The Supreme Judicial Court today overruled a judge who attempted to dock a psychologist's expert-witness fee in one case for showing up late in another case - and added she was wrong to try to dock him in the first place.

At issue was a psychologist called by public defenders in Suffolk Superior Court to testify on their clients' behalf in two separate sexual assault cases. The psychologist missed his initial appearance in one case because he was still in testimony in another case, forcing a delay in that trial.

The Committee for Public Counsel Services paid the psychologist his fee, but then the judge in the first sexual-assault case - Elizabeth Fahey - ordered that he only be paid a fraction of his fee as a penalty for delaying the trial she was overseeing. He then testified for another indigent client before another judge. Although Fahey was not the judge in that case, when the Committee filed a motion for additional funds to pay for his testimony, the request came to her and she said she would only pay the amount minus what she said he owed from the other case.

The high court ruled that while state law lets judges determine the legitimacy of paying for a given witness for an indigent client, once the judge authorizes any funds, it's up to the Committee to decide how much to pay:

As the more recent expression of the Legislature's intent, the CPCS statute commits to CPCS, rather than to judges who allow requests for funds, oversight and discretion for the provision of experts to indigents.

Complete SJC ruling.
Watch the oral arguments in the case.