Judge Boyle has been reversed by the Supreme Court in several decisions favoring white plaintiff voters in redistricting cases. These include opinions he authored in Cromartie v. Hunt, (Cromartie I), 34 F. Supp 2d 1029 (E.D.N.C. 1998), rev’d 526 U.S. 541 (1999), and Cromartie v. Hunt (Cromartie II), 133 F. Supp. 2d 407 (E.D.N.C. 2000), rev’d sub nom Easley v. Cormartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001). In addition, in Cannon v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 917 F.Supp. 387 (E.D.N.C.
In criminal cases, the Fourth Circuit defines a “plain error” as one that is obvious, detrimentally affects the rights of the defendant, and is so egregious as to implicate the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. . .” United States v. Bellamy, 264 F.3d 448, 445 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1143 (2002). This very strong language makes it clear that plain error is not a term used by the Circuit to describe harmless or justifiable mistakes.
Much of the questioning of Ninth Circuit nominee Carolyn Kuhl at her April 1, 2003 confirmation hearing focused on her disturbing ruling dismissing invasion of privacy claims in the case of Azucena Sanchez-Scott, a breast cancer survivor. As demonstrated below, Kuhl’s testimony about this case not only failed to address Senators’ concerns about her ruling but was grossly misleading.
Even before the April 1, 2003 hearing on Carolyn Kuhl’s nomination by President Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, significant opposition to Kuhl’s confirmation had arisen because of her troubling record as a lawyer and judge. Throughout her career — as a lawyer in the Reagan Administration Justice Department, in private practice, and as a state judge — Kuhl has followed a legal philosophy harmful to the rights and interests of ordinary Americans.