Judges have duty to do independent research

Listen to this article

What should an attorney do when a trial judge rests his decision on a case that the parties did not cite, but which he discovered doing independent research?

An attorney could file a motion for reconsideration, addressing the case or cases on which the court relied.

However, the attorney should not argue on appeal that the circuit court lacked authority to do its own research.

Rejecting that claim, Judge Daniel Anderson wrote for the Court of Appeals, “A competent judge is not so naive to believe that briefs will always summarize the relevant facts and the applicable law in an accurate fashion. A competent judge uses the briefs as a starting line and not the finish line for his or her own independent research.”

Boundary Dispute

Thomas and Josephine Camacho brought suit against their neighbors, the Trimble Irrevocable Trust, over title to a strip of land. The Camachos claimed they gained title to the property via adverse possession.

The Camachos moved for summary judgment, and the Trust responded.

Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge James R. Kieffer ruled in favor of the Camachos, after doing his own research on adverse possession law.

The Trust appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Trust argued that the circuit court should not have conducted independent research, did not give sufficient notice to permit it to refute the case cited by the court, and that the research was biased on behalf of the Camachos.

The Trust contended, “The trial court judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the dispute. A difficult situation is created when the trial court does the legal research for one party. It is more difficult when the legal research is not timely disclosed. It is a most difficult situation when the court announces its decision based upon its own legal research, and then by name and citation only, without any relevant rationale.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Anderson wrote, “Not only does a good judge confirm that the authorities cited actually support the legal propositions in the briefs, a good judge also makes sure that the authorities continue to represent a correct statement of the law. A member of the bench who fails to independently develop his or her own legal rationale does so at his or her own peril and the peril of the litigants.”

The court also quoted Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit as follows: “That the [judge] did some research beyond the boundaries set by the briefs shows industry rather than the sort of indolence that might deprive the parties of a fair hearing…. [I]t is the sleepwalking judge, not the diligent one, who deprives the litigant of the personal right to careful, individual consideration.

“Any time a judge does independent research there is a risk of error, but judges with some initiative probably err at lower rates than judges who naively believe that the briefs cover everything worth considering. Courts frequently decide cases on lines of reasoning that can’t be found in the briefs.” Hampton v. Wyant, 296 F.3d 560, 564-65 (7th Cir. 2002).

Rejecting the Trust’s argument that the research was biased, the court stated that, while it does not know the circuit court’s research trail, it would presume the court considered many cases and chose the case it believed best represented the correct statement of the law.

The court stated that, by doing independent research, and applying the law to the facts, a court does not show preference for one party over the other, but merely fulfills its duty.

Turning to the merits, the court found that the circuit court applied the law correctly.

A fence had been erected in 1980 between the properties, and until 2006, the Trust never contended that the fence did not mark the property line.

Because the Camachos exercised possession for more than 20 years, the court concluded they obtained ownership pursuant to sec. 893.25(1).