Bryant Emotional Before Judiciary Committee

Back in May, I was alone in pointing out that one odd aspect of the negative reaction by the CT Bar Association towards the nomination of Vanessa Bryant was that the state legislature would soon be deciding whether to reappoint her to the state bench. (Most state judges serve eight year terms at which they must be reappointed. In almost every case reappointment is a formality.) Sure enough, on Friday the legislature dealt with the delicate issue of possibly reappointing a state judge deemed unqualified by both the state and federal bar associations.

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports :

Hartford Superior Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, also a nominee for a U.S. District Court judgeship, had the unpleasant task of explaining to the committee why the American Bar Association recommended against her federal court appointment on grounds of temperament and experience.

Rep. Arthur O’Neil, R-Southbury, read from the scathing ABA report, which quoted comments from lawyers and judges gathered by New Hampshire attorney Stephen L. Tober of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In it, Bryant was described as: “very rigid, tough, formalistic”; “immovable and intractable”; “very hard on staff’; “curt, difficult and unreasonable”; “impatient”; “ill-tempered and short with those appearing before her”; “domineering and exasperated with lawyers”; “arrogant and unreasonable”; “contentious and short-tempered’; “tough and stern”; “makes up her mind quickly, won’t change her opinion, brusque”; “erratic”; “rushes to judgment and difficult to change her mind.”

Bryant said, like any other judge, she has “on occasion been impatient. There are times I was not as pleasant as I would like to have been. We all have good days and bad days.”

At one point in the questioning, Bryant choked up and was near tears when she said, “I am very saddened to read that judges made negative statements.” She said she “felt support from those on the federal bench and the state bench who actually know me.”

‘Mass Character Assassination’

Bryant said the ABA procedures require negative statements to be presented to the candidate to rebut or place in context, but that “none of those comments were shared with me,” and she only learned of them when presented with the ABA report on the eve of her confirmation hearing last fall.

Sen. Edwin A. Gomez, D- Bridgeport, said the comments about Bryant were “mass character assassination,” and said he was glad Bryant could come before the state Judiciary Committee and defend herself.

She said the Judicial Branch evaluations, filled out by lawyers and jurors right after a trial, reflected positively on her demeanor and abilities. And the fact that she’d tried two murder cases in her first two years on the bench, Bryant said, were evidence of her ability to quickly get up to speed.

Bryant was primarily a bonding and bankruptcy lawyer in private practice, before becoming a judge eight years ago. As the presiding judge for civil matters in Hartford, she concentrated on administrative work, and was not able to do courtroom work extensively, which the ABA counted against her.

In a May 18, 2006, letter, the Connecticut Bar Association’s Federal Judiciary Committee wrote to the federal Judiciary Committee that it also considered Bryant “not qualified.”

Rep. Gonzalez, R-Hartford, saw the criticism as racially motivated. “I’m proud to be a Latina, proud to be Puerto Rican; I feel it in my veins. We have to recognize that as a minority, we have a lot of problems, and I wish you the best,” she told Bryant, who is African-American.

Rep. Kenneth P. Green, D-Bloomfield, asked Bryant if she’d ever been consulted by another judge about her demeanor. Bryant recalled three occasions. One was a “miscommunication” with a lawyer that led to Hartford Superior Court Judge John J. Langenbach’s intervening.

A second such incident occurred when a partner in a firm requested a continuance because his associate on a case was called to Iraq. Bryant denied the continuance, but after getting a call from another judge, relented. The third instance was also due to Bryant denying a continuance, which she also granted after a judge asked her to reconsider, she said.

Gonzalez asked, doesn’t that mean those judges don’t respect your opinion?

“I don’t see it that way,” said Bryant, who’s demeanor slowly thawed during the questioning. She said she viewed the calls as helpful tips. “They say, ‘I’m coachable. I want to be trained. I want to be a good judge.’ I know my judgment isn’t perfect. If I haven’t made a good decision, I want to know that.”

“Good answer,” said Gonzalez.