Fairness is what justice really is

Impartial:  adjective - not partial or biased; fair; just; an impartial judge

That's the Webster's definition.  Some might say that definition stopped at the door of the 213th District Court of Tarrant County while Judge Bob Gill was presiding, specifically with regard to probation revocation cases.  

In May, I told you about a habeas hearing that was held in Judge John McBryde's court in U.S. District Court regarding a mentally ill woman who claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because her court appointed-attorney didn't mention her mental issues during a probation revocation hearing, and I'm using this term rather loosely, in Judge Gill's court.  Judge McBryde found ineffective assistance and overturned the woman's fifteen-year sentence.  

It didn't seem to make the news.  Until now.  The Star-Telegram has finally gotten on board with a story.  Maybe they should read this blog a little more often.

As the story details, Judge Gill had a practice in which he essentially would negotiate the plea deals for all probation revocations in his court.  It was common knowledge.  The prosecutors never really came into the picture, unless they had to present evidence at a contested hearing.  The Judge made the plea offers.  If they were rejected, there was hearing.  In front of him.  The judge whose offer was just rejected.

According to Judge Gill, this was done because he supposedly knew the cases and the probation system better than the prosecutors.  "[I]t was cutting out a step that was unnecessary."  

Really?  Hey, maybe next time we could dispense with that pesky trial, too.  I mean it is time-consuming.  Who needs it?  And while we're at it, maybe we could get rid of 4, 5 and 6, right?  Those silly rights do tend to get in the way of running an efficient docket I guess.

When I first came to Fort Worth, I had a revocation case in the 213th.  I was a little taken aback by the way the revocation cases were handled.  I remember being told that was just how things were done.  Thankfully, the case was resoled in a manner that my client liked, so it wasn't a big deal.  Truthfully, I only had one other revocation case in there before Gill resigned.  It was eventually dismissed though.  So I've never had a client whose constitutional rights were possibly trampled.  

Everyone knew about this "procedure."  Everyone.  Especially the prosecutors.  I remember talking to one prosecutor who had just recently been assigned to that court and he told me he liked that court because he didn't have to worry about revocations.  

So the idea that anyone in the criminal courthouse in Tarrant County didn't know about it is somewhat laughable.  But that's exactly what recently-appointed, current District Attorney Joe Shannon said according to the Star-Telegram story.  Alan Levy, chief of the criminal division at least acknowledged its existence, but made a point to say that it wasn't something the office condoned.

But Shannon, who is currently running for District Attorney against Kirk Claunch, actually claimed he knew nothing about the procedure in Gill's court.  Is it possible that there are other things Shannon doesn't know about?  Is that a really good quality to have in the sitting and possible future District Attorney?  

Gill resigned the bench a couple of years ago and took a position with the District Attorney's office ostensibly to better position himself within the Republican Party to be the heir apparent to longtime D.A. Tim Curry.  But Curry died in April of last year and Governor Perry appointed Curry's lifelong friend Shannon as the D.A.  It was rumored that Shannon agreed to accept the position with the understanding that he would not run for the office in 2010.  But somewhere along the line that changed, and it left Gill on the outside looking in.

As much as I would love to chastise the D.A.'s office or the judge for this, I suppose ultimately there has to be blame on the defense attorneys.  Obviously every case is different, and I have no idea what kind of resolutions were made in others' cases, but if we, as defense attorneys didn't like the way things were being handled, it was really on us to seek change instead of just going along with it because that was how things were always done.  So shame on us.

But at the end of the day, there is a former state district judge whose procedures regarding revocation cases in his court has caused "serious concern."  Legal scholars think this might well give every single defendant a legitimate ground for challenging their sentence.  Imagine the firestorm of litigation that could ensue.  All because Gill wanted to do things his way.

There is a current D.A. who claims he knew nothing about the process.  And he is now the boss of the former judge because the judge is now a deputy chief within the D.A.'s office.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Former Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once said "Fairness is what justice really is."  So you would think that would apply to a judge.

But what the hell do I know?

Comments

[Winter Park Attorney]

Very interesting story. It seems like the stories that really need attention are never the ones that are presented by the media. When it comes down to it, it's about ratings.

[Dating girls from Latin America]

District Court regarding a mentally ill woman who claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because her court appointed-attorney didn't mention her mental issues during a probation revocation hearing, and I'm using this term rather loosely, in Judge Gill's court. Judge McBryde found ineffective assistance and overturned the woman's fifteen-year sentence.