"The Robing Room: ME State Judges

Hon. Peter Darvin	See Rating Details
Judge District Court
Somerset County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: - 0 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 2.0 - 3 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Peter Darvin

Comments

Other

Comment #: ME71
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Darvin had pre-determined conceptions that appear to have significantly influenced his decision in a contentious divorce case. One party told lie after lie after lie. Those lies were exposed by expert testimony, but Judge Darvin gave the lies equal or greater weight to the expert testimony. He bought into the lies hook, line, and sinker.

Other

Comment #: ME61
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Darvin leans very heavily on the scales of justice by cherry-picking which witnesses may testify about what. He is mainly interested in collecting select evidence that only supports his pre-trial opinion.

The school-to-jail pipeline starts in his courtroom.

Other

Comment #: ME40
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Judge Darvin pre-determined his ruling by preventing testimony supporting the fact that one parent has a thirty year history of paranoid and abusive behavior evidenced by multiple arrests.

Judge Darvin believes, without evidence, that if parents can't cooperate both must be equally culpable. Based on this assumption he prevented any testimony that might contradict his conclusion.

How can it be in the child's best interest to preclude testimony proving that one parent presents a credible risk to the child's safety?

Litigant

Comment #: ME39
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge unnecessarily limited scope of history in child dispute case. By doing so, and by throwing out all family history, he missed a longstanding history of domestic abuse, and sociopathy. He also threw out any other data that did not fit his mindset. For example, he simply chose to ignore and contradict the child abuse expert for the state of Maine. He clearly had his opinion of the case prior to hearing the case - and nothing could be said or done that would have swayed him. It is unfortunate that my children are now further endangered because of him, and his self-created ignorance.

Other

Comment #: ME35
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Said justice attempts to follow the law and is restricted by statute even when such statutes that are questionable are brought to his attention. The judicial system fairness is undermined when judges don't take the time or consideration to understand that spousal support statutes are antiquated and often prejudicial in the manner they are written. There is no accountability on the part of the payee.