What Has Happened To Our Criminal Justice System?
I was working mostly out of the home this summer and
consequently caught glimpses of the David Westerfield
murder trial in San Diego on the Court TV channel.
My wife became so intrigued with the trial she watched
it daily, and kept me informed of events that I didn't
catch on my own. I was shocked at the way this man was
tried on circumstantial evidence, in an amazingly
public forum and before a non-sequestered jury.
This man was on trial for his life, but for the
television anchor people working in the production of
the "show," the trial was presented like a public
circus. The moderators were openly rooting for the
prosecution, declaring Westerfield guilty before we had
all of the facts and the jury began its deliberations.
That the jurors were allowed to go to their homes each
night and watch re-runs of these shenanigans on their
own personal television screens, was incomprehensible.
I have to say that by the time the trial was over, the
defense counsel planted enough questions in my mind
that I would have had a hard time convicting this man
without a shred of reasonable doubt. But then I have
covered a lot of trials over the years and still know
what to look for. Yet the jury found the man guilty.
Westerfield, whose tortured face was shoved on our TV
screen daily for about a month, might as well be
convicted of the child murder he was charged with. Life
as he formerly knew it was destroyed no matter which
direction the jury took.
My point is that I am alarmed at the way our court
system has been conducting its business.
When I first began covering court trials some 30 years
ago, journalists went to great lengths to protect the
rights of the accused. When the charge was sexual
molestation or rape, we withheld the name of the person
charged with the crime until there was a court
conviction. That was because we believed that in
America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Sexual molestation is such a amoral crime that even to
suggest that someone might have committed such an act
can sometimes brand that person for the rest of his or
her life.
I remember when cameras were allowed in the courtroom
for the first time. In order to use a camera during a
trial, we first had to send a written request to the
court sometimes weeks in advance. The request included
a description of the picture we wanted, and gave the
exact date and time that we wanted to use the camera.
Once approval was granted, the judge gave the camera
operator instructions on just where he or she could
stand when the picture was taken.
That was how strict it was in those days. Courts were
always considered hallowed ground. To this day,
everyone stands when a judge enters a courtroom. He is
seated on a bench that is elevated above everyone else
in the room. Most judges still wear the traditional
black robe. These are all symbols of the respect and
the dignity once given to the American justice system.
The advent of court television has stripped away the
nobility the courts once had. Worse than that, I
believe televised court threatens everyone's right to a
fair trial.
Another serious dilemma that has entered our justice
system is the issue of wealth. Now that court has
become a public spectacle, lawyers have become actors.
Jurors tend to respond better to the better actors. And
obviously, some lawyers are better actors than others.
It takes a lot more cash to buy their services. Thus
the wealthy can afford more justice than the poor, who
are usually assigned a court-appointed lawyer to
represent them.
While not always the case, court appointed lawyers are
often sharks who make a living on court appointments.
They float through the hallways of the courts, taking
"clients" on demand, and offering little more than a
two-minute whispering conference in the back corner of
the courtroom before the accused stands in front of a
judge.
For this, I have seen lawyers receiving fees ranging
from $120 or more. The poor man going before the judge
is usually always advised to take a "plea bargain"
offered by the prosecutor, which would probably have
happened even without legal advice. As part of the
sentence, the poor slob who gets caught up in this
scheme is ordered by the court to pay the attorney fees.
The plea-bargain is a slick system worked out between
the police, the prosecutor's office and the lawyers. It
is designed to keep a busy court system working like a
well-oiled machine.
Here is how it works. When the police make an arrest,
they work with the prosecutor's office to bring as many
charges as possible against the person they lock up.
For example, a person charged with drunken driving
might also be charged with carrying open intoxicants in
the vehicle, driving with defective equipment (a
headlight out), resisting arrest (arguing with the
officer), and displaying public drunkenness.
During the course of the plea bargaining, the
prosecutor agrees to drop all of the extra charges if
the driver agrees to plead guilty to drunk driving.
Sometimes this charge is even reduced to impaired
driving if the blood alcohol levels are borderline.
I have noticed that no matter how the accused person
pleads, the judge usually always hands down a severe
sentence. There is usually jail time, probation and a
stiff fine. The only difference, at least in the state
where I life, is the number of points tacked on the
driver's record. Accumulate enough points and the
driver's license is forfeited. And that, alone, can be
an incentive to take a plea bargain. This is a nation
that lacks public transportation so driving is
mandatory to holding a job.
The governments that operate court systems take in a
lot of money because of this system. And with more and
more police roaming about the land, there are more and
more people being arrested on a variety of charges.
Alcohol and marijuana busts are the biggest
money-makers for everybody concerned.
The concept of multiple charges makes any thought of
pleading innocent, and facing trials on every charge,
appear inconceivable for the person arrested. Yet if he
or she would stop and think for a moment . . . why not
plead innocent? If everybody did that, even if they
are guilty as sin, think how quickly that would bog
down that greasy court system. They would be running
trials around the clock and every weekend without any
possible chance of catching up.
Here is a tip: The law still allows us to represent
ourselves in trial, without the help of a
court-appointed lawyer. It takes a lot of courage, and
some research, but it can be done successfully. Even if
you lose the case, you win something. You force the
lawyers, the judge, court recorder, police officers and
prosecutor to come to court to present their case.
These are "professional" people so the municipality
that pays their salary can't make any money on you,
even if you are fined. And if you refuse the
court-appointed lawyer, you avoid paying anything more
than the fine you would have gotten anyway.
Doing something as simple as resisting authority might
go a long way toward bringing our justice system back
to what it once was.
Visit the author's web site at: perdurabo10.tripod.com
or contact him at: jdona999@bau-net.com
