As has been discussed here numerous times, it’s become quite common in federal sentencing for the defendant to submit letters to the court as part of his presentation.  This, in a sense, is the counterpart to a victim impact statement, a more slippery proposition given that the victim isn’t a party to the case.

But there appears to be a trend developing where others, wholly unrelated to a case, want to have their say as well.  From the Columbus Dispatch :

The man from Portland, Maine, had never met Billy Joe Gregg Jr.

But he was angry enough about Gregg’s abuse of cows that he fired off a letter to Judge Michael J. Grigsby of Marysville Municipal Court:

Please set a new standard by putting this guy away for as long as you possibly can, and fine him to the maximum. We, the concerned citizens of this country, are watching closely to see that true justice is done for those who cannot defend themselves.

Notice how the letter writer appointed himself spokesperson for “the concerned citizens of this country”?  No doubt he believes himself to reflect the true sensibility of all right-thinking Americans.  Who doesn’t?  So what impact did this concerned citizen have on Joe Gregg’s sentence?

The judge, however, never read the letter. Nor did he read any of the 24 others that were sent to his office about Gregg, the former hired hand who pleaded guilty Sept. 24 to six counts of animal cruelty for abusing cows and calves at Conklin Farms near Plain City. Gregg will spend the next four months in jail.

To his credit, the judge recognized that the 25 letters(!) failed to reflect any reasoned thought worthy of consideration in his sentencing decision.  But the mere fact that 25 people felt empowered to express their opinion to a judge is utterly extraordinary.

But the legal system isn’t easily understood by outsiders, and people, by and large, aren’t sending the letters to peddle influence or try to meddle in affairs where they don’t belong. Most simply have an opinion they want to share, and they don’t understand that there is a better way to go about it, said Charles A. Schneider, administrative judge of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

It’s unclear what Judge Schneider means when he says “there’s a better way to go about it.”  There neither is a better way for a person wholly unrelated to a case to express an opinion, nor should there be.  Sentencing is not supposed to be a popular referendum.  As for those involved in the case, mechanisms exist for them to inform the judge of their views, but the fact that outsiders from across the country are so bold as to think their opinions demand consideration is a very different, very troubling trend.

To some extent, it would appear that this is an outgrowth of the internet, including blogging.  Maybe especially blogging.  Newspapers write stories and then allow for public comments, whereas they were limited, in the dead tree days, to letters to the editor that either expressed a cogent thought in a meaningful way or came from a person with some inherent credibility.  But the online comments are often little more than outrageous rants, inflammatory accusations and incoherent diatribes.  They typically read like a catharsis class from the asylum.

The internet provides people far distant from local stories access to information about criminal cases that would never make their radar otherwise.  This is both the beauty and the curse, as it not only serves to enlighten people about injustices and improprieties happening elsewhere but provides access to every angry ax-grinder.  It’s a toss up whether there are more of one than the other.

And with this knowledge comes the egalitarian belief that all opinions on a subject demand airing.  It’s one thing to post a comment to a news story, or on a blawg about a story or case.  To the extent the comments are just nuts or irresponsible, they can be moderated.  To the extent they allow the free flow of ideas or views, there’s no harm.  But there also isn’t any reason to believe that the writers are positioned to influence any decision-maker.

When people move from the discussion amongst themselves to reaching out directly to the decision-makers, it’s an entirely different story.  Judge Schneider says, “by and large, aren’t sending the letters to peddle influence or try to meddle in affairs where they don’t belong.”  I think otherwise.  I think that’s precisely what they are doing, seeking to influence the court’s decision by making sure the court knows what “concerned citizens of this country” think. 

As has become brutally clear from reading and moderating the comments here, people think their opinions are extremely important.  So much so that they are often the grist of battles, going to the mats to prove their right.  Often insightful, sometimes hysterical, they usually reflect very strongly felt beliefs.  That doesn’t make them necessarily valid, or even intelligible.  There’s a bizarre tendency to proffer a firmly held opinion that’s utterly devoid of basis.  I particularly love the legal insights on nuanced issues by non-lawyers.  “I don’t know nothin‘ about birthin‘ no babies, but…”  And there’s an inverse correlation between knowledge and the need to express one’s opinion that’s just stunning.

Yet we’ve reached that stage where every person with a strong opinion feels empowered, if not compelled, to express it.  If this stopped a news stories and blawgs, no harm done.  The worst that can be said is that it eats up bandwidth with nonsense.  Sending them to sentencing judges, however, raises the ante.

Although various courts might approach the pre-sentence letter situation differently, the judges all seem to agree that there is little or no value in letters en masse from people with no direct connection to a case. Of the letters sent to Grigsby about Gregg, more than half were from out of state, mostly from people who identified themselves as interested animal lovers who wanted to see Gregg get the maximum sentence allowed.

“A judge is not and should not ever be swayed by that,” said [Ric] Simmons, the law professor. “We don’t sentence people by popular referendum.”

It’s hard to imagine a judge admitting that a wealth of letters from people lacking any connection to a case would influence her judgment.  But if it did, there’s an awfully good chance that no one would ever know.  Indeed, the judge might believe that popular opinion played no role in her decision-making, but judges are human, and humans are susceptible to influence.  Humans are also poor at assessing the extent to which their views are formed by others, as we all want to believe we’re independent thinkers and are only motivated by the highest and best aspirations and goals.  We tend not to see ourselves faltering.

So what’s next, a letter writing campaign whenever a case occurs that causes passions to swell?  This is hardly far-fetched.  Nor is it sufficient to disclose letters sent to the judge to all counsel, thus shifting the burden to counsel to either come up with a letter writing campaign of their own or to argue against any member of the public who fancies himself the spokesperson for all right-minded people.

It’s one thing for parties to a case to submit to the court letters in support of their cause, but our current empowerment of public opinion has to stop at the courthouse door.  Hopefully, judges mean what they say when they claim that they neither read such letters nor entertain public influence.  But I wouldn’t trust every judge to be so pure, no matter how well-intended.  Comment on the internet all you want, but keep your letters out of the courtroom.  You don’t get a vote on sentence.

H/T Bad Lawyer