Hon. Karl S. Forester See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
E.D.Ky.  
Average Rating:5.6 - 8 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
Add a comment only

Ratings

*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=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Karl S. Forester


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: 21239
Rating:9.0
Comments:
In 1993, I was sentenced to ten years in federal prison by Judge Forester. He was extremely fair, considering my case. (I refused to testify against my co-defendant.)

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 13648
Rating:9.1
Comments:
Pleasurable experience to practice a case before him. A true gentleman and a man of common sense. He exhibits the highest ethical standards. He is very fair to all litigants and compassionate. Also has an outstanding sense of humor which he displays appropriately.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 13302
Rating:2.1
Comments:
His ruling make absoutely no sense. Another judge stepped in for him for a couple weeks and dismissed case. He stated "This is my case and no one else can dismiss it". Assessed court fees/charges on the closed case. Very unprofessional.

Other

Comment #: 11761
Rating:1.0
Comments:
After allowing the motion to vacate to linger for more than two years, Forester violated procedure by taking jurisdiction, instead of allowing the magistrate to evaluate the case and prepare a report and recommendation. Forester did not bother to read the defendant's pleadings, simply counted the pages, then repeated nearly verbatim the prosecutors' words. He rejected two requests by the defense attorney for an Evidentiary Hearing, ignored existing law, and slandered a potential expert witness without investigating whether the witness had the qualifications to testify. He does not qualify to stand in the same men's room with Judge Emmett Sullivan and a dozen others who do their upmost to protect our ideals of justice and fairness in the courts.

Other

Comment #: 9769
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I'm writing in reference to the recent CORRUPTION trial of Lawson, Nighbert and others!
How could the U. S. District Judge not understand bribery? No, Nighbert was not FORCED to take the job at UMG,
but a $125,000 a year income AND a new Toyota were very nice gifts for a favor! Does the elderly judge have a hearing problem and/or hearing aid with weak batteries, because it should be very clear to ANYONE who had heard the FOUR tape recordings between Lawson and Rummage, that it "smelled to high heaven"!
Didn't the word, JUDGEment, have any relevance at all in a FEDERAL case of this magnitude?
As for the jury's WRONG decision in the case, Forester's DISMISSAL of bribery had to play an important part in their SUBLIMINAL minds! "Plenty of reasonable doubt". No, Plenty of ignorance! Yes! Certainly, Lawson KNEW that cash money couldn't be traced! Hmmm? I wonder how!
And the news media....why did the good judge ask or require it not to divulge
any more information about the case before a jury selection? Hmmm? I wonder
about that!
Well, in the OPINION of a layman, there was a lot of PAYOLA and PROZAC in this
transparent failure of a federal case!
Just goes to show, MONEY & INFLUENCE wins again!

Litigant

Comment #: 6033
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Extremely slow ruling on motions and other pivotal issues.

Litigant

Comment #: 4312
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Turned his back on an innocent man, an abused child (and by extension, all the other abused children in the FCPS school system) and the law.
Failed to read
Supported by a magistate who knows nothing about the law and in particular the due process clause and the concept of "presumed innocence".
Reversed his magistarte, then inexplicablyu strucke the case from teh docket when it brought forth issues that clearly involved friends of his and his Magistrate, James Todd.
Both are part of the Lexington, Ky. "good ole boy" legal system.
Failed to read the materials before he made his decision.
He and Todd should be removed for incompetence and malfeasance.
This man retired on the job a long time ago.
Your typical political appointee and typical Republican effetist.

Litigant

Comment #: 4181
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Displays "Holier-than-thou-attitude", doesn't seem to listen when defendant speaks to the judge when given opportunity.