I hate mandatory minimums, as I believe it restricts the ability of judges to make appropriate sentencing decisions, and in the case of drug laws, sends non-violent offenders to prison for excessive and cruel lengths. However, when I read things like this, it just makes me shake my head:
Our Hall of Shame Award today goes to Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan.
TChris wrote yesterday about Philadelphia public defender Fred Goodman who got decked by his client in front of the jury during a murder and rape trial which might bring the death penalty. It was inevitable that the Judge would allow Mr. Goodman to resign after the punch. It also should have been inevitable that a mistrial be declared–Mr. Goodman shouldn’t have to continue the trial, and, after all, the jury saw what happened too.
But no, the Judge in the case tried to force Mr. Goodman’s associate counsel, Andrea Konow, to continue by herself. She refused. Now she’s in jail. The Judge says she’s staying there until she changes her mind and resumes representing the client.
Go read the rest of this apalling story, and if you dont already, you should make Talk Left a daily read.
Some of you are probably wondering why I always sound like such a softy on matters of crime and punishment, so I will digress for a moment. As far as I am concerned, government is simply an institution which should not be trusted. The most powerful things the government can do are to execute a citizen, imprison a citizen, send a citizen to war, confiscate the property of a citizen, and tax a citizen. All of those powers have the ability to destroy the citizen.
Having worked briefly in the criinal justice system (interned in the probation office for 6 months, then spent 6 moths as a PO while one officer was ill), I can assure you, without exageration, that the deck is stacked against the poor, the unintelligent, and those of minority status when it comes to matters of criminal justice, with financial status and the ability to hire good legal representation the most damning of the three. I don’t think anyone even debates this issue anymore, it is so clearly and undeniably true.
Therefore, I find it sickening that a judge would behave this way with a public defender- someone who herself is probably radically underpaid, working for a client who probably doesn’t have a chance in hell in the courtroom anyway for a variety of reasons.
M. Scott Eiland
I agree completely. Any verdict the jury comes up with is going to be reversed on appeal, and trying to make the associate counsel go on under those circumstances is despicable.
That judge should be impeached and removed with no further delay, barring an immediate self-reversal and groveling apology.
Mark L
I am one of those trogladyte conservatives that cheerfully believes in punishing those that need punishing as hard as possible. Don’t cut the bad guys a break.
However, declaring a mistrial in this case is not cutting the bad guys a break — it is seeing that justice is served. What the defendant did might poison the jury, and certainly *will* poison the remaining defense attorney. The trial will — rightfully — get thrown out on appeal, forcing the system to run this goblin through the trial process one more time, further down the road from when it was originally tried. This will make it harder to get a future conviction as witnesses die and memories fade.
This would not happen in Texas, where judges are subject to election, and memories of misbehavior have caused more than one judge to find themselves turfed out of office. (Not that every bad judge ends up on the street — but the egregiously bad ones do.)
van
How hard is it to impeach the judge in this instance? We have too many activist judges, who make law rather than interpret it. This carries over in all aspects of government, not just criminal law.
Here in Tennessee our Medicaid (TennCare) system is virtually bankrupting the state. Whenever some reform is tried, the courts come in and change things.
Although I am not in favor of electing judges, there should be some sort of review to remove the feeling of invulnerability. Passing constitutional ammendments are too hard (as they should be) to reign in the judiciary.
triticale
Jail someone for contempt in this case? Certainly. How about the person who hit an officer of the court?