Federal Judge’s Opinions Littered With Misstatements

Since 2010, celebrated Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank H. Easterbrook has misstated facts, omitted facts, or made assumptions contrary to the trial record in 17 cases, according to an analysis done by a non-profit journalism outlet. In many of those cases, the errors played a role in the outcome, including two cases in which capital punishment cases were upheld under questionable reasoning. The analysis was prompted by law professor Albert W. Alschuler’s article, “How Frank Easterbrook kept George Ryan in prison,” which outlined eight “whoppers” that led to an opinion denying a new trial. “Judge Easterbrook persistently presents wildly inaccurate, made-up statements as unquestionable statements of fact,” Alschuler wrote. “The truth is not in him.” And, Injustice Watch notes: “[O]nce confirmed to lifetime appointments, the quality of [federal judges’] work is not subject to review except by their peers on the appellate court or by the Supreme Court.” Easterbroook’s fellow appeals court Judge Eric Posner told Injustice Watch, “If I agree with the result I’m not going to make a fuss about how the judge articulated the result … unless what seem to me to be clear errors.” And, he added, “I’m a little surprised they are factual errors because, that’s the sort of thing that the other judges or the law clerks or the authoring judge will notice.”