Judge shopping, the practice of attempting to steer a legal case toward a particular judge perceived as favorable, raises serious concerns in criminal justice. While often discussed in civil litigation, its consequences in criminal cases are profound, influencing bail, evidentiary rulings, trial outcomes, and sentencing.
This posting examines how judge shopping occurs, its impact on judicial impartiality and constitutional protections, and the efforts taken to curb it. Ultimately, judge shopping undermines equal justice, disproportionately benefits well-resourced litigants, and weakens public trust in the courts. Reforms such as randomized case assignment, multi judge divisions, and stricter refiling rules remain essential to preserve judicial integrity. Judge shopping can significantly impact court decisions in both civil and, to a lesser but still important extent, criminal cases by allowing litigants to steer their cases toward judges they anticipate will be more sympathetic to their position or issue more favorable rulings, thus undermining the principle of judicial impartiality and affecting case outcomes.