When you assume . . .
Once prosecutors charge a person with a felony, that person is entitled to a preliminary hearing (or a grand jury hearing, though those are much less common). The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient or probable cause” to believe that the person who is charged could be guilty of what s/he is accused of.
The idea is that a felony is sufficiently serious that somebody must check to be sure that there is some basis for filing the charges before the system goes full-steam ahead with a prosecution. Theoretically, the judge (at a preliminary hearing) or the grand jury (at a grand jury hearing) acts as a neutral third party, evaluating the evidence provided by the prosecution and determining if there’s enough to go on.
But judges aren’t immune from the same prejudices that afflict the rest of us. If police and prosecutors have bothered to drag somebody into court, they must have a good reason, right? If this person didn’t do anything wrong, why would prosecutors be wasting their time on him/her?
A few weeks ago, an attorney in the office asked the judge to postpone a client’s preliminary hearing. The client, who had been charged with shoplifting something expensive (can’t remember what), was in a live-in rehab center 75 miles away, and it would be harmful to disrupt her treatment by forcing her to come all the way out here to the courthouse. (Some rehab programs make you start all over from the beginning if you miss a day.)
The judge responded: “Why should I have any sympathy for your client? She stole from a store.”
Of course the statement about sympathy is cold-hearted, not to mention short-sighted (doesn’t society have an interest in keeping people in rehab if that’s where they need to be?).
But here’s the more serious problem: the judge—the judge, whose job it is to take a reasoned, unbiased look at evidence and make sure that the charges are legitimate—had already decided that not only were the charges legitimate, but that the client was guilty. The fact that the client had been charged was enough for the judge to believe she deserved to be charged (and, for that matter, that she deserved to be incarcerated).
The idea is that a felony is sufficiently serious that somebody must check to be sure that there is some basis for filing the charges before the system goes full-steam ahead with a prosecution. Theoretically, the judge (at a preliminary hearing) or the grand jury (at a grand jury hearing) acts as a neutral third party, evaluating the evidence provided by the prosecution and determining if there’s enough to go on.
But judges aren’t immune from the same prejudices that afflict the rest of us. If police and prosecutors have bothered to drag somebody into court, they must have a good reason, right? If this person didn’t do anything wrong, why would prosecutors be wasting their time on him/her?
A few weeks ago, an attorney in the office asked the judge to postpone a client’s preliminary hearing. The client, who had been charged with shoplifting something expensive (can’t remember what), was in a live-in rehab center 75 miles away, and it would be harmful to disrupt her treatment by forcing her to come all the way out here to the courthouse. (Some rehab programs make you start all over from the beginning if you miss a day.)
The judge responded: “Why should I have any sympathy for your client? She stole from a store.”
Of course the statement about sympathy is cold-hearted, not to mention short-sighted (doesn’t society have an interest in keeping people in rehab if that’s where they need to be?).
But here’s the more serious problem: the judge—the judge, whose job it is to take a reasoned, unbiased look at evidence and make sure that the charges are legitimate—had already decided that not only were the charges legitimate, but that the client was guilty. The fact that the client had been charged was enough for the judge to believe she deserved to be charged (and, for that matter, that she deserved to be incarcerated).
posted by P.D. Clerk at 4:11 PM
4 Comments:
Right - the judge just blew past that crazy old saw "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this not enough to get someone kicked off the bench? That's what I want to know. No actually - what I want to know is what do you say in a case like that? Do you say, "Your Honor I respectfully request to remind you of the most basic underpinning of our judicial system?" or would that just tank your career once and for all?
Yo! Hows come you ain't posting no more. I just discovered you blog march 2, '06, but it's good reading. Post more new stuff, though I imagine reliving the bullshit you see at work in writing the blog must be a little deflating.
Many years ago when I just became a PD investigator I was assigned to investigate a B&E in which three men were charged. I read the reports and visited the crime scene. I had the opportunity to view what the police claimed that they saw when they arrested the three men. The police detailed how they were parked across the street from a house that abutted a drug store and a couple of other businesses. They saw how the men acted suspicious and how they broke into the house to gain access to the drug store. How when the police were called, the men ran out of the house and were caught around the block from the house they broke into. Since I was a former court reporter, for the Judge hearing he case, I convinced him to come and take a look at the scene and stand where the police claimed they were watching the entire event. It was the first time the Judge ever took a view for a violation hearing. They Judge agreed that the police lied in what they saw because the hedges of the property blocked any view of the backyard from where the police were "allegedly" observing everything. But, they were caught around the corner and they Judge said they did it anyway. No matter how good or bad the evidence, the Judge is going to do what he/she wants to anyway, regardless of the evidence or what the witness sees.
Very interesting... I found this blog via "Stumble" and I'll rate it positively...
Quite interesting to see details on American Common Law System :-)
Kind regards from Spain :-)
Paquito.
http://Paquito4ever.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home