There’s a saying that justice is blind. That most definitely wasn’t the case in one Oklahoma courtroom. In a story that begins last year, former judge, Traci Soderstrom, allegedly texted not once, not twice, but more than 500 times during the course of a felony trial related to the death of a two-year-old. When disciplinary charges were filed against her, she did everything she could to stay on the bench, a bench she’d won approximately one year earlier. After close to half a year of controversy and fact-finding, everything came to a rather unexpected and unsatisfying end when she resigned, claiming she didn’t believe she’d get a fair trial. Too bad she didn’t consider the effect her own actions would have on the criminal trial she was supposed to be the fair and impartial judge for.

Bad judges aren’t anything new. After all, they are only human. Some simply aren’t cut out to sit in unbiased judgment over another person. But Soderstrom’s actions seem more like what you’d expect from a teenaged girl than from an experience lawyer who managed to win election to sit as a district judge. Among the charges leveled against her by Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice John Kane IV are the following:

• sending more than 500 texts to her bailiff during the course of a single trial
• in texts commenting on the size of the prosecutor’s genitals
• making fun of jurors and witnesses for how they dressed, their hair, and their teeth via text to the bailiff
• texting about how she felt the mother of the murdered two-year-old was lying
• texting how she wanted to applaud the defense attorney.

It gets worse. In her resignation statement, she admitted she took office and “promised to uphold the Constitution in a fair, even-handed and efficient manner.” What part of taking your attention off of the testimony in your own courtroom so you can send hundreds of texts to your bailiff represents using a “fair, even-handed and efficient manner” in her courtroom? How did she think her behavior could be seen as anything but a direct insult to the prosecution as well as the mother of the dead child?

Oh, wait, she didn’t think.

At least she didn’t think she’d be caught.

But, once she was, she didn’t go quietly into the gentle night. Instead, she fought to remain on the bench. She also took steps to make sure cameras in the courtroom didn’t catch her texting. Not by putting her phone away but by removing the cameras. That didn’t last long. Once the cameras returned to the courtroom, she asked to have a black box put in place over the image to hide her des and anything on it. Of course, this also had the effect of basically hiding anything she did, especially if it was below desktop level.

Fortunately for the citizens of her county, the county commissioners decided enough was enough and voted to remove the box and let there be transparency in the judicial system, even in her courtroom.

As it tends to do, time marched on. She admitted “her actions have brought disgrace and embarrassment to her family, constituents, the legal profession, her office and the judiciary in general.” As the date for the hearing to determine if she should be removed from the bench neared, instead of trusting in the system she made such a mockery of, she resigned almost a year to the day of when she took the bench. The only thing missing from her letter of resignation was an apple pie.

She wrote:

I ran for District Judge with the hope of restoring the community’s faith in that system. It was the honor of a lifetime wo [sic] win a hard-fought election to serve as a District Judge for the Lincoln and Pottawatomie Counties. When I took the judicial oath on January 9th, 2023, I promised to uphold the Constitution in a fair, even-handed and efficient manner. I promised to ensure the law and procedures were applied equally to Plaintiff and Defendant alike. .  . .

Too bad she didn’t remember what she promised at the beginning of the trial where her life as a judge came crashing down around her ears.

The rest of her resignation letter reads like something out of a badly scripted Law & Order episode or a poor knockoff of a legal novel. Here’s a woman who touts her 20 years as a defense attorney suddenly “discovering” things she never before suspected. . . and that she offers no proof of.

I believed the best avenue for that was with a public trial [referencing her desire to answer the allegations against her in the courtroom–ASG]. I have stood by that decision without fear. What I found regarding the behavior of others during my time behind the closed veil of the judiciary and during preparation for my trial was nothing if not to say shocking. Manipulating the jury selection process, holding citizens without lawful authority, secret tape recordings of judicial officers, and even false threats of criminal prosecution are a small example.

So, 20 years as a defense attorney didn’t lead her to suspect there might be some on either side of the bar who might manipulate the truth or people for the benefit of their client, be it the defendant or the State. Wow. That’s something most first year law students know can and does happen. Do we think the lady protests too much?

My core beliefs and the variables that served me well as an attorney—honesty, preparation, principles and passion, are better utilized as an advocate and not an arbiter.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure I’d want her representing me in a trial, especially not one where my freedom, possibly even my life, were at stake. Could I trust her to actually pay attention to the witness on the stand or the reaction of the jury to what they were hearing or the judge and their ruling on motions and objections? Or would I have to demand she let me hold her phone whenever court was in session?

The actions necessary to disseminate the information and required to hold each person and elected official accountable for their actions require more than a trial before the Judiciary.

What?

The mind boggles.

My only question is what else did the investigation into her actions on the bench reveal? I can’t help thinking this is a perfect example of the adage “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. After all, her trial to answer the allegations brought against her by Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice John Kane IV was to start Feb. 12th. On the 8th, a settlement agreement was filed in which she agreed to resign and never again seek judicial office in Oklahoma.

No matter what the motivation, Oklahoma is going to face who knows how many appeals of cases heard before her during her year on the bench. The state judiciary has a new black eye because of her lack of self-control and failure to exercise a modicum of common sense. She should have remembered Big Brother is always watching, especially in modern courtrooms.

Featured Image created by Amanda S. Green using Midjourney AI.