Procedure for random assignment of trial judges

The Procedure for random assignment of trial judges was designed to make the selection of a trial judge visibly random: names were drawn in open court from a cage rather than assigned behind closed doors. In Rusty Sabich’s case, the procedure selected Larren Lyttle, whose rulings first allowed disputed fingerprint testimony and later ended the prosecution. The draw could establish how the judge was chosen; it could not determine what the judge would decide.

Origin and Design

About five years before Sabich’s trial, a scandal in the clerk’s office prompted Chief Judge Foley to seek suggestions for ensuring that trial judges were selected completely at random. Rusty Sabich proposed that the draw take place in court, in front of everyone. The proposal was put forward in Raymond Horgan’s name and promptly adopted. Horgan, Sabich believed, regarded the idea as evidence of his executive ability.

The adopted mechanism made the selection a public act. Wooden plaques bearing judges’ names were spun inside a closed cage borrowed from a bingo game. The clerk, Alvin, rolled the bones and drew a plaque through an opening. The procedure’s visible randomness mattered: those present could watch the selection rather than depend on an unexplained assignment made elsewhere.

Assignment in Sabich’s Case

The procedure came into play after Jamie Kemp sought a speedy trial. Sabich’s side recognized that delay could strengthen the prosecution: fingerprints would not lose their memory, records would remain, and a witness or account of the missing murder weapon might emerge. Even so, the defense waived the pretrial conference, and Judge Edgar Mumphrey ordered the case set over immediately for trial and directed the clerk to draw a name.

The plaque identified Larren Lyttle. The result carried an immediate personal and professional significance: Lyttle was an old partner of Raymond Horgan and was regarded by the defense as a favorable judge. Kemp reached back and squeezed Sabich’s hand; Tommy Molto groaned. Mumphrey interrupted Nico Delia Guardia and acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and Sabich’s long service to the court, while emphasizing that the drawing—not a negotiated choice—had put the case on Lyttle’s docket.

The Judge’s Discretion After the Draw

Random assignment settled who would hear the case, not how contested questions would be resolved. When the prosecution could not find Carolyn Polhemus’s glass, the sides argued over whether witnesses could still testify about its fingerprints. Lyttle admitted that testimony over the defense objection, while recording his reservations. He cited the importance of the evidence but also acknowledged that the defense had been unable to examine the missing exhibit and that the police evidence room had a known history of careless handling. He warned that evidence of bad faith could bring the prosecution to an end.

The ruling shows the boundary of the assignment procedure. A public draw can regulate the choice of judge, but it does not remove the judge’s need to interpret the law, weigh the record, and exercise judgment. Nor did assignment itself cure the failures in evidence custody that shaped the dispute over the glass.

Outcome and Institutional Significance

After reflecting on the case, Lyttle concluded that the evidence was inadequate for the jury to decide whether Sabich was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He pointed to the lack of proof of motive, of a concrete intimate relationship, and of effective evidence that Sabich had had sex with Polhemus on the night she died; the missing glass further weakened his confidence. Nico accepted the ruling and moved to dismiss the case. Lyttle discharged Sabich and called what had happened a disgrace to the cause of justice.

The procedure therefore frames, but does not resolve, the novel’s concern with legal fairness. The selection was public and random, yet its result favored a defendant whose case turned on disputed evidence and judicial discretion. Lyttle’s eventual decision supplied a formal end to the prosecution; the mechanics of assignment could make the route to a judge more transparent, but could not restore the lost evidence or settle every question about the underlying facts.