8
family and social relationships, medication, support systems, anger issues, testing and
visitation of children.“ Another monitor noted, —Judge Scarano‘s [interactions] with people
in treatment court are impressive. It is clear that he works closely with the treatment court
personnel and is well informed about each case. He is very good at dealing with participants;
putting them at ease, eliciting information about their progress, and setting clear guidelines
for what is expected of them.“ Yet another observer noted, —Defendants seem to relate well
to the judge and have confidence in his judgment.“
Several monitors noted a contrast between Judge Scarano‘s demeanor in the Drug
Court and his demeanor in other County Court proceedings. One approvingly noted that he
had a —much more humane approach in Drug Court, asking lots of questions about how
things are going for each individual, and giving fatherly advice.“ Another monitor said that
the judge sounded more like a social worker than a judge.
Professionalism
Monitors generally observed that Judge Scarano was thorough when explaining rights
and responsibilities to defendants. One monitor noted, he —took care to [e]nsure that each
defendant understood what he or she was agreeing to.“ Another observed, — Judge Scarano
generally appears thoughtful and seems thorough in his hearing of cases.“ One monitor
wrote, Judge Scarano —is very thorough in advising defendants of their rights and of the
right[s] that they give up by entering into a plea bargain. Although he actually says the same
thing to every defendant, he says it slowly and clearly and makes it seem that he is explaining
it to that defendant personally. He asks every defendant who pleads guilty to tell what they
did in their own words.“
However, One monitor found that the judge‘s thoroughness differed somewhat with
different cases. This monitor said: —In one case, he took pains to be sure the defendant
understood conditions. In another case, he was especially accommodating [to] one woman
[who] was represented by her father who was not an attorney. In the remainder of cases, he
seemed to rush. He asked for summary only-no details, and disposed of cases quickly.“
This monitor was unsure whether the defendants appearing before Judge Scarano that day
understood the results of pleading guilty.
Monitors also commented that Judge Scarano used the court‘s time efficiently,
without appearing to rush. In addition, monitors noted that he appeared objective and often
explained things in layman‘s terms.
In the Drug Treatment Court, the monitors described Judge Scarano as very
professional. They noted that his questions and explanations were clear and thorough, and
that his rulings appeared to be objective. One monitor commented, —His professionalism was
always there. He had done his homework and rarely referred to his notes. He knew each
person‘s history.“ Another monitor summed it up as follows: —I was impressed with Judge
Scarano‘s performance in treatment court. He was clearly well informed about addiction and
recovery, knowledgeable about what issues needed to be addressed and how to do so
effectively.“