Candidate: Fredda Maddox

Court: Chester County Court of Common Pleas

Party: Democrat

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Fredda Maddox: While I do not subscribe to a set judicial philosophy, I believe judicial activism has no place in our court because it erodes public confidence and trust in a fair and impartial judicial system. I am a proponent of preserving constitutional norms and our existing law and will bring a balanced perspective to administer justice equally.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Maddox: I bring nontraditional practical legal experience in addition to having practiced law for 25 years that is unparalleled to any judicial candidate in Chester County. My multifaceted legal and law enforcement experience journey began with my first arrest as a Pennsylvania state trooper at Avondale and later as a narcotics agent with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. As sheriff of Chester County, I have had to make tough and at times unpopular decisions, abide by the rule of law, showing compassion without being swayed by emotion or public opinion. Interactions with members of the community has equipped me with the patience, listening skills and the ability to assess credibility which provide a solid foundation to serve as a judge who administers fairness and justice for all.

Coupled with my law enforcement career is my legal experience as a former public defender, child advocate attorney, attorney advocate for survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking and associate attorney with a private family law practice. I have represented the accused and the accuser, the abused and the abuser, the privileged and the poor equally, and that gives me a balanced perspective which enables me to provide fairness and equality to all.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Maddox: There is a slow erosion of trust in the legal profession and the practice of law. More than ever judges must demonstrate political neutrality and avoid any appearance of impropriety. Acting from a foundation of empathy and equity that will result in judgments that are consistent and increase public confidence. When people appearing before the court feel seen and heard, public confidence grows, assured that we are all equal before the law. I have seen the law and courts from a variety of perspectives. One thing that remains common across all those experiences is the sanctity of the law and the need to preserve constitutional norms—the right of the accused to a fair trial; the rights of all parties to have grievances heard and adjudicated based on the evidence.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Maddox: The Democratic Party stands for fairness, inclusion and equal opportunity. Those are not exclusively Democratic values but fundamental principles outlined in our constitution. I stand with principles guaranteed in the constitution and if elected affirm to uphold the law and strive toward fairness and justice for all.

Early in my career as a Pennsylvania state trooper, I took a solemn oath to serve all and uphold the constitution, regardless of socioeconomic background, race, ethnicity, gender or religion. As an attorney I took a similar oath to serve all. I have committed myself to public service my entire career and sought to serve this county and this commonwealth without considering anyone's party affiliation.

As Judge, I will endeavor daily to protect all equally under the law regardless of political affiliation, as I have always strived to do, so that those who appear before me will feel they were treated with respect and fairness, no matter the outcome of an individual case.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Maddox: I do not believe the Pennsylvania courts have a perception of being partisan or polarized. However, recent events at the national level, specifically involving justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, underscore the critical importance for judges to scrupulously adhere to a code of ethics.

When they do not, the public loses confidence in not just a particular judge, but in the judicial system as a whole. More than ever, judges must remain neutral and avoid any appearance of impropriety. As stated in my answers above, the court must uphold the sanctity of the law and preserve constitutional norms—the right of the accused to a fair trial; the rights of all parties to have grievances heard and adjudicated based on the evidence and the law. When people appearing before the court feel seen and heard, public confidence grows, assured that we are all equal before the law.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Maddox: Again, more than ever judges must remain neutral and avoid any appearance of impropriety. Acting from a foundation of empathy and equity will result in judgments that are consistent would increase public confidence. When people appearing before the court feel seen and heard, public confidence grows, assured that we are all equal before the law.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Maddox: At the outset of a case, litigants and their counsel must receive full disclosure of a potential conflict of interest. A judge must convey to all parties their ability to remain unbiased and to render a decision based solely on the evidence presented, and I would recuse myself if after disclosing a potential conflict the litigant and their attorneys have determined recusal is warranted. As a judge I will strive to remain transparent and disclose matters that would give the appearance of impropriety. To do otherwise erodes the trust and confidence of litigants. Litigants are entitled to an unbiased court, and as a judge I will endeavor to uphold the sanctity of the law and preserve constitutional norms.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Maddox: My late father served as both my mentor and role model. My dad taught me resiliency in the face of adversity. Through his own experience and actions, he taught me to pursue dreams against all odds and unabashedly embrace every opportunity life presents. I believe President Theodore Roosevelt's famous speech, usually remembered as "The Man in the Arena," stated this philosophy eloquently when he wrote: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly."