Tampilkan postingan dengan label Bad judges. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Bad judges. Tampilkan semua postingan

Kamis, 10 Maret 2011

Overkill In Drug Sentencing

As a liberal, I generally like to think that there isn't evil in the world, just misguided individuals. Then people like Former Kingfisher County, Oklahoma Judge Susie Pritchett come along and make me think that there really is evil in the world in the persons of people like her abusing the trust that has been placed in them to use their discretion appropriately.





On Dec. 31, 2009, [25-year-old Patricia Marilyn] Spottedcrow and her mother, Delita Starr, 50, sold a “dime bag” of marijuana to a police informant at Starr's home in Kingfisher, court records state. Starr handled the transaction and asked her 9-year-old grandson — Spottedcrow's son — for some dollar bills to make change for the $11 sale. Two weeks later, the same informant returned and bought $20 of marijuana from Spottedcrow.

The two women were arrested for drug distribution and because Spottedcrow's children were in the home, an additional charge of possession of a dangerous substance in the presence of a minor was added. “It just seemed like easy money,” said Spottedcrow, who says she is not a drug user but has smoked marijuana. “I thought we could get some extra money. I've lost everything because of it.”

The women were each offered plea deals of two years in prison. But because neither had prior convictions and the drug amounts were low, they gambled and entered a guilty plea before a judge with no prior sentencing agreement.

Starr received a 30-year suspended sentence with no incarceration, but five years of drug and alcohol assessments. Spottedcrow was sentenced to 10 years in prison for distribution and two years for possession, to run concurrently. She will be up for parole in 2014.... In addition, Starr was fined $8,600 and Spottedcrow $2,740.


From here via the Sentencing Law and Policy blog.

This Oklahoma case illustrates very clearly the insanity of this approach to non-violent drug cases. The case also screams racism in the exercise of discretion in the criminal justice system. Here is how the judge justified this to herself:

Former Kingfisher County Judge Susie Pritchett, who retired in December, said "the women were conducting an extensive operationand included children in the business."

"It was a way of life for them," Pritchett said.

"Considering these circumstances, I thought it was lenient. By not putting the grandmother in prison, she is able to help take care of the children."

A presentencing investigative report prepared by the Department of Corrections rated Spottedcrow's risk of re-offending as "high"and recommended substance abuse treatment while incarcerated.

"It does not appear the defendant is aware that a problem exists or that she needs to make changes in her current behavior."

Spottedcrow was unemployed and without a stable residence when arrested, the report states. The family lost their Oklahoma City home for not paying bills.

"When she needed money this is the avenue she chose rather than finding legitimate employment," the report states. "The defendant does not appear remorseful and she makes justifications for her actions."

Pritchett said on first drug offenses, sentences are usually suspended and may require treatment or random drug tests.

Only if there are other more serious circumstances is a first-time drug offender sent to prison, she said.

"When kids are involved, it's different," Pritchett said.

"This was a drug sale. When I look at someone in front of me, I'm thinking, 'What is it going to take to rehabilitate this person?' We look at their attitude and other factors."

When Spottedcrow was taken to jail after her sentencing, she had marijuana in her jacket. She pleaded guilty to that additional charge Jan. 24 and was sentenced to two years in prison and fined nearly $1,300. That sentence also will run concurrent with her other conviction.


Does the judge actually seriously believe that she's done these kids a favor?

Who is Spottedcrow?

Spottedcrow has four children ages 9, 4, 3 and 1 and is determined to keep her 8-year, common-law marriage intact. "It's been really hard on my husband,"she said. "I know a lot of things can happen, but he'll always have my back and be there."

Her son is aware of what has happened, but the girls have been told their mother is away at college.

"I missed my daughter's fourth birthday, and I'll miss her fifth one too. My other daughter just started talking, and I'm not there to hear her,"Spottedcrow said.

"My baby woke up and doesn't know where her mommy is. This is the hardest thing to do, and know I can't do anything about it. I just have to focus on myself and take it day-to-day and plan for going home. I will want to see my kids at some point. I'm trying to take this slow. I can't get depressed about it."
READ MORE - Overkill In Drug Sentencing

Kamis, 13 Januari 2011

Short Takes

* I went to the Burger King restaurant in Cherry Creek earlier this week to get a cheap breakfast sandwich while I waited for the bank to open. The location was previously famous for being the parking nazi of Cherry Creek North, aggressively booting people in its lot. This time, I had to wait several minutes for anyone who worked there to appear, even after calling out an "anybody home?" Their bathroom is also the skankiest in all of Cherry Creek.

* Radio stations in Denver are in a slump. I have twelve FM and six AM pre-sets on my car radio, which I regularly revise with the best available options on the airwaves. Yet, several times in the last week, the elevator music in retail stores around town has been fresher and more interesting than what I can hear on any of those eighteen stations.

* Science Fair is over for another year. Next up, History Day.

* What is with all of the little banks on and around 1st Avenue in Cherry Creek? There must be twenty of them in the neighborhood, most with just one or two locations. You'd think it was Bern, Switzerland, or Luxembourg, or the Cayman Islands. I almost never see anyone actually doing business there, but presumably they have enough customers to stay afloat. I presume that they are catering mostly to a high end, local market clientele making loans to businesses, real estate developers, wealthy individuals and medium sized businesses, but I'm really not entirely clear what the business model is, although it seems to be a very similar business model for all of the banks that are not retail customer oriented.

* Even though Denver was almost 20% below average in precipitation in 2010, the snow pack in all of the state's major river basins was well above average, and since that is what really matters most for both Front Range water users and for the Colorado tourism industry, it's all good.

* Justice Kagan wrote her first U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of the proper way to calculate the car expense in Chapter 13 plan calculations. The ruling was 8-1 with only Scalia dissenting. I agree that her reading was the better interpretation of the statute (it disallowed the expense when there was no actual loan or lease on a vehicle that had to be paid). The court took the case because there was a circuit split on the issue.

* The Article I immigration court based in Denver has a new judge who is married to one of the ICE prosecutors in the Denver office who presses these cases. The new administrative law judge must "must recuse herself from any case directed by her husband" but I have real doubts about whether that is sufficient to remove the appearance of impropriety in this situation.

In an ordinary court, only part of the docket involves cases brought by the government. But, all of the cases before this administrative law judge will be brought by the office of which her husband is a part. The pervasive association the new immigration judge has with one side of every single case before her creates a clear appearance of impropriety. I can't imagine how I could possibly be impartial in her shoes. Immigration judges have immense discretion. Statistically, the judge a person with a case in immigration court is assigned to is the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the case. Inappropriate use of that discretion by immigration judges, mostly to the detriment of immigrants, has flooded the federal appellate courts in recent years, and has cast grave disrepute on the credibility of the immigration courts as institutions where any meaningful kind of due process exists. This development certainly doesn't help the situation. If the recusal were from all cases with ICE involvement, that would probably resolve the problem, but that isn't a viable option for an immigration court judge.

I feel for the couple, who are no doubt both very smart, competent immigration lawyers, each of whom has a good federal government jobs. Neither has personally done anything wrong. But, maintaining this kind of status quo, even with recusals from cases where the other is personally involved really doesn't cut it. In government contexts the concern is not primarily ex parte communications about particular cases or personal gain (the government lawyers don't win or lose anything as a result of the outcome of particular cases), but about bias towards one side or the other on the part of the office, which is just as strong even without personal involvement in the same cases. We are not such a parochial backwater in Denver that we have no choice but to have a conflicted immigration court system because no one else is up to the job.

* Once again, Denver cops are being sued in a police brutality case and fraudulent police report case arising from a January 2009 traffic stop. Westword has more details.

* Marginal Revolution is a superior blog that I will add to my sidebar in due course.

* The percentage of women in Colorado's General Assembly (41 out of 99) is the highest of any state in the United States. The national average is 23.4%.

* Republicans are constantly accusing liberals of inventing constitutional rights that aren't supported by the language of the constitution. But, these days, the shoe is on the other foot. John Tomasic at the Colorado Independent nails it with this headline:

King to Polis: Healthcare law infringes on right to have babies in garbage cans


He goes on to explain:

Iowa Rep. Steve King today on Capitol Hill at a Rules Committee hearing on the GOP plan to repeal the healthcare reform law. He ended up telling Colorado Rep. Jared Polis that the law is unconstitutional because, for instance, it forces uninsured women who deliver babies in garbage cans to buy health insurance. Polis, aghast, searched for words.


Isn't funny how the rights Republicans want to invent always seem to be ones you have no desire to actually exercise?
READ MORE - Short Takes