Norm Pattis writes about the little details that play a significant role in a defendant’s life on trial, such as getting the defendant to court and back in reasonable condition to assist in his own defense.
And the judge won’t do anything about it. Not for lack of sympathy about the situation, nor for agreement that its wrong, but because of the unwritten rule that judges don’t tell corrections what to do. No matter what.
Norm doesn’t understand why. I don’t understand why. I never have. But it’s always been this way. Norm attributes it to a failure of the separation of powers. From a technical sense, he’s obviously correct, but it fails to explain what happens in a judge’s head when he’s charged with safeguarding a defendant’s rights, agrees that he has the right to be awake during his trial, yet refuses to take action to make that happen. There’s a tension underlying the nuts and bolts operation that has never been adequately explained. Naturally, the defendant is the one who suffers for it. Both Norm and the judge get as good a night’s sleep as their personal constitution’s allow.
And if you think that others might agree about how essentially unfair and wrong it is to deny a defendant, for the brief period of time that he’s on trial, the ability to be present, to be awake, to be able to assist, Norm follows up with the public comments to a story about his client.
Forget about people caring that a defendant on trial be allowed to get some sleep. He’s lucky they don’t just lynch him.
My client is housed in a correctional institution about a ninety minute drive from the courthouse. Trial begins each day at 10:00 a.m. So to arrive at the courthouse in time, the man is awoken at 3 a.m., transported from one location to another in the state’s penal system, and then deposited, exhausted, at the courthouse around 9:30 or so. He is exhausted because the ride back from court each night is just as circuitous as the ride to court. He routinely arrives back at his institution each night at 11 p.m. or so. The other day, he did not get back until 1:00 a.m.Impossible for any human being to focus, help, just stay awake, under these conditions. Obviously, the trial is important to the defendant, maybe one of the most important things in his life, and the logistics make it essentially impossible for him to be sufficiently alert to know what’s happening, no less assist.
And the judge won’t do anything about it. Not for lack of sympathy about the situation, nor for agreement that its wrong, but because of the unwritten rule that judges don’t tell corrections what to do. No matter what.
Norm doesn’t understand why. I don’t understand why. I never have. But it’s always been this way. Norm attributes it to a failure of the separation of powers. From a technical sense, he’s obviously correct, but it fails to explain what happens in a judge’s head when he’s charged with safeguarding a defendant’s rights, agrees that he has the right to be awake during his trial, yet refuses to take action to make that happen. There’s a tension underlying the nuts and bolts operation that has never been adequately explained. Naturally, the defendant is the one who suffers for it. Both Norm and the judge get as good a night’s sleep as their personal constitution’s allow.
And if you think that others might agree about how essentially unfair and wrong it is to deny a defendant, for the brief period of time that he’s on trial, the ability to be present, to be awake, to be able to assist, Norm follows up with the public comments to a story about his client.
Forget about people caring that a defendant on trial be allowed to get some sleep. He’s lucky they don’t just lynch him.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seemingly ittle things like this, who tells who what about how the courthouse is run, can really corrupt and undermine the system. I don’t know the fix, some of these things may just be “cultural” for lack of a better description, but I think a good starting point would be ending a system of elected judges. I’m not sure if that’s what they’ve got in Connecticut, but my sense in New York is that generally, judges will not do anything to possibly ruffle the feathers of anyone who might possibly be affiliated with a union.