The Northern Review

Wallace Stegner wrote about the West and the Northern Tier.  For a sense of this unique geography and home place A Sense of Place would be worth your while.  For more about Mr. Stegner see The New West.

This piece about the life and death of Cameron Todd Willingham is many things.  I hope everyone who cares about our system of justice will read it.  And, will think about Mr. Willingham and all of the people of the story.  Were it not for Elizabeth Gilbert and David Grann the story would never have been told.  David Grann, Trial by Fire:  Did Texas execute an innocent man?, The New Yorker, September 7, 2009.

And see this addition to the article.  It is a response to the statements of John Jackson, the prosecutor in the Willingham case.  David Grann, The Prosecution Defends Itself, September 4, 2009, The New Yorker.

And here is more on the case in the Corsicana Daily Sun here, here, here and here.

Here is an opinion about Judge Sharon Keller in the New York Times.

And, here is a relevant story about Cameron Todd Willingham by David Grann called Trial by Fire in the New Yorker, September 7, 2009.

Here is a story about justice.  Really, the lack there of.  Spokesman - Review.

Judge DeLaughter is heading to jail.  Here is the Factual Basis behind his plea.  Have to say I feel a bit sorry for the guy.  I think he liked to lean on his friend [sic] Ed Peters.  I also think he may have thought his conversations with Peters were just a normal part of the politics of the judicial setting especially in Mississippi which seems to have a custom of some pretty vigorous earwigging of judges.

Few weeks ago I sat in Lincoln County Washington District Court waiting for my case to be heard.  Before taking up the infraction docket the judge did his arraignment docket.  The main show was the arraignment of three Latino men for allegedly growing marijuana in the circle irrigated cornfield of an “unsuspecting farmer.”  The judge, Joshua F. Grant, a part-time judge, was most gracious and judicial.  It was a pleasure to observe him do his job.  And, to see him be a true quality judge.  The arraignment took some time.  Despite the fact the courtroom was filled with others waiting to have their traffic infractions attended to there was quiet and respect by all.  I suspect they were impressed with how the judge was dealing with the situation.

The judge did not have an interpreter and two of the men were not fully capable of readily understanding what was being said to them in English.  One of the men was fluent in both languages so the judge worked through him, he was able to ensure the men were understanding what was being said and acknowledged back and forth because I think the judge must have had some appreciation of Spanish. not much, but some.

There three men entered their pleas and were later released on bail.  See this story in the Spokesman-Review.

Tonight as I look back and I reflect on the situation I think about the good judge and I think about the trouble the three young men are in if they are guilty.  They go to jail, and they will go to jail for a long time.  After all  they were growing marijuana — recall one used to be able to buy marijuana cigarettes in the drugstores at least of this area in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.  Some of the men who smoked the cigarettes were told they were good for asthma. 

In jail for many years for growing marijuana, meanwhile judges and lawyers who act illegally regarding the system of justice and corrupt it mightily go to jail for a year or two or not at all.  What a system we have.  Are we sure we really know how to “punish.”

And I think of some federal judges I have known.  Some complain mightily about having to abide by certain sentancing guidelines.  With a drink in their hands at a party, or a cup of coffee at a morning gathering, they complain,  Yet as the morning progresses or the next day dawns they courageously go forward and put another person in jail for a crime which hardly deserves the punishment the “judge” is inflicting.  If these judges really were to perform their duty they might consider some other course.  I am not their confessor.  I cannot provide them with absolution.  Their confessions and commiserations are shams.

The news about Judge Daniel Roznak is that he put a man in jail without trial for contempt of the judge’s court.  The first news stories said the contempt was a loud yawn.  The judge says it was something else.  Chicago Tribune story.

One might wonder about a judge who was offended having the power to put a person in jail without a hearing and based upon the decision of the person offended, the good judge.  Someday, this sort of thing will change.  For now, the judicial fraternity the power to do this even if it violates contemporary notions of fair play and due process.  The “law” allows it.

The apparatchiks of the status quo of the law will say the right of a judge to do this exists in precedent and we have to worship precedent.  Truth be damned!

There was a piece in the Clarion-Ledger this morning about Ed Peters, a former county prosecuting attorney in Mississippi.  Paul Quinn wrote the piece Immunity deal for Peters irks some. 

Peters is one of those people who had real power in the fraternity judges and lawyers.  He was one of those people whom everyone feared and many looked up to.  What happened.  This article shows there is real darkness in and about Mr. Peters and the judicial and legal profession.  It is a wonder Mr. Peters has escaped liability for his many wrongs.  Not only did he escape (at least thus far) he has been able to keep $550,000 of the $1 million he was paid in a judge fixing scheme.

Reading the voting rights case of Chisom v. Roemer I tried mightily to determine which side was right on the issue of whether Section 2 of Voting Rights Act, as Amended, included judicial elections.  The question came down to wheter under the statute the term “representatives” includes the election of judges.  Justice Scalia for himself and justices Kennedy and Rehnquest said it did not.  Justice Stevens and the other justices said the term representive included judges.

My mind spun one way and then the next.  I looked for proof that one side or the other spoke the “truth.”  I tried to see if the words of one side or the other made it clear which side truth was on.  In the end I knew how I would vote — to include judges in the definition of representatives — but in the end I had to admit my decision was on the basis of what I might in the end determine as good sense, and fairness.  But good sense and fairness was not the basis upon which the battle between the majority and the minority was all about.  The battle was about logic and some kind of truth within the context of the issue as to what congress intended when it amended the Voting Rights Act.

In the end I suppose I must admit I wonder whether in the end, judicial decisions are arbitrary.  If this “realism” is true, then clearly judges engage in political decision making.  As such, no one could honestly say judges are not “representatives” of the people.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are a knock-off of the Nazi Storm Troopers.