Judges sometimes have a great deal of discretion in sentencing. In recent years we’ve seen several spectacular abuses of that discretion, to say nothing of endemic judicial racial bias. Despite the national attention received by California and Montana judges, Virginia’s Judge T.J. Hauler has followed their lead.
After blond-haired, blue-eyed Brock Turner was convicted of sexual assault, the former Stanford University swimmer served just three months in jail. Rather than emerging repentant or reformed, he then attempted to appeal his conviction on an “outercourse” theory. The judge responsible for his obscenely lenient sentence, Aaron Persky, was recalled by California voters.
When a Montana man, Blake Martin, pleaded guilty to raping his 12-year-old daughter, he should have received a sentence no shorter than 25 years, the mandatory minimum. Indeed, that’s what he agreed to in the plea bargain he made with prosecutors.
District Judge John McKeon decided to make an exception: He cited state legislation allowing judges to dole our lighter sentences to offenders who are more more likely to be rehabilitated if returned to their community. On that basis, McKeon slashed a 25-year minimum to a 30-year suspended sentence and 60 days in jail over six months (with credit for the 17 days already served). McKeon retired a month later.
National outcry must have missed Judge Hauler. In April 2017, Logan Michael Osborn, then 18, persuaded a 14-year-old girl to take a walk with him. Osborn led her to a dead end where he restrained her with a belt and sexually assaulted her. He pleaded guilty and received a 10-year sentence, with eight years suspended. Then Hauler decided the case bore further review. He’s now twice stayed the execution of Osborn’s sentence, effectively nullifying it.
Hauler has a history of ruling for rapists. After the trial of Dana William, who’d committed three known rapes within a short period, including his ex-wife, the state sought to have William civilly committed. Psychiatric evaluation supported the state’s position. But Judge Hauler made a series of questionable rulings during the civil commitment trial, siding with the defense on evidentiary issues.
One survivor of William’s assault didn’t show, and Hauler wouldn’t admit her deposition into evidence; he rejected the testimony of another woman William assaulted, terming her “incredible.” After agreeing to a continuance to let the state bring other witnesses and another victim, he reneged, gutting their case in yet another way. Less than a year after being paroled, William killed his ex-wife’s parents and then shot himself.
These may be the most egregious instances, but Hauler’s decisions deviate from law frequently and have done so for a while. State Sen. Stephen H. Martin (R-Chesterfield) tried to get Hauler hauled off the bench back in 2009, citing a high rate of reversal on appeal. He may lack judicial temperament as well: A circuit court clerk once described his court as “dysfunctional” and Hauler as “impatient, vindictive, ill-mannered and publicly profane.” Naturally, he sued her for defamation and won.
There’s no undoing the damage Hauler’s done since getting on the bench, but there are three ways to get him off the bench. One avenue runs through the judiciary, but they’ve received complaints about Hauler before. Option two is impeachment via the general assembly. That’s unlikely. The third is resignation, prompted by public outrage. Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive: Resignation would become much more likely in the event that Hauler falls under committee or assembly scrutiny.
If nothing is done, Hauler will serve until 2025.
