When law students look at a courthouse, they see a land of opportunity. So too did Damon Ridley. Except Ridley wasn’t a law student. Or a lawyer. From the Cleveland Cincinnati Herald :
Damon Ridley, a former bailiff in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court of Judge John “Skip’’ West, was sentenced April 29 to 14 months in prison after a jury a month ago ruled he attempted to obtain a bribe from a defendant by promising him he could reduce his sentence.
Ridley had promised drug dealer Charles Johnson in a meeting at a ball field near Spring Grove Cemetery that for money he could get his sentence reduced. Johnson had being convicted of a drug charge in West’s court, and testified during Ridley’s trial he gave Ridley $1,000 to have his punishment to be administered by West reduced.
It’s not that Ridley did anything, or had the ability to do anything, to influence Judge “Skip” West’s and reduce Johnson’s sentence. But then, it’s not like he charged a lot either.
Chances are pretty good that any member of the court staff, from clerk to bailiff (using whatever names are given in any particular jurisdiction), has some great opportunities here. Not that they necessarily have the ability to affect a disposition, though I wouldn’t ignore that possibility entirely as judges often ask the nice folks they work with every day their thoughts about a case or person. But people talk.
After the last case is called, and the lawyers and litigants walk out of a courtroom, eyes roll, heads shake and words are uttered. People often believe that judges go back to the solitude of their chambers and ponder the decisions they are required to make. Sometimes the decisions are made before the first word of argument emits from counsel’s mouth. Sometimes the decision is done before the echo of the last word dies out. Sometimes, the folks who work the courtroom know what that decision will be.
Marketable? You bet. But more importantly, it offers an opportunity to those inclined toward entrepreneurialism. After all, it’s the American way.
A defendant facing sentence doesn’t know, in the absence of a done deal, what number will come out. Most believe that there’s influence to be had somewhere, and that the powerful and savvy know how to play the game better than others. And if they can gain access to influence, even if it costs them a few bucks, it’s money well spent. Ridley merely played into the myth.
It’s unclear from the story whether Ridley knew in advance what sentence West would impose on “drug dealer” Johnson, or whether this was just an easy touch for a guy with some extra cash and the will to blow it. Either way, Ridley was well positioned to take advantage. It’s not like Ridley planned to do anything bad, provided you don’t consider lightening Johnson’s load a problem. But if a drug dealer wants to waste his money by handing it over to a hard-working court clerk, why should Ridley be so prissy not to gracefully accept it?
Damon Ridley was sentenced, following his conviction, by Common Pleas Judge Norbert Nadel, who used the opportunity to express his feelings.
Nadel admonished Ridley for messing up his life by associating with bad people. “You are a nice guy who associated with thugs. Why were you down there doing that? When you wash your hands in garbage, you smell like that,’’ Nadel said. “It rubs off on you every time.’’ Ridley has denied using information he obtained in West’s courtroom to bribe Johnson. He also told Nadel he would continue to associate with his friends whom Nadel described as “thugs.’’
For obvious reasons, Nadel’s post-judicial future as an inspirational speaker is limited.
Nadel said sentencing Ridley was not pleasant for him in light of the positive circumstances in his life. “However, there are overriding circumstances,’’ Nadel said. “You were an officer of the court and in a position of trust, and you violated that trust. It tends to lessen public confidence in the entire system of justice.’’
Tends? One might go a step farther, as in it fundamentally undermines the legal system when a court clerk sells purported influence. But that’s just me projecting my sensibilities on Norbert.
This may well have been a good case to use for general deterrant purposes, rather than focus on Ridley’s association with unsavory characters. And that’s just the people he hung with in court. It not only feeds into every paranoid’s dream, but destroys the credibility of all who participate in the legal system and maintain their integrity in the face of rife opportunity. We could all make some extra money if we just didn’t mind lying, cheating and stealing. Let’s try to keep that stuff under wraps, Norbert, no matter how “unpleasant” it may be.
H/T Steve Magas
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not Cleveland, Scott, Cincinnati…one’s the Rustbelt city on Lake Erie to the north, the correct town is the Queen City on the Ohio River.
Cincinnati and environs was the locale for Beloved–a major dropping off place on the Underground railroad.
Uh oh. My bad. I wouldn’t want to insult the people of Cleveland, as if anybody gives a damn. Ever see the way a New Yorker views the country?
In a system so bent toward incarceration, one has to wonder whether the thousand dollars would not have been well spent if it had resulted in a reduced sentence. We taxpayers would have gotten a deal out of it far in excess of the thousand dollars that changed hands. In other words, in a messed up system, even a messed up action turns out to be a benefit. If this perhaps could be institutionalized, with attorneys getting a cut by transacting the deal, we might all be better off. After all, what are the chances of other reforms being put in place?
We would definitely need a price list. And it wouldn’t be cheap, either. A thousand would cut, like, a month. Or maybe we could run an occasional sale, like a two-fer, when we’re short on revenue.
Yeah, well the nice thing about Fly-over towns–fewer bed bugs, oh-and no Carl Paladino.
About that Paladino thing, . . . I’ve got nothing to add.
Do you think Ridley would have been more or less successful had he gone to defense lawyers, rather than straight to the defendants. By successful, I mean successful at bilking people out of money, not at influencing sentences.
Assuming the lawyer to be honest, not a chance. If the lawyer was larcenous, however, he would have agreed to the deal and passed it along to the client, with the price doubled (at least) as a “cost plus” opportunity.
Ah, the corrupt judge scam…here in Chicago, there’s a long history of defense attorneys getting a lot more than just a cut out of this deal. After all, if your client is willing to do anything to avoid prison, and you know first offenders like him always get parole, there’s a money-making opportunity for a smart, sociopathic lawyer. Why bother to involve the clerks?