Going The Second
Mile (Cont.)
A UNIQUE
STYLE
To look at Maryland
Chief Judge Robert Bell, one would be hard pressed to guess his
distinguished occupation. Outwardly he is flamboyant, with a flair
for the dramatic. He has never felt constrained by convention when
assembling his wardrobe. Baltimore Magazine has consistently
named the Chief one of the ten best-dressed men in Baltimore City.
He wears immaculately tapered, brightly colored suits; dress shirts
that perfectly match his silk ties; and Italian designer leather
shoes.
In his younger days,
Bell could be seen around Baltimore wearing expensive rings and a
zodiac medallion. When he was assigned to the Court of Special
Appeals in 1984, close friends implored Bell to temper his image;
they achieved only modest success. Maryland’s top judicial officer
still wears his medium-brimmed straw hat, cocked slightly to one
side, in what has become the Bell sartorial trademark. And he
refuses to give up his old-school pocket watches or his fancy silk
handkerchiefs. “I know I go against the historical image of what a
judge is supposed to look like,” says Bell, “but people don’t
realize that the individual, not the image, is the
judge.”
Yet it is in the
courtroom where he truly distinguishes himself. On the bench, Bell
is known for his warm, genial demeanor and his assiduous attention
to facts. “He always asks very probing questions of witnesses to
ensure that he’s getting at the truth,” says Maryland Court of
Special Appeals Judge Arrie W. Davis, who befriended Bell shortly
after both men passed the Maryland bar exam in 1969, a year in which
only three other African-Americans were admitted to the Maryland
bar, Davis recalls.
Bell’s reputation as
an exemplary jurist stems largely from his provocative, thoughtful
dissents, which became legion during his ascent up the Maryland
judicial ranks. Judge Holland says that Bell’s consistent
application of the law is one reason that he frequently splits off
from the majority. “He doesn’t believe in trying to interpret the
law to fit the person, the defendant, the plaintiff, or the case,”
she says.
Earlier this year,
Bell joined two of his colleagues to protest the Court of Appeals’
refusal to address the issue of whether Maryland should extend a
right to counsel in certain civil cases. The judges, by a 4-3 vote,
dodged the broader question and decided Frase v. Barnhart
based on specific factual circumstances of the child-custody case.
Maryland thus fell one vote short of becoming the first state to
approve a limited “Civil Gideon” (referring to the landmark 1963
case of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a defendant’s
right to counsel in criminal cases).
“I think we’re all
responsible for the quality of justice that people receive,” Bell
says. “The way we do it is by making sure that everybody has an
opportunity to get the benefit of representation. If we don’t have a
wide enough net, then the public’s faith and confidence in the
system will be damaged. In very important cases, everybody should be
represented. It’s a public responsibility, so why not make the
public do it?”
Opponents claim that
a Civil Gideon would be prohibitively expensive, but the Chief Judge
feels such arguments miss the point. “It strikes me that the issue
is not how difficult it’s going to be,” Bell says. “The issue is
whether it’s the right thing to do. That’s the decision that we have
to make.”
NEXT PAGE:
Long-Term Commitment
>> |