top of page
THE ROBING ROOM
where judges are judged
Hon. John P. Fullam
District judge
E.D.Pa.
3rd Circuit
Average Rating:
5.8
-
4
rating(s)
rating submitted
Please send me alerts on this judge
subscribed
Ratings:
What others have rated
Hon. John P. Fullam
evaluator
ID
date
Temp* Sch* Indu* Comp* Punct* Ev-Cv* Ev-Cr* Flex Bail Crim Settle Trial Sent Coop Average
Prosecutor
12087
1/2/11
2
3
2
1
4
0
2
4
1
2
0
3
2
6
2.3
Civil Litigation - Private
11733
1/2/10
3
3
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
Civil Litigation - Private
11575
1/2/10
2
10
10
10
10
3
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.5
Criminal Defense Lawyer
3567
1/2/07
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
9
0
3
0
3
3
0
10
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Fam
Par
Qu-Arg
At-Arg
Sch
Cri
Civ
Lab
Imm
How familiar are you with the work of this judge? (1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)
Participates in Oral Argument (1=Rarely,10=Always)
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument (1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)
Attitude during oral argument (1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Consistently respectful)
Scholarship as reflected in Opinions (1=Poor,10=Outstanding)
General Inclination in Criminal Appeals (1=Strongly ProGovernment,10=Strongly ProDefense)
General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals (1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly ProPlaintiff)
General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals (1=Strongly ProEmployee,10=Strongly ProEmployer)
General Inclination in Immigration Appeals (1=Strongly ProImmigrant,10=Strongly ProGov.)
evaluator
ID
date
Fam Par Qu-Arg At-Arg Sch Cri Civ Lab Imm
Prosecutor
12087
1/2/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
11733
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
11575
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
3567
1/2/07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-lawyer Rating
(if applicable)
evaluator
ID
date
Rating
category average
-
Temp*
Sch*
Indu*
Comp*
Punct*
Ev-Cv*
Ev-Cr*
Flex
Bail
Crim
Settle
Trial
Sent
Coop
Temperament (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Scholarship (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious 10=Highly industrious)
Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Punctuality (1=Chronically Late 10=Always on Time)
Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility in Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible 10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pre-Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions (1=Least Involved 10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators (1=10% 10=100%)
comments1
Comments:
What others have said about
Hon. John P. Fullam
Prosecutor
comment #:
12087
rating:
2.3
A senior judge who needs to stop accepting cases. Take this latest fiasco which required the 3rd circuit to: Although mandamus is an exceptional remedy, we conclude that the troubling circumstances of this case require granting the writ to correct the trial court?s continuing abuse of discretion in failing to inform the jury of the elements of the charged offense. Accordingly, we will grant the petition and remand the case for trial. We also find that we have jurisdiction to review the court?s refusal to inform the jury about the stipulation. Given the district court?s conduct in this case, we feel that we have no alternative but to direct the Chief Judge of the District Court to reassign this matter to a different judge on remand. No. 10-3882, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V. JOEMON D. HIGDON. Here are the troubling words from Judge Fullam which now calls his competence into question: The Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) prosecuting the case repeatedly objected to the district court?s refusal to inform the jury of the relevant charge. 5 On the first day of trial, the AUSA asked Judge Fullam in chambers whether he could refer to the prior felony conviction in his opening statement. The AUSA apparently made that request because Judge Fullam described Higden?s offense to the potential jurors as simply “possession of a firearm which [] was illegal for him to possess in those circumstances,” App. 27, without mentioning the other two elements of § 922(g)(1). Judge Fullam denied the request and told the prosecutor that Higden?s stipulation about his prior conviction would not be sent to the jury. The following morning, the judge held another conference in chambers at the prosecutor?s request. The AUSA again asked if he could inform the jurors of the elements of the charged offense, and cited precedent of this court. The AUSA argued that, at a minimum, the court should colloquy the defendant to ensure that he had agreed to waive his right to have all of the elements of § 922(g) established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. The court denied both requests. After returning to the courtroom, the court reiterated that the stipulation regarding Higden?s prior convictions would not be provided to the jury “in spite of the Government?s position.” App. 126. The court then cut off the prosecutor?s attempts to make a record, asking the AUSA: “Are you getting paid by the day or what[?]” App. 127. The prosecutor then requested a brief stay to consult with superiors in his office about the possibility of filing a petition for mandamus. App. 124. The court refused and chided the prosecutor, stating: “You go right ahead, but you?re not going to get a stay. You?re expected to act like human beings.” App. 124.
1/2/11, 5:36 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
11733
rating:
3.5
Lawyers I trust have extolled his virtues, but my experience was very negative. He suggested arguments to opposing counsel, which he then adopted without analysis when opponents parroted them back. He did not address numerous substantive issues that the parties fully briefed. His opinion on dispositive issues was about 2 pages long, contained almost no legal analysis (he cited a single case for a single point), and created a procedural quagmire.
1/2/10, 4:40 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
11575
rating:
7.5
Very smart but smug and extremely sarcastic. It is not a pleasant experience to be in his courtroom. Plaintiff oriented in civil cases.
1/2/10, 12:25 AM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
3567
rating:
10
Judge Fullam is a brilliant jurist who sees issues very clearly right to their core. His Honor does not allow anyone to bully him into ruling in their favor and is not afraid to make the tough decisions. We are so fortunate to have had the benefit of his wisdom and his backbone for so many decades.
1/2/07, 12:46 PM
HOME
bottom of page