility and duty, to decide the law. It is inconceivable to me how anyone interested in justice and adherence to law can ignore J. Eismann’s allegation. If Justice Eismann’s allegation is true, the guilty members of the Court have forsaken their sacred duty to Idaho’s citizens.

OpenCdA believes that a proven allegation such as Justice Eismann has made amounts to nothing less than the widespread denial of due process of law to the people of the State of Idaho.   We note that the local and regional skewspapers seem to happily report on every nuance of controversial and not-so-controversial legislation that oozes out of the Idaho Legislature for executive signature by the Governor.  And we wonder:  Of what value are any of our laws if those who are charged with adjudicating disputes over them can be influenced to twist the law and/or the facts to justify the trial or appellate judge’s desired outcome?

We had the opportunity to live and work in the Washington, DC, area when the Watergate story “broke,” and we remained in Fantasyland-on-the-Potomac through the forced resignation of former President Nixon as a result.  We recall vividly that Nixon and his convicted co-conspirators including Attorney General John N. Mitchell sought desperately and with some success to discourage press coverage of the break-in by referring to it as a “third-rate burglary.”  Fortunately two less experienced reporters doggedly pursued the news behind the story, and with the help of editors and a publisher who were not intimidated, they reported what the public would otherwise not have known.

While Justice Eismann’s allegation has yet to be substantiated or refuted by an investigation conducted by credible investigators, we wonder why Idaho’s news media haven’t stepped up to gather and report the news without fear or favor so that the public can decide for ourselves.  The prospect of a wholesale violation of due process of law by Idaho’s district and appellate courts and the attendant erosion of public trust and confidence in the credibility of our courts system would seem to be newsworthy.