"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories." -Opening narration of Law and Order
Every publicly educated child in the state of Illinois has seen the inside of the state Capitol building as well as the Sangamon County Courthouse. So, I was not surprised to find
that the Ada County Courthouse did not look anything like an episode of Law and Order. I was, however, notably blown away by the regal fountain, shiny marble floors, sweeping staircases, lushly carpeted floors, fancy technology, loosely handcuffed criminals, boring lawyers, and non-intimidating judges.
To begin with, I entered the courthouse and passed through the security checkpoint with flying colors; many thanks to my extensive airport experience, I am sure. Not that there was much any of the ancient security guards could have done if I did not, but that is another matter. I shortly realized that the docket was posted electronically on a large, and slightly obscure, flat screen in the lobby. This particular docket listed a criminal hearing twenty minutes from my arrival time. (Cue Handel's Hallelujah chorus from Messiah.)
I then ventured to locate the room where State v. Barber was said to take place. I found the courtroom fairly easily and nervously opened the door, afraid that I would interrupt some sort of prior proceeding. My fears were nearly validated when I entered and happened upon several lawyers standing about and talking, as well as a what appeared to be a mother and son couple sitting behind the prosecution.
I was mistaken though. The proceedings for State v. Barber were just about to begin, the prosecuting lawyers were collectively finalizing their argument, and the defense attorney was telling the orange-clad, hand-cuffed defendant what to expect from the proceeding hearing. A bailiff stood silently observing in the corner, and as far as I could tell, the couple sitting behind the prosecution was not affiliated with the case in any way. I opted to sit directly behind the defendant.
I put my professional eavesdropping skills to work and scored some important details about the case before the hearing even began. I will save you the complications of piecing the whole case together contextually, however, and tell you my understanding of State v. Barber as a whole right now because, well, I am just that nice.
Apparently, Barber, a 38 year old black male, had his probation revoked on September 11, 2009 due to some combination of a laundry list of crimes committed over the past decade (which is a presumed time period; please don't quote me). This list includes several driving without a license convictions, two DUIs and a DWP, three convicted uses of a fake license, a contact order violation, a domestic battery conviction, and other probation violations. Twenty days into his 318 day sentence, Barber wrote a letter to Judge James Cawthon requesting release from prison on October 1, 2009. This hearing was arranged to discuss the defendant's request for release.
The hearing began shortly after I was seated. The court reporter entered through a disguised door behind the judge's podium and announced, "All rise." I had forgotten that part. I sprang to my feet before anyone had the chance to notice my forgetful nature. Judge Cawthon entered through the same disguised door, acknowledged the ten or so people standing in front of him, and said, "Please, be seated."
Judge Cawthon was a very normal-looking man; the kind of guy you would literally pass on the street any day of the week and never consider the fact that maybe he judged people for a living. His manner was very calm and collected, and not at all rowdy, disgruntled, prideful, or domineering like I expected. His authority was simple and immediate. I respected him upon entry, even though I did not necessarily expect to do so.
The entire hearing lasted fifteen minutes, but felt like an hour. Even though each lawyer was very aware of their allotted time for explanation or argument, and the entire process was very concise, the calm, and ultimately bored atmosphere elongated the experience.
The Judge began by asking the defense attorney to explain the reason for the hearing. The DA remained seated while she reasoned for Barber's early release. She requested that Barber's counseling be paid at county expense because he was unable to afford parenting class, cognitive self-change class, as well as other treatments, and consequently comply with his sentence. Barber was financially incapable of compliance with the terms of his probation because he paid for his girlfriend's medical bills, as well as child support, on a fast-food employee's wages. The DA further explained how Barber's girlfriend had a brain tumor and lost their house because of their financial distress. Ultimately, the defense attorney asked Judge Cawthon to arrange a hearing to decide Barber's early-release in February of 2010, which would diminish his ten month sentence to a five month sentence.
Throughout the defense's spiel, Judge Cawthon listened while busying himself with papers and note-taking. He asked all the right questions, requesting more information about vague areas of one's argument, and then passed the torch to the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney then stood to address the Judge and listed at least a dozen of Barber's infractions before stating that, "based on his history and track record, I think nothing short of a lengthy jail sentence will deter him further infractions of the law."
Judge Cawthon asked the prosecution a few clarifying questions and then allowed the defense to respond to the prosecution. The DA allowed that she had no further argument, but that her client would like to address the judge. I was blown away. Props go to a guy willing to stick up for himself.
Barber explained how he was doing what he could to fulfill his probation requirements, including going to work so he could pay for his classes. "The only reason I was driving was because I worked the late shift at Wendy's," he told the Judge. "And my girlfriend has a one year old baby at home and she didn't want to wake her up to come pick me up from work at one in the morning." Barber also claimed that he had quit "drinking and all of that," that he and his fiancé were getting along really well. He said that his fiancé and probation officer could tell the Judge that he was doing well in his classes, if he wanted. "I am trying to change," Barber stated. "I want to take the classes, but I can't pay for them. I'm 38 years old and they were about to make me manager at Wendy's before all of this happened again."
When Barber had finished, Judge Cawthon took a brief moment, then granted Barber a substance abuse program and an active behavioral change course at county expense and
arranged a hearing at earliest convenience in January or February to discuss Barber's progress and potentially release him from jail early.
I was thoroughly impressed with the Judge's willingness to hear all sides of the issue and give the defendant credit for his efforts towards leading a law-abiding life. I truly believe that Barber's statements to the Judge had a heavy impact on his decision and I have restored my faith in our criminal justice system. A small form of justice was served in Boise on December 3, 2009 and I was there to witness it.
Every publicly educated child in the state of Illinois has seen the inside of the state Capitol building as well as the Sangamon County Courthouse. So, I was not surprised to find
that the Ada County Courthouse did not look anything like an episode of Law and Order. I was, however, notably blown away by the regal fountain, shiny marble floors, sweeping staircases, lushly carpeted floors, fancy technology, loosely handcuffed criminals, boring lawyers, and non-intimidating judges.To begin with, I entered the courthouse and passed through the security checkpoint with flying colors; many thanks to my extensive airport experience, I am sure. Not that there was much any of the ancient security guards could have done if I did not, but that is another matter. I shortly realized that the docket was posted electronically on a large, and slightly obscure, flat screen in the lobby. This particular docket listed a criminal hearing twenty minutes from my arrival time. (Cue Handel's Hallelujah chorus from Messiah.)
I then ventured to locate the room where State v. Barber was said to take place. I found the courtroom fairly easily and nervously opened the door, afraid that I would interrupt some sort of prior proceeding. My fears were nearly validated when I entered and happened upon several lawyers standing about and talking, as well as a what appeared to be a mother and son couple sitting behind the prosecution.
I was mistaken though. The proceedings for State v. Barber were just about to begin, the prosecuting lawyers were collectively finalizing their argument, and the defense attorney was telling the orange-clad, hand-cuffed defendant what to expect from the proceeding hearing. A bailiff stood silently observing in the corner, and as far as I could tell, the couple sitting behind the prosecution was not affiliated with the case in any way. I opted to sit directly behind the defendant.
I put my professional eavesdropping skills to work and scored some important details about the case before the hearing even began. I will save you the complications of piecing the whole case together contextually, however, and tell you my understanding of State v. Barber as a whole right now because, well, I am just that nice.
Apparently, Barber, a 38 year old black male, had his probation revoked on September 11, 2009 due to some combination of a laundry list of crimes committed over the past decade (which is a presumed time period; please don't quote me). This list includes several driving without a license convictions, two DUIs and a DWP, three convicted uses of a fake license, a contact order violation, a domestic battery conviction, and other probation violations. Twenty days into his 318 day sentence, Barber wrote a letter to Judge James Cawthon requesting release from prison on October 1, 2009. This hearing was arranged to discuss the defendant's request for release.
The hearing began shortly after I was seated. The court reporter entered through a disguised door behind the judge's podium and announced, "All rise." I had forgotten that part. I sprang to my feet before anyone had the chance to notice my forgetful nature. Judge Cawthon entered through the same disguised door, acknowledged the ten or so people standing in front of him, and said, "Please, be seated."
Judge Cawthon was a very normal-looking man; the kind of guy you would literally pass on the street any day of the week and never consider the fact that maybe he judged people for a living. His manner was very calm and collected, and not at all rowdy, disgruntled, prideful, or domineering like I expected. His authority was simple and immediate. I respected him upon entry, even though I did not necessarily expect to do so.
The entire hearing lasted fifteen minutes, but felt like an hour. Even though each lawyer was very aware of their allotted time for explanation or argument, and the entire process was very concise, the calm, and ultimately bored atmosphere elongated the experience.
The Judge began by asking the defense attorney to explain the reason for the hearing. The DA remained seated while she reasoned for Barber's early release. She requested that Barber's counseling be paid at county expense because he was unable to afford parenting class, cognitive self-change class, as well as other treatments, and consequently comply with his sentence. Barber was financially incapable of compliance with the terms of his probation because he paid for his girlfriend's medical bills, as well as child support, on a fast-food employee's wages. The DA further explained how Barber's girlfriend had a brain tumor and lost their house because of their financial distress. Ultimately, the defense attorney asked Judge Cawthon to arrange a hearing to decide Barber's early-release in February of 2010, which would diminish his ten month sentence to a five month sentence.
Throughout the defense's spiel, Judge Cawthon listened while busying himself with papers and note-taking. He asked all the right questions, requesting more information about vague areas of one's argument, and then passed the torch to the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney then stood to address the Judge and listed at least a dozen of Barber's infractions before stating that, "based on his history and track record, I think nothing short of a lengthy jail sentence will deter him further infractions of the law."
Judge Cawthon asked the prosecution a few clarifying questions and then allowed the defense to respond to the prosecution. The DA allowed that she had no further argument, but that her client would like to address the judge. I was blown away. Props go to a guy willing to stick up for himself.
Barber explained how he was doing what he could to fulfill his probation requirements, including going to work so he could pay for his classes. "The only reason I was driving was because I worked the late shift at Wendy's," he told the Judge. "And my girlfriend has a one year old baby at home and she didn't want to wake her up to come pick me up from work at one in the morning." Barber also claimed that he had quit "drinking and all of that," that he and his fiancé were getting along really well. He said that his fiancé and probation officer could tell the Judge that he was doing well in his classes, if he wanted. "I am trying to change," Barber stated. "I want to take the classes, but I can't pay for them. I'm 38 years old and they were about to make me manager at Wendy's before all of this happened again."
When Barber had finished, Judge Cawthon took a brief moment, then granted Barber a substance abuse program and an active behavioral change course at county expense and
arranged a hearing at earliest convenience in January or February to discuss Barber's progress and potentially release him from jail early.I was thoroughly impressed with the Judge's willingness to hear all sides of the issue and give the defendant credit for his efforts towards leading a law-abiding life. I truly believe that Barber's statements to the Judge had a heavy impact on his decision and I have restored my faith in our criminal justice system. A small form of justice was served in Boise on December 3, 2009 and I was there to witness it.
nice pictures gangsta
ReplyDelete