What was he thinking? When it comes to judges, court rules, don't ask

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a commission investigating possible anti-police bias by a Boston judge cannot take a look at any memos or documents that might point to his thinking on his rulings and verdicts.

The commission had issued a subpoena to Boston Municipal Court Judge Raymond Dougan for "any notes, notebooks, bench books, diaries, memoranda, recordation or other written recollections," related to cases specifically mentioned in a complaint by Suffolk County DA Dan Conley and a lengthy Globe article.

But the state's highest court said the finality of verdicts is a cornerstone of American justice that could be undermined by using a judge's own writings to potentially impeach what he decided:

The judiciary's independence from the other branches of government and from outside influences and extraneous concerns has been one of the cornerstones of our constitutional democracy, intended to ensure that judges will be free to decide cases on the law and the facts as their best judgment dictates, without fear or favor.

The writings of John Adams preceding the drafting and adoption of the Massachusetts Constitution developed and articulated the essential linkage between judicial independence and impartial decision-making:

"[Judges'] minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men. To these ends, they should hold estates for life in their offices; or, in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and their salaries ascertained and established by law."

The decision, which never actually mentions Dougan by name, says the Commission on Judicial Conduct had other avenues for investigating Conley's and the Globe's claims without starting a process that could lead to widespread verdict second guessing:

Judicial misconduct investigations have been pursued successfully, not by examining the judge's thought processes, but rather by identifying the judge's outward expressions of partiality or by examining the judge's conduct over time through which that partiality or other abuse has become apparent. ... There are multiple sources of primary information, available to the public and the commission, on the basis of which judicial conduct and outward expressions of potential partiality can be assessed. Accessing these sources does not require intrusions into the deliberative processes of judges.

The court added:

In addition, the merits of decisions and other actions of judges are fully reviewable in the appellate process for consistency with the law. It can hardly be contested that the repeated and intentional failure to follow the plain requirements of the rules and regulations of the Commonwealth, or the rulings of this court, is a proper subject of judicial investigation and discipline.

• Complete ruling, In the Matter of Enforcement of a Subpoena