Building Better Justice: What a Fair Court Actually Looks Like

Before I ever wore a robe, I stood next to the people our justice system too often forgets.

For nearly twenty years, that was my work. I served as a public defender and defense attorney, standing beside people who could not afford a lawyer or who had nowhere else to turn.

Those years taught me something that matters more than any single case: a courtroom is not fair or unfair simply because of who sits in it on a given day. It is fair or unfair because of how the system is built.

That is the lens I bring to this work — and why I want to talk plainly about what a well-built court should look like, not just in theory, but in practice, with real results behind it.

Speed Is a Justice Issue

Start with efficiency.

Among the twelve judges on Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, I rank second in caseload and fourth in judicial efficiency — placing my court in the top tier of the bench.

But speed isn’t important because it makes a court look productive. It matters because delay has consequences. When cases drag on unnecessarily, people can sit in jail for months waiting for court dates that keep moving. Victims and families remain in limbo. Witnesses wait. Attorneys wait. Lives remain on hold.

An efficient court gives people clarity and moves cases toward resolution. A justice system that moves fairly and efficiently is doing something structurally right.

Transparency Should Be the Rule

My courtroom is the only courtroom citywide where members of the public can watch a trial remotely through a Zoom link — no political connections, no special access required.

I believe that kind of openness should become the standard, not the exception. A justice system the public cannot see is harder for the public to understand, and harder to hold accountable. Courts exercise enormous power over people’s lives. That power should operate in the open whenever the law allows it.

Accountability and Opportunity Can Exist Together

Then comes the hardest part of the job: deciding what justice requires when someone is standing before the court.

My approach holds two principles at the same time. People who commit violent crimes must face real accountability. But when treatment for mental illness, substance addiction, job training, or another intervention can reduce the chance of someone returning to court, the system should have the ability to use those tools as well.

I don’t see accountability and rehabilitation as opposites. I see them as two parts of the same responsibility: making the community safer. A court system that only knows how to punish risks ignoring the causes that bring some people back into the system again and again.

The Conversation Has to Be Bigger Than One Judge

New Orleans deserves a deeper conversation about its courts — one that extends beyond any single case, judge, or election.

Court backlogs matter. Transparency matters. Public confidence matters. So does building a system that understands accountability and opportunity don’t have to compete with one another.

We can move cases faster without becoming careless. We can increase transparency without compromising the integrity of proceedings. And we can demand accountability without giving up on people who still have a realistic path forward.

That is the work. It is not a slogan, one case, or one election cycle.

I am running for re-election to Criminal District Court because I want to continue helping build that kind of justice system — one deliberate decision at a time.

I welcome your thoughts, and I hope to earn your vote on November 3.

— Judge Leon Roché

PAID POLITICAL AD