Hon. Whitman W. Fowlkes See Rating Details
District Judge
Supreme Court
Stone County
Sixteenth Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 1 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* 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)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Whitman W. Fowlkes


Comments


Other

Comment #: AR2
Rating:3.0
Comments:
This judge admitted not knowing anything about the law he was supposed to be making a decision on. He allowed "back room" negotiations without the accused knowledge or agreement. There was no record kept of the hearing and he assigned his clerk as a parole officer, who also had no knowledge of the law. Later, he played by the "politically" correct rules by assigning dates so that the "accused" was not able to sue those who had falsely accused and caused all the trouble because the statute of limitations had run out. This judge may "try" to be a good guy, but needs to learn what the USA Constitution means, not just go along with the "system".