tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2008://7 2007-06-17T23:16:25Z Movable Type 3.33 tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2007://7.155 2007-06-17T23:13:39Z 2007-06-17T23:16:25Z

By Wayne Brown The death penalty is and has been a hotly contested issue. Opponents of the death sentence stand in awe and wonder how the state can kill an individual while proponents consider the death penalty as a penalty...

By Wayne Brown The death penalty is and has been a hotly contested issue. Opponents of the death sentence stand in awe and wonder how the state can kill an individual while proponents consider the death penalty as a penalty for a crime, not an individual. The question must be asked – why does this wide gulf of disagreement about punishing criminals exist among law abiding citizens? According to a recent Associated Press article, a 2003 and 2006 academic study concludes that capital punishment deters crime. Proponents of the death penalty concluded this long before these recent studies. There are some considerations that should be evaluated when examining the death penalty as a reasonable sentence. It is absolutely important to remember that the death penalty is a sentence prescribed for a particular crime and equally important is to remember that the individual committing such a crime has a choice. Unlike years past, today’s murderer once indicted has a lengthy delay of approximately four to five years before he even goes to trial. Once he goes to trial four or five years later, the specifics of the heinous crime he committed has become vague and forgotten. Therefore, victims have been forgotten and many in the community are able to reconcile their belief that they or one of their loved ones could be murdered by simply accepting the idea that the murdered victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This tends to provide a much more comfortable state of mind and therefore, we as a society are perfectly willing to accept the judiciary’s decisions even though these decisions have almost made the death penalty a sentence of the past. Therefore, why argue with facts when the facts don’t support our emotional attitude? Nacci Mocan, a University of Colorado economics professor, co-authored both the 2003 study and 2006 study. However, the results in both studies were not what he wanted. Therefore, he was quoted as saying “The results are robust, they don’t really go away. I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) – what am I going to do, hide them?” This is quite alarming and given this quotation, it would be worth while to look beyond one-liners that begin with “scientists say.” Perhaps, Professor Mocan adheres to the flawed and unconscionable philosophy that says – “when scientific results conflict with one’s emotional hypothesis then discard the scientific results.” It is appalling to consider that any competent scientists and/or engineer would hide or discard hard core scientific results in favor of satisfying one’s emotional viewpoint. Again, it must be said – why argue with the facts when they are diametrically opposed to one’s view though rose-colored glasses, particularly when the victim has been forgotten and one of your loved ones hasn’t been slain. The United States spends more money than any other nation on the rehabilitation of criminals and yet, has the highest recidivism rate. The judiciary in its attempt to make sure the criminal has a fair trial has almost overlooked the victims. Today, victims are discriminated against during the trial of a criminal. One can in all fairness understand why barristers representing criminals would be advantaged by discriminating against victims and their families. However, one must ponder as to why the judiciary and state legislature would allow this. Yes, it is understood that some of the judiciary leans toward criminal’s rights. As a matter of fact, these judges are virtually criminal advocates. However, many judges operate on a fair and balanced platform. Even in Cobb County, we are blessed with many fair minded and hard working judges and members of the Georgia Legislature. Therefore, the question is worth raising again – why do these fair-minded judges and members of the state legislature stand idly by while the judiciary is becoming an advocate for criminals? Many of these purport to be tough on crime, but there is more credibility in action than words. Words without action are worthless and feed emotions which last only for a short time. In all fairness, it is very uncomfortable to engage in a public forum or with the judiciary in conversations regarding the punishment of criminals who commit heinous crimes. It is much easier to relax into the safety of our individual enclaves and reconcile our thoughts to the mindset that crime and murder always happens to someone else. How comforting that mindset must be until one day a police officer knocks at your door and informs you that your loved one has just been murdered for no apparent reason. All of a sudden, the view through those rose colored glasses will change. The only logical conclusion for opposition to the death penalty in this writer’s opinion is that opponents have forgotten or never considered the heinous crime that was committed and either forgotten or never considered the victim. In addition, opponents most likely have never had an immediate family member murdered. Moreover, it is suspected by this writer that death penalty opponents view criminals through rose-colored glasses and are really criminal advocates. Given the wishes of these advocates, society as we currently know it would become a war zone. Therefore, it is the task and obligation of law abiding and level-headed citizens to continue reminding the legislature and judiciary that swift punishment will always be a deterrent to crime ranging from purse snatching to heinous murders. (Please note that Wayne Brown’s daughter, a real estate agent along with another agent was viciously murdered several years ago. A person has been charged for the crimes, but the trial has not yet happened, due to delays by Cobb Superior Court Judge Dorothy Robinson. I understand the judge has now moved the trial to Brunswick, Georgia, a five hour drive from Marietta, Georgia. This travel distance will create another hardship for the Brown family for what could be a month long trial. Wayne and the entire Brown family has paid the price for being too critical of the unfairness of the judicial process. Although, the criminal trial has not yet begun, the Brown family’s trial has been underway for years. Somehow the issue of fairness and balance has been lost. - *Comment by: Michael Opitz, President, Madison Forum) ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2007://7.128 2007-05-04T14:55:48Z 2007-05-04T14:58:43Z

By Wayne Brown The Georgia Legislature had an opportunity during this year’s session to bring forth a positive impact on the judiciary with SB119 and HB185. However, neither bill made it out of the legislature. Senate Bill 119 was authored...

By Wayne Brown The Georgia Legislature had an opportunity during this year’s session to bring forth a positive impact on the judiciary with SB119 and HB185. However, neither bill made it out of the legislature. Senate Bill 119 was authored by State Senator Bill Hambrick of Carrollton, Ga. This was a bill that would have rendered a positive affect on the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial. As the law in Georgia stands now, a victim’s family members can be denied entrance to the courtroom during the trial phase if they have submitted a Victims Impact Statement. The defense attorney simply has to subpoena them and they will be classified as witnesses and therefore prohibited from the courtroom. SB119 would have helped eliminate this misuse of the judicial system. This bill would have required the defense to show how the courtroom appearance of the victim’s family members would be prejudicial to his/her case rather than having them restricted from the courtroom by simply issuing a subpoena. This bill was approved by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee and made it to the Senate Rules Committee. However, it never gain enough support to bring it to a vote in the Rules Committee. The current status of SB119 is that it is dead for this session. Another bill, authored by Barry Fleming of Harlem, Georgia, that would have had a profound affect on death penalty cases in Georgia was HB185 and therefore, it was referred to as the Death Penalty Bill. A death penalty case is divided in two phases. The first phase is the actual trial where twelve jurors must agree in order to find the defendant guilty. The second phase is the sentencing phase where currently all twelve jurors must agree on the death sentence in order for the sentence of death to be issued. If a single juror disagrees, the judge can not hand down the sentence of death. The dissenting juror is not required to provide a reason for their disagreement. HB185 would have eliminated the situation where a single juror can override the opinion of eleven jurors. This bill in its original form required nine or more jurors to agree in order for the sentence of death to be issued. This certainly would have eliminated the single dissenting juror from obstructing justice. By the time the bill made it out of the House Rules Committee, the requirement for the death sentence to be issued was that ten or more jurors must agree. However, there was one drawback to HB185 and it was that the judge would not be required to issue the death sentence even if ten or more jurors agreed on the death penalty. The negative side of HB185 was that the jury’s decision would be more of a recommendation in lieu of a directive. With this rather large downside, the judge would decide whether to issue the death sentence or not. Therefore, the death penalty would rest entirely on the decision of the judge. Even though this bill made it through the entire Georgia House of Representatives and crossed over to the Senate, it died in the Senate Rules Committee most likely because of this downside. It is hopeful that SB119 will be resurrected next year and become Georgia law. HB185 requires a bit more work. Allowing the judge to decide whether a murderer receives the death penalty gives one person the opportunity to obstruct justice which is the very scheme that HB185 was attempting to correct. Therefore there is some contradiction in this bill as it currently stands and that must be corrected prior to it becoming law. ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2007://7.107 2007-03-15T02:57:28Z 2007-03-15T02:59:07Z

By Wayne Brown Here we are in the beginning of the twenty-first century and our society has progressed so very much. In fact, our judiciary does more today through interpretation, extrapolation, and interpolation of the U.S. Constitution to protect criminals...

By Wayne Brown Here we are in the beginning of the twenty-first century and our society has progressed so very much. In fact, our judiciary does more today through interpretation, extrapolation, and interpolation of the U.S. Constitution to protect criminals than ever before. By the time a suspect enters the court system, family members of their victim have virtually no rights while accused murderers are permitted so much latitude that death penalty cases are requiring three to five years to set a trial date. The real cause for these delays in justice is not due to proving innocence or guilt. They are overwhelmingly due to technicalities. Even though crime is increasing, the numbers are small compared to the total population of this country. Therefore, most people seem to be more concerned about the number of trees that are cut down than the number of murders that take place each year in our county, our state, and across our country. This is exactly why our judiciary is permitted to take so much liberty when interpreting the law. However, the Georgia State Senate Judiciary Committee and specifically Senator Bill Hamrick of Carrollton, Georgia have decided that victims and their families are due a little protection, from defense attorneys, with the introduction of SB 119. In a death penalty case, the defense can prevent the victim’s family from being present in the courtroom during the trial of the accused murderer by simply issuing a subpoena to each family member who has submitted a Victims Impact Statement. The accused murderer’s family and friends are not prevented from attending the trial and their testimony is not limited during the sentencing phase as is in the case of the victim’s family. In addition, the family and friends of the accused murderer are not required to submit their testimony in written form prior to the trial. However, a victim’s family member who wishes to testify on behalf of the victim during the sentencing phase must submit a written statement months and as in my case years prior to the trial. As was stated in a previous article, this statement by the victim’s family and friends is greatly scrutinized by the trial judge and defense attorneys. With the submission of a Victims Impact Statement, the family member is classified as a witness and can be subpoenaed under the current law. SB 119 would change this so that the defense will not automatically be able to keep the victim’s family out of the courtroom during the trial with a subpoena. If SB 119 becomes law, it will require the defense to show that the presence of family members would be detrimental to their case and bias the jury. At this writing, SB 119 has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, defense attorneys at the Capitol are attempting to derail this much needed piece of legislation. With the powerful influence of these barristers, the day may arrive when family and friends of a victim will be prohibited from the courtroom and prohibited from testifying during the sentencing phase. Moreover, incriminating evidence may not be exhibited during the trial if it is too gruesome because it might influence the jury and would not be conducive to the innocent demeanor displayed by the accused murder. Depending on the date that SB 119 will become law after it is signed by the Governor, it my not help my family, but it will help many more families in Georgia. Even though these families are a small number of the total population of Georgia, every Georgian should realize that they are not immune to crime regardless of the safety that their particular enclave currently enjoys. ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2007://7.96 2007-02-23T22:27:23Z 2007-02-23T22:28:53Z

By Wayne Brown With all the irrational decisions that have been rendered by various judges across our nation recently, could it be that common sense has come to some within the judiciary? One case where common sense eventually ruled the...

By Wayne Brown With all the irrational decisions that have been rendered by various judges across our nation recently, could it be that common sense has come to some within the judiciary? One case where common sense eventually ruled the day involved buttons worn by spectators and the second case involved the dismissal of a prospective juror. The third case was an appeal concerning a typographical error. The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on December 11, 2006 that spectators within the courtroom of a murder trial would be allowed to wear buttons with a photo of the victim. Take note that this was a unanimous decision by the court. In this California case, a man was convicted of the 1994 shooting death of his estranged wife’s fiancé (Tom Studer). During the trial and even over the objections of the defense, three members of the murdered man’s family wore buttons adorned with his picture. The request from the defense to not allow the buttons in the courtroom was rejected by the trial judge. Upon appeal, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. This ruling stated that the buttons “essentially argue that Mr. Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was guilty.” In the 2-1 decision, the dissenting judge said the buttons were a symbol of a family’s grief. Common sense did rule the day with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. A case that will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during this session involves the removal of a prospective juror from a Washington state death penalty trial due to his statements about capital punishment. This is a case where the convicted murderer raped and tortured an innocent woman for two days prior to dumping her body in a parking lot. During jury selection, a potential juror convinced the trial judge by his statements that he could not faithfully and impartially apply the law. Therefore, the judge dismissed the potential juror. According to court documents, this potential juror stated that he would favor the death penalty only if it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person has killed and would kill again. To prove that someone would kill in the future is not reasonable. However, the accused in this case was found guilty and sentenced to death. Upon appeal, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the prospective juror. But, common sense did not prevail in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. The Ninth Circuit’s decision overturned the death sentence by concluding that the trial judge erred by dismissing the prospective juror. Hopefully, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court will be a common sense decision. A third case where common sense did rule the day involved a murder in Cobb County Georgia. Phillip Ray Bailey is accused of malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault for his roll in the beating death of a Mableton teenager, Jess Sharp. When Bailey was indicted, a juror’s name was misspelled. Bailey’s attorney argued that the typo prevented him from receiving an indictment “perfect in form and substance.” Therefore, the indictment was appealed to Georgia’s Supreme Court and on September 18, 2006, the court ruled that the typo was not sufficient to dismiss the indictment. Common sense did triumph in the court’s decision. One could conclude that perhaps the legal pendulum is moving toward the center and common sense is once again entering the decisions of our judiciary. However, there are too many ludicrous decisions rendered to reach that conclusion at this time. ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2007://7.91 2007-02-17T23:47:49Z 2007-02-17T23:48:45Z

By Wayne Brown Are we in the United States of America becoming criminal friendly? We expend extraordinary amounts of resources to rehabilitate criminals and yet we have the highest recidivism rate of any other county. We have become squeamish at...

By Wayne Brown Are we in the United States of America becoming criminal friendly? We expend extraordinary amounts of resources to rehabilitate criminals and yet we have the highest recidivism rate of any other county. We have become squeamish at and even frown on punishing criminals. It appears that the Georgia State Legislature is addressing one area of criminal punishment with HB 185. This bill only affects the sentencing phase of a murder trial where the death penalty is sought by the prosecution. Currently, the twelve member jury must return a unanimous vote for the death penalty in order for the judge to issue a death sentence. However, a single juror may object to the death sentence and thereby prevent the murderer from receiving the sentence. HB185 would prevent this obstruction of justice. This bill provides that a super majority of the jury or nine of the twelve jurors must agree to the death sentence for the judge to sentence a murderer to death. The question is; how will the State Supreme Court respond to this change if HB185 is approved by the legislature and signed into law? The reaction of the State Supreme Court must be considered because it is almost a certainty that if HB185 becomes law, it will be appealed. When pondering the positives and negatives as well as the future of HB185, one must consider several factors. First, the prosecution can not seek the death penalty for an accused murderer unless the crime meets certain requirements. We have become so very sensitive to a criminal’s rights and feelings that the death penalty is deemed too harsh for someone who simply kills another human being by a single shot from a firearm or a single stab wound unless there are aggravating circumstances involved. What have we allowed to happen to the sanctity of human life? A murder case must be considered a heinous crime to seek the death penalty as punishment. According to the Death penalty Information Center, death sentences in Georgia have declined with thirteen in 1997 and three in 1995. The influence from lawmakers who are defense attorneys must be considered to determine if such a change in sentencing guidelines would be approved by the Georgia State Legislature. I In addition, the influence of the State Supreme Court Justices must also be considered. Even though there is a separation of power between the judicial and legislative branch, one would be wise not to ignore the influence of these justices when considering the future of a bill that will affect the courts. Also, District Attorneys are typically afforded an opportunity by their legislative representatives to voice their input on a bill such as HB 185. One might be naive enough to think that DAs would unanimously support such a bill simply because most DAs purport to be tough on crime. However, this is not the case even for some of the DAs who are viewed as being very tough on crime. This seems to be paradoxical and leads to a vexing question. Since the position of District Attorney is an elected office, perhaps the DA is attempting to please many different aspects of their political community. Maybe the DA in their mind’s eye is trying to be fair. Where ever the influence on HB 185 might originate, I hope these individuals will not forget that “THE DEATH PENALTY IS DESIGNED FOR A CRIME AND NOT AN INDIVIDUAL”. Individuals have a choice whether to commit a crime or not. To receive the penalty of death, one must purposefully murder another human being with aggravating circumstances. To be found guilty of such a crime, twelve jurors must return a unanimous guilty verdict. At the time of sentencing, the individual has been found guilty of the heinous crime. Therefore, to sentence the person to death by a super majority of the jury is not unreasonable or unfair. There are choices in life! ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2006://7.53 2006-12-12T17:50:42Z 2006-12-12T17:54:54Z

Bring the Judiciary Out of the Shadows By Wayne Brown While there is an abundance of attention given to the rights of criminals, are there any of the judiciary looking out for the victim? What rights do victims have? Does...

Bring the Judiciary Out of the Shadows By Wayne Brown While there is an abundance of attention given to the rights of criminals, are there any of the judiciary looking out for the victim? What rights do victims have? Does the average citizen who has the misfortune of being a victim or a member of a victim’s family have any recourse toward a member of the judiciary dragging their feet or issuing rulings according to their personal agenda? The answer is, virtually no. At the present there are two avenues available to the victim. First, the victim can work closely with the district attorney and urge him/her to partition the state Supreme Court to issue an order to the particular judge requiring him/her to speed up the process and/or abide by the law in lieu of their personal agenda. However, this has not been successful in the past. It appears that the Georgia Supreme Court is and has been extremely reluctant to intervene in the autonomy of the lower judiciary. Second, the victim may file a complaint with the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). While the JQC was created by a Constitutional Amendment in 1972 and states that it processes complaints of judicial misconduct, it appears that only ethical complaints are processed. The JQC reviews the complaint and determines if a violation has occurred. If it is determined that a violation has occurred, the JQC will make a recommendation to the Georgia Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court may or may not follow the recommendation of the JQC. The JQC list the following areas of complaints that constitute judicial misconduct. 1. Failure to perform duties impartially and diligently. 2. Failure to dispose promptly of the business of the court. 3. Conflict of interest. 4. Conduct which reflects adversely on the integrity of the judiciary. 5. Impairment such as alcohol or drug abuse by a judicial officer. 6. Incapacity such as the physical or mental incapacity of a judge. The following list is given by the JQC as not constituting judicial misconduct. 1. Rulings on the law and/or the facts. 2. Matters within the discretion of the trial court. 3. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence. 4. Rulings involving alimony, child support, custody or visitation rights. 5. Sentences imposed by the Court. 6. Believing or disbelieving witnesses. After reviewing the above areas of judicial misconduct, it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that the JQC primarily processes ethical complaints. Also, it’s not difficult to surmise that much is left without oversight by the JQC. For example, suppose a judge sentences a child rapist to six months of jail time. This would not be within the purview of the JQC. If this is not a case of judicial misconduct, then misconduct has been narrowly redefined by the judiciary. It’s almost like defining the meaning of “is”. Moreover, how many citizens are aware of the existence of the JQL and the process by which to file a misconduct complaint? To be fair, the Judicial Qualifications Commission operates under the rules established by the Georgia Supreme Court and therefore is not a totally independent body. While the establishment of the Judicial Qualifications Commission was a step in the right direction and this writer has found the JQC and its staff to exhibit a high degree of professionalism, competence, and courtesy, additional work is required to bring the judiciary out of the shadows. This writer believes a citizen panel such as a grand jury with subpoena power should be established in each judiciary district and this grand jury would be authorized to submit recommendations to the Georgia Legislature and/or Georgia Supreme Court. In addition, the grand jury would have jurisdiction to investigate areas that are out of bounds for the JQC. While it is certainly important for our judiciary to issue rulings without fear of political retribution, our judges must realize that they are accountable. The Supreme Court does have the authority to oversee the lower judiciary. However, to intervene in the judicial affairs of a fellow judge appears to be taboo. And, that’s why a citizen panel should be established. References: The Judicial Qualifications Commission ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2006://7.21 2006-08-26T17:39:01Z 2006-11-09T22:48:13Z

Judicial Blindness - or is it Corruption? By Wayne Brown We have been taught that Justice is blind. But, does it mean that our Federal Judges are judicially blind of common sense and common good? I suspect that if our...

Judicial Blindness - or is it Corruption? By Wayne Brown We have been taught that Justice is blind. But, does it mean that our Federal Judges are judicially blind of common sense and common good? I suspect that if our federal judges issued rulings in WWII as they do today, German would be our spoken language. As I ponder the recent rulings by some of our federal judges, two decisions come to mind. The first was issued earlier this month by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor and basically, it stopped the use of wiretapping as employed in the fight against terrorism. There is a part of our nation that would like to see wiretapping, without prior approval of a judge, completely stopped, regardless of how many lives might be saved. Sarcastically speaking, that’s just what we need. Think of the consequences of waiting on a judge’s approval and that particular judge or one of their staff leaked the information to a newspaper. This thought doesn’t exactly trigger feelings of safety. The real irony of this hypothetical yet potentially real situation is that these people such as the judge and/or staffer think they are operating by the rule of law and in the very best interest of our nation. Since wiretapping deals with privacy, where will the logical conclusion take us? It appears that many of our lawyers and judges are unable to decipher between the right to privacy and the safety of American citizens. So, it appears many in our legal arena say the heck with safety and the right to privacy for everyone including would be terrorists. The second ruling was issued this week by another federal judge and it blocks a Louisiana State Law banning the sale of violet video games to minors. Granted, this may not reach the same level as safety against terrorism. However, this is another case where common sense and common good have been obstructed by judicial blindness. This particular judge (James Brady) said that this state law is an “invasion of First Amendment rights”. Again, where does the logical conclusion lead? The following may seem ridiculous. However, does this mean that you violate your ten year old child’s First Amendment rights by not allowing him or her to use vulgar language? The rule of law without temperance of common sense and common good will carry our nation down the road of destruction. That is the logical conclusion, pessimistic yet very real. Judgeships are the hidden corner of politics. As state and local judges campaign for office, many citizens have no idea of their position on any given issue. For most of the population, this area of the political arena is out of sight and out of mind. Therefore, how do we establish accountability for our judges? First, our President and our Congress must be more astute in their judicial appointments. Second, we as citizens must take time to learn about our judicial candidates. Having said that, real accountability for our judges will come when term-limits are imposed and when these positions are made partisan. We as citizens need to know if a judicial candidate is opposed to the death penalty. We also need to know their opposition to any part of our legal system. Are they judicially blind and void of judicial common sense? Ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf Ruling by Judge James Brady: http://news.com.com/Louisiana+video+game+law+put+on+hold/2100-1047_3-6109615.html?tag=nefd.top ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2006://7.39 2006-07-09T22:46:27Z 2006-11-09T22:47:39Z

Flying under the Public’s Radar It is difficult to maintain a knowledge-base and keep abreast of the background of judicial candidates, even though the candidate is a sitting judge. These individuals fly beneath the general public’s radar screen. Their campaigns...

Flying under the Public’s Radar It is difficult to maintain a knowledge-base and keep abreast of the background of judicial candidates, even though the candidate is a sitting judge. These individuals fly beneath the general public’s radar screen. Their campaigns are cloaked with supposedly neutrality and declaring they can not answer questions about their stance on such issues as the death penalty, violating the very law they are sworn to uphold, or making jail a punishment instead of a retreat. Concerning the death penalty, these candidates and/or sitting judges take the supposedly high road of neutrality, while some carry out their own agenda from the bench. How can justice be served when a judge who presides over death penalty cases is opposed to the death penalty? Are we, the public, to believe that judges are so pure that their personal convictions won’t affect their decisions? According to the article published in the Marietta Daily Journal on June 23, 2006, it appears that this is exactly what the new president of the State Bar of Georgia would have the public believe. The judges campaigning for re-election will decry that they cannot rule on all motions in a given case within the allotted time of ninety days because they are so overloaded. Therefore, they are violating the very law they are sworn to uphold. If these candidates can’t handle the job then perhaps, they need to find another legal position. As my dear old Mother used the say; “If the kitchen is too hot then get out.” When it comes to making jail a punishment instead of a retreat, these same candidates will hide behind the legislature. Their rhetorical redress will be; “The legislature makes the law not us.” Here they go again, washing their hands. It is certainly true that judges don’t make the law. However, these judges have a tremendous influence on the legislature. Ask any legislator, particularly those on the judiciary committee, who visits and/or calls them when a matter is under consideration that affects the court. In Cobb County, we have judges that perform their job in a most professional and conscientious manner. These judges operate their court in a transparent manner, which is open to public scrutiny, as it should be. Then we have those that don’t appear to like the idea of transparency. To research the docket of a superior court judge, one just has to visit the superior court website. However, not all the superior court judges are listed. There seems to be one judge that is conspicuously missing. Could it be that this judge doesn’t care for transparency in their court? This particular judge took approximately 3½ years to bring a double murder case to trial in which the death penalty was sought. In a current double murder case where the death penalty is sought, this judge took approximately one year to hear the first motion made by the defense. Even though the accused was indicted in February 2004, this judge didn’t hear the first motion until January 2005. This judge seems to give new meaning to the term, “Criminal Friendly”. The last motions in this case were heard in September 2005. Here we are in July 2006 and this judge still hasn’t ruled on all the motions in this double murder case. What happened to operating by the rule of law such as the time limit for ruling on motions? It appears that this judge does not perform her job in a professional and conscientious manner. Could it be that this judge is opposed to the death penalty and is pursuing her personal agenda by delaying the case? It is very obvious that delaying a death penalty case will decrease the probability of a murderer receiving the death penalty and the probability for a sentence of life in prison will increase. It appears that this Cobb County judge is a murderer’s best friend. It is the responsibility of every citizen to vote and elect individuals that will perform their elected job in a professional and conscientious manner. However, when an individual is not performing his or her job in this manner, it is also the responsibility of every citizen to vote that person out of office. Judges truly operate under the public’s radar. The general public knows very little about these individuals unless their lives have been touched by the legal system. Most of the public simply votes for the same person over and over again, even though that individual may be lazy, incompetent, following their personal agenda, and/or breaking the law. The cold truth is that most of this is never propagated to the public’s ear. Therefore, the general public simply thinks that if they’ve never heard anything bad about a judge, the judge must be doing a good job. We as the public must demand more from our judges. We need to know their position on issues. Hiding behind the curtain of neutrality is a copout. If we the public continue to allow this, then we must expect the worst. Website for The Superior Court of Cobb County: http://www.cobbgasupctclk.com/scripts/Calen.dll/CRSearchByJudge Article by Jay Cook, President of State Bar of Georgia: http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2006/06/23/94/10222570.txt ]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2006://7.38 2006-07-09T22:43:33Z 2006-11-09T22:44:55Z

The Timetable of a Judge or Who is looking out for you? From the time a case is placed on the docket of a judge, there is virtually no oversight as related to the timetable of the judicial process? Even...

The Timetable of a Judge or Who is looking out for you? From the time a case is placed on the docket of a judge, there is virtually no oversight as related to the timetable of the judicial process? Even though the Georgia Code states very clearly that a judge can be impeached for dragging out a case such as not ruling on all motions within a specified time. However, some judges ignore the law due to the arduous process of impeachment and because many legislators shiver at the thought of angering a judge. If a judge does not support the death penalty due to personal convictions, she may choose to drag out a case by taking two or three years to rule on motions by the defense. By doing this, the judge knows the public will loose interest in the brutal crime that was committed. The brutality of the crime and the suffering of the victim diminish as time passes. To put it bluntly, the case becomes old and cold. Therefore, the defendant, if convicted, is more likely to receive a sentence of life in prison as opposed to the death penalty. A look at the Official Code of Georgia might give some additional insight to how some judges sit on the bench and disobey the law. Georgia Code 15-6-21 provides guidelines for ruling on motions. In fact, this code explicitly specifies a time limit for ruling on all motions in a given case. Subsection (a) of Georgia’s Code 15-6-21 specifies that in a county with less than 100,000 inhabitants a judge must rule on all motions within 30 days after the motions have been brought before her unless providentially hindered or unless counsels for the plaintiff and defendant agree in writing to extend the time. Since there are more than 100,000 citizens residing in Cobb County, subsection (b) of Georgia’s Code 15-6-21 would apply to Cobb. In subsection (b), a judge must rule on all motions within 90 days after the motions have been brought before her unless providentially hindered or unless counsels for the plaintiff and defendant agree in writing to extend the time. A judge can prolong a case by permitting the defense attorney to file a motion years after the case has been placed on her docket. In addition, the judge can ignore the rule of law and thus violate the law. For a judge to take a sworn oath to abide by the law and then violate the law while sitting on the bench is a travesty to our judicial system. To respond to this violation of the law, there is a specified legal recourse as stated in subsection (c) of Code 15-6-21 and that is impeachment which could lead to removal from office. However, just to initiate the process of impeachment is so difficult that victims and victim advocacy groups typically decide to commit their resources elsewhere. Therefore, an activist judge may continue to violate the law while pursuing their personal agenda through passiveness. Is there anyone within the judicial or legislative system monitoring the performance of our judges? Who’s looking out for Joe and Sally Citizen? Website: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgibin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=15-6-21]]> tag:www.judiciary.madisonforum.org,2006://7.37 2006-06-09T22:41:51Z 2006-11-09T22:42:58Z

Committee on Judiciary My name is Wayne Brown and I am extremely honored to be selected as chair of the committee on Judicial Reform. Since I am an engineer and not an attorney, I’m sure it was not my educational...

Committee on Judiciary My name is Wayne Brown and I am extremely honored to be selected as chair of the committee on Judicial Reform. Since I am an engineer and not an attorney, I’m sure it was not my educational background or professional experience that fulfilled any prerequisites for this position as committee chair, but rather my recent life’s experience. Therefore, this first article will be dedicated to the Victim Impact Statement. Unless an individual’s life has been impacted by the murder of a loved one, the Victim Impact Statement has very little or no meaning. However, the affect of this part of the Official Code of Georgia on the sentencing phase of any death penalty case depends greatly on the interpretation of the trial judge. Victim Impact Statements I can tell you from personal experience that most people have no idea of the manner in which Georgia’s Victim Impact Statement is limiting, cruel, and discriminating. After working with the District Attorney and his staff, one might conclude that our legislators employed a bunch of death-row inmates to assist in writing the victim impact statement guidelines. After reviewing the Official Code of Georgia that pertains to these guidelines, the term “criminal friendly” comes to mind. The victim’s family must prepare the statement months and sometime years in advance of the trial. However, the witnesses for the defendant do not have to prepare a statement in advance of the trial’s sentencing phase. These witnesses can spontaneously describe the individual that has been found guilty of brutally murdering their child or family member as a wonderful person. The defense can partition the judge to eliminate some of the impact statements simply because they think there are too many. The Judge can also arbitrarily eliminate some because he/she may think there are too many. The defense can partition the judge to eliminate part of individual impact statements because the wording might be too unfavorable to the guilty. The judge can also reject part of individual impact statements because he/she thinks the wording is too unfavorable to the guilty. The defense can partition the judge to eliminate the use of the word “child”. Think how you would feel about not being permitted to describe your daughter as your child. It gets worse. The judge can eliminate you from the courtroom during the trial because you are scheduled to deliver your victim impact statement during the sentencing phase. Analyzing the two Official Codes of Georgia concerning the victim impact statement can identity the favorable leanings toward the defendant. Paragraph 1 of subsection (e) of O.C.GA. 17-10-1.1 allows the defendant access to victim impact statements prior to any plea bargaining. Remembering that victim impact statements are given during the sentencing phase of a trial, i.e. after an individual has been found guilty, this paragraph should be deleted. Paragraph 3 of subsection (e) of O.C.GA. 17-10-1.1 allows the defendant to partition the judge to strike any part of the statement in advance of the trial. As mentioned earlier, the witnesses for the defense can testify impromptu. This certainly appears to discriminate against the witnesses for the victim. The witnesses for the victim should be afforded the same opportunity to testify as the witnesses for the defense. The Official Code of Georgia 17-10-1.2 defines additional guidelines for the victim impact statement. The last sentence in paragraph 1 of subsection (a) should be altered so as to delete the following; “and to such a degree as not to inflame or unduly prejudice the jury”. At this time, the individual has already been found guilty. How inflammatory is it to murder another human being? A trial judge has great latitude with these two sections of Georgia’s Code. The reform required here is to rewrite O.C.GA. 17-10-1.1 and 17-10-1.2 and this must be accomplished through Georgia’s legislature. My estimation of the difficulty level required to make this change is high, but not impossible. The reason for this is that many legislators feel compassion toward the criminal and the victim impact statement is not a high-profile issue. Therefore, how can the importance of this issue be conveyed to our legislators? Georgia Code: O.C.GA. 17-10-1.1 and 17-10-1.2. Website: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=17-10-1.1 ]]>