Do Non-lawyer Judges Violate Defendants’ Rights?

A cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court asks whether allowing non-lawyer judges to preside over cases violates defendants’ rights to due process when they are not allowed the chance for retrial before a judge who is a lawyer. The petition was filed on behalf of defendants who were tried in Montana by a non-lawyer who previously worked as a prevention specialist in a dependency program, and a cashier and meat wrapper at a grocery store. In Montana, non-lawyer judges need to complete just 28 hours of study, compared to the 1,500 hours required of aspiring barbers. Thirty-one states have courts where non-lawyers may be judges, and in 22 of those states, non-lawyer judges can preside over cases that carry the potential of jail time. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue before. In a 1976 case, the Court ruled that due process is not violated when a criminal defendant is tried by a non-lawyer judge and the defendant has a right to a new trial before a judge who is a lawyer. But that decision expressly left open the issue of whether it would be a violation of due process if a defendant’s only trial is before a non-lawyer judge.