Sheila Weller, "More of America's Most Sexist Judges," Redbook Dec. 1994, at 88.

We thought we'd exposed them all earlier this year. We were wrong. Here, more courtrooms where bias against women makes us wonder: How
can educated men think this way?

Our February article "America's Most Sexist Judges" provoked a flood of mail from outraged women, many of whom went on to nominate
other judges they believed deserved the title. Sadly, we discovered that not only was a second roster necessary, it would be easier to compile.

"I continue to be amazed at the number of communities where sexism in the courts is a very common complaint--from both women and men. It
affects not just women victims, but women lawyers and advocates," says Linda Fairstein, chief of the sex crimes and prosecution unit in the
Manhattan district attorney's office.

A judge's power is daunting, going beyond actual rulings, says Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union and a professor of
constitutional law at New York Law School. "If a judge treats a woman plaintiff in a condescending way, if he calls a woman lawyer honey' or
dear' but addresses male lawyers as mister,' that sends a strong message to the jury that the woman lawyer is not to be taken seriously."

Fighting this treatment is tough. Although women can appeal if they feel they've been victims of bias, says Strossen, "the system, for reasons
of efficiency, is geared to defer to lower courts." Disciplinary committees, run by each state's legal system, tend to be slow and toothless,
many say. "They take eighteen months to look into a complaint and then they just say, Don't do that anymore. Judges aren't punished or taken
off the bench," says Fairstein, who understands well why lawyers are reluctant to lodge complaints. After she publicly criticized a judge's ruling
in a rape case, he reported her to a disciplinary committee for ethical misconduct. The charges were dismissed, but such intimidation, she says,
means sexism continues to be tolerated.

Will the system ever change? Many experts say the only real hope is time. Geraldine Ferraro, a lawyer and the country's first female vice
presidential candidate, says she's seen improvement over the last 20 years and expects more as greater numbers of women become lawyers,
court officers, and judges. But until the shift is complete, the most powerful weapon against judicial sexism may be exposing those who so
unabashedly practice it.

Judge David S. Young, 52, of the Third District Court in Utah, represents well what we hope is a fading breed: the old-school sexist. In both his
demeanor and decisions, say critics, he's shown hostility toward women. The result has been public wrath, critical local newspaper stories and
editorials, two complaints filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission and 20 more in the works. The Utah branch of NOW even sends members to
monitor his courtroom in a "judge watch."

The spotlighted cases run the gamut: property disputes, alimony, custody, domestic violence, and sex abuse. One of his most controversial
decisions came in the case of Louise Strollo, a woman who'd suffered eight and a half years of battering and death threats by her husband;
twice she asked Judge Young to grant a protective order, and twice he denied it. Another judge ultimately granted the order, and the Utah
Court of Appeals overturned Judge Young's ruling--an outcome he complains is "sad" and makes him "look bad."

Judge Young's attitude is difficult to trace, for if anything stands out about his life and career, it's its all-American quality. Born in Denver in
1942 to an FBI agent and his wife, he was one of two boys and six girls. The family moved around a lot--from Denver to Memphis to Omaha to
Kansas City. Eventually, they settled in Utah. The Youngs are descendants of both the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Joseph Smith, and Mormon eminence Brigham Young.

After law school at the University of Utah, he became assistant attorney general, executive director of the Statewide Association of
Prosecutors, and an attorney for three Salt Lake City firms. In 1986 Governor Norm Bangerter, a conservative Republican, nominated Young to
the Third District Court bench. He won his seat by a landslide in the 1990 election. In 1992 his fellow judges welcomed him onto the prestigious
Utah, Judicial Council, and last year he was a finalist for a seat on the Court of Appeals.

He has been married to Shauna Newton, a teacher, for nearly 30 years. They have three children: a son in ninth grade, a married daughter who
is a registered nurse, and a son serving a charitable internship, in Bolivia, which is a common part of Mormon upbringing. "We are very
compassionate people," he says of his family.

Why, then, does he appear to be just the opposite to the women who appear before him? Although judges almost never explain their opinions or
themselves, and although Judge Young has declined to talk with local reporters, he granted Redbook two interviews. He explained his
cooperation by paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw: "If you fail to learn from those who abhor you and hold you n utter contempt, you've lost a
of information."

Does he believe, as some critics charge, that women are inferior to men? "No-ho-ho. I think women are superior to men. Look at the health of
women. The durability of women. Look at the intellect of women," he answered in the formal, measured tone he used throughout the interviews.
"My wife's more intelligent than I am. I think women have the capacity. Unfortunately, they don't have the experience, usually. And I think
that's sad. I think men and women see things differently. I think we're emotionally different, sexually different. The juices that flow through our
bodies cause us to be different."

He certainly treats women differently, according to witnesses. Away from the bench, "Judge Young is disarming, pleasant, highly intelligent, and
has a wonderful personality," says a male lawyer, but in the courtroom, many say, he shows that side only to other men. He makes sympathetic
small talk with men, but his approach to women has been described as condescending, chilly, and demeaning. A woman in an alimony dispute
says Judge Young "virtually lunged across the bench" at her and lectured in a way that made her feel like "a gold digger." A therapist in a case
in which a father was accused of sexually abusing his children was referred to by Judge Young as a "flake." Judge Young also told the ex-wife "it
shouldn't take more than a one-watt mind" to conclude her husband deserved visitation rights. "Judge Young inappropriately assumes an
authority role toward women in his court," says Kathryn Kendell, a lawyer with the Utah American Civil Liberties Union, which is appealing one of
his rulings. "He scolds and tongue-lashes women for behaviors that have nothing to do with the legal issues in their cases. He imposes his own
code of behavior on women litigants, which he does not do with men."

And then there are Judge Young's rulings. Look at the details in Louise Strollo's case. In asking for a protective order against her husband, David
Strollo, she filed a complaint with the court in February 1991 saying her husband had promised to kill her if she served him with divorce papers.
He'd beaten her repeatedly, badly enough one time that she required hospitalization for a broken nose and knife wounds.

After another campaign of terror, Strollo attempted suicide by swallowing half a bottle of rubbing alcohol; her social worker, Carolyn Gumina,
helped get her and her two sons, 7 and 8, to a safe house. It took Strollo another six months to work up the courage to divorce her husband.
She had been granted two previous protective orders, the last of which was expiring when she appeared before Judge Young.

Judge Young refused the protective order at the start of the hearing, without allowing Strollo to testify about the abuse, or to present
witnesses. He said that because there wasn't immediate peril, it would be an improper use of the order. He forced Strollo to give her unlisted
number to her husband to accommodate his request to visit the children, despite her protests that David Strollo had made middle-of-the-night
death threats by phone.

"You understand that he is the parent of those children," said Judge Young. "You give him the phone number and you let him know where those
children are, and you let him visit with those children."

In March 1991 Judge Young dismissed Louise Strollo's lawyer's request for a new trial and again refused the protective order. Even after another
judge granted the order, the Utah Court of Appeals overturned Judge Young's ruling, saying that domestic abuse was an "issue of wide and
significant public concern" and that the law "clearly protects those who are reasonably in fear of physical harm resulting from past conduct
coupled with a present threat of future harm. Otherwise, the protective purpose of the statute would be defeated." But Judge Young stands by
his ruling, and asks, "If you were really being honest, you ought to ask yourself, with spouse abuse, can't these new laws be abused by
women?"

In other cases the judge seems to give men the benefit of the doubt--sometimes literally at a woman's expense. In 1991 the judge calculated a
divorcing woman's alimony on his projection that she could land a $ 1,500- to $ 2,000-a-month teaching job. One catch: The woman didn't
have any training as a teacher. The Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Young had speculated improperly and had "abused his discretion." The
court bounced the case back to a lower court for a new calculation.

More recently, Judge Young demonstrated how a sexist perspective can color a ruling that seems to be based on another issue altogether. In
April 1993 be refused to allow Alicia Larson, an artist who works with stained glass, to move from Utah's Summit County and still keep physical
custody of her three young daughters. Larson had followed the rules: She'd given her ex-husband 30 days' notice that she was moving to
Corvallis, Oregon (since the Northwest was the center for her craft and also where her fiance lived). And although no longer a practicing
Mormon, she agreed that once in Corvallis, she'd continue to bring the girls to Sunday services, as she had been doing since the divorce. Her
ex-husband, Marc Larson, filed for physical custody to keep her from going.

Judge Young found in the father's favor, arguing, "The move to Corvallis is not compatible with the religious training that has been provided to
the children." He questioned Larson's promise to attend services with the girls, saying her plan "smacks of the incredulous. She does not have a
commitment to the religion. And to think that she is going to go there and continue to foster it causes me to doubt her credibility."

While the Utah ACLU is appealing on grounds of religious freedom, many feel the case shows the judge at his sexist worst. "Judge Young is
calling Alicia Larson a liar," says Kathryn Kendell. The restriction to just a single county in the entire country is apparently unprecedented, even
in emotional custody cases. It strikes critics as typical of the vindictive bullying of which Judge Young is capable. Judge Young admits he's had
"six months from hell" from what he calls "disgruntled, emotional litigants." He clings to his own theory that Redbook singled him out because
"Mormons are seen as provincial, conservative, religious, and a little backwoodsy. A lot of people love to blitz us on that basis, and that offends
me." About his now unflattering reputation, he quotes Emily Dickinson: "I reason that somehow in heaven it will be even/Some new equation
given," and then finishes it himself, "but life is not even, just, equitable, fair." He seems resigned to--if still baffled by--the attacks. Says a male
lawyer, "I think it's totally beyond his ken to understand that he is biased against women."

Nevertheless, Judge Young told Redbook, "I think it's true that most people favor the women." Could it be that he views himself as a one-man
crusade for equal rights for men?

Judge Young waxes on about his favorite poet. "I think Emily was the greatest American poet. Now don't you think it's interesting that a sexist'
judge would choose a woman for that spot?" he asks. Maybe. But that's small comfort to the women in Utah who have to face him across the
bench.

RELATED ARTICLE: DIVORCE AND CHILD CUSTODY

Judge Harvey Moes, 65, of Hillsdale County First Judicial Court in Michigan, refuses to let divorcing mothers stop using their ex-husbands' names,
saying that mothers shouldn't have names different from their children. Judge Moes appears to know his policy violates a Michigan law that
allows a woman to return to her birth name, since he invites women to appeal, promising they'll win. "But," says a local lawyer, "the majority of
women in our county can't afford the thousands an appeal costs." Last July Macomb County (Michigan) Circuit Judge Raymond Cashen, 70,
above, took a 3-year-old girl away from her mother, Jennifer Ireland, and awarded custody to the father, Steven Smith. Why? Because, said
the judge, the mother planned to keep the girl in day care while she attended college on scholarship, but the father planned to have his mother
take care of the toddler while he worked. Judge Cashen ruled that it was in the best interests of the child for a blood relative to be the
caregiver instead of "strangers" in day care. The ruling is being appealed.

In 1989 Judge Paul Marko, then 58, of Broward County 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Florida, denied Marianne Price alimony, waving off her
lawyer's arguments that she would not be able to support herself on her waitressing income. "You've got to go out and get another guy," he
counseled Price. "The singles' bars are full of them. I've been there. I'm a single man. There are all kinds of bimbos in those places.... There are
wacky brain surgeons out there--you go and find one ... because you're going to end up making five dollars an hour for the rest of your life
unless you have a guy...."

Then the judge allowed Price to live in the house provided she made all the mortgage payments, and ruled that it be sold if he ever found out
Price was cohabiting with a man in it. "No live-in boyfriend is to come into that house," the judge said. "I don't want her all of a sudden taking
up with some nice, sweet little blond from Norway." When her lawyer objected, saying, "Judge, I got to tell you it seems pretty sexist to me,"
the judge replied, "What do you mean sexist? It's not a sexist thing." He then proceeded to say that Price's ex-husband, since it was his house,
"can have all the things he wants.... He can take the Miami Dolphins cheerleaders there if he wants to."

After the local paper reported the judge's tirade, 14 women came forward with other reports of sexism they'd experienced in his court. Judge
Marko apologized in writing to Price. And he was criticized by the Florida Supreme Court and a court of appeals panel, which overturned his
restrictions on her private life. Because the county has formed a special family court division, Judge Marko no longer hears divorces, but he still
presides over cases with female plaintiffs.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In March 1993 Judge William S. Mathews, 69, above, of Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, was presiding over the trial of Benjamin
Blackwell, who had entered his estranged wife's house and beaten her over the head with a crowbar. When her 17-year-old daughter tried to
call 91 1, he punched her in the mouth. The girl's jaw was shattered and some of her teeth were knocked out.

Judge Mathews gave Blackwell, who had a record for murder, rape, and armed robbery, the state-mandated sentence of 3 to 15 years. Then in
October 1993 the judge released Blackwell after he'd served just seven months in jail. The judge's explanation for the leniency: "The guy walked
into his house with his wife in his bed with another guy. It's enough to blow any guy's cool if he's any kind of man." The judge has stood by
both his sentence and his remarks.

In August 1993 Visiting Judge Peter Michael Curry, 77, of Bexar County District Court in Texas, said from the bench, in a case involving a man
accused of assaulting his wife, that he did not believe in the concept of family violence and that women don't stay in marriages--abusive or
not--unless they want to.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE

In February 1994 Vincent L. Cousin, 31, came before Chattanooga Criminal Court Judge Doug Meyer, 61, because he had stopped going to
therapy sessions, as he had been ordered to after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 1989 rape of a woman in front of her
5-year-old daughter. Judge Meyer released Cousin without supervision pending a hearing the following month, even though the public defender
had asked that Cousin be assigned a guardian. "I don't think he needs it, really. I think what he needs is a girlfriend, because if he doesn't get
one , he's going to have bad dreams again," said the judge. (Cousin had claimed that "voices" had told him to rape.) The judge also told Cousin's
laywer, "We'll let you arrange a dating service or something." Three days later, after a flood of angry phone calls, the judge said he had
misspoken and ordered Cousin to go for psychiatric evaluation.

Three years earlier, when Thomas Lee Hopkins, 22, pled guilty to sexually assaulting a fellow student on an elevator at Tennessee Temple
University, Judge Meyer gave him a two-year suspended sentence and an order to get counseling. "You'd better realize that your sex drive is
hot going to go away," Judge Meyer told the confessed rapist. "You need to date.... You're a nice-looking young man and you're just a little
mixed up as far as how to deal with your sexual feelings."

During a March 1994 sexual harassment trial, Joan Choleva, vice president of a company that franchises day care centers, testified that her
boss called her into his office, grabbed her and tried to kiss her, and thrust his hand down her blouse. When she tried to leave, he blocked the
doorway and shoved her hand down his pants. The experience so traumatized her that she quit. Still, Judge Sidney Nadon, 52, above, of
Rockdale County Superior Court in Georgia, said from the bench that he didn't believe that her boss had acted with intent to harm her. The jury,
however, found in her favor.

In February 1992 Judge John Adams, 51, of Fayette Circuit Court in Kentucky, presided over the trial of Clark Gross II, a man from a prominent
Lexington family who was convicted of burglary and first-degree rape of a woman who had broken off her engagement with him earlier that
month. Gross continued to make unwanted advances and finally forced his way into her apartment. She hid in the bathroom, but he kicked in
the door, dragged her to her bed, stuffed a comforter into her mouth, and raped her.

The jury recommended 13 years in prison, and Judge Adams sentenced him to such but let him remain free on bond while he appealed. After all
appeals were denied, some 40 mostly powerful supporters wrote to Judge Adams asking for leniency. In January 1994 Judge Adams obliged and
gave Gross five years' probation and six months of nights and weekends in prison. The judge declared that Gross was worth trying to save as a
productive member of society, had no previous criminal record, and had not created problems during the two-year appeal process. Although the
judge said he didn't condone or excuse Gross's behavior, he also said Gross's inability to accept his girlfriend's leaving him "caused Mr. Gross to
snap."

In September 1993 Judge Edward A. Quinnell, 61, of Marquette County 25th Judicial Circuit Court in Michigan, freed Steven Woltz on a 1,000
bond, pending Woltz's appeal of his conviction for raping his ex-wife when she visited him to give him a birthday card. The judge freed Woltz,
even though a witness testified that Woltz had threatened to kill his ex-wife after the trial. "It is not the type of thing that is so alarming," the
judge said of the threat.

Judge Quinnell has a history of pontificating during sex abuse cases. In 1993 during the sentencing of a man who pled guilty to molesting his
13-year-old stepdaughter, the judge noted that since the little girl had no black eyes or broken bones, "having someone insert a finger in her
vagina ... is no worse than being in a doctor's office" for a "routine pelvic examination." In 1990 during the sentencing of another man convicted
of molesting his family's 14-year-old babysitter, the judge was prompted to say, "I wish she had protested . I suspect she wishes she had too,
because if she had said, Oh, cut it out,' or I am going to holler,' it's doubtful that we would be here today."