|
Dear Editor:
Assuming Neil Sabin's article "Justice Court, Fairness and the Law"is factually accurate, and I presume the Bar Journal was not engaged in an effort to encourage Mr. Sabin in a
failed attempt at fictional humor, then the circumstances described in the article are an outrage. However, the behavior of Mr. Sabin and the Journal in not naming the responsible court,
judge, and prosecutors is also outrageous. If the justice court system is broken, it is worthless to detail the problem without identifying the responsible parties. Nothing will be fixed
by Mr. Sabin going home and taking a long shower.
Seymour Copperman, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Dear Editor:
Neil Sabin, I feel your pain. Frankly, though, it sounds as if your experience in "justice"court was typical. Ex parte conversations, discovery abuses and the like are common in
too many justice courts. Those courts frequently serve only to railroad defendants up to a city's cash register. Few defense attorneys seriously contest these cases, since it's easier to
take a fee and then compromise. The appellate courts are closed to those wronged in justice court, so there is little chance that the justice system will fix itself. Consequently, this
situation is unlikely to change. It's a shame that the bar - which claims to want to improve the public's perception of the law - does nothing to clean up the system.
Still, I am reminded of an inspirational story. A few years back I was listening to an ethics CLE presentation in which a panel of experienced deputy county attorneys were discussing case
screening and when to decline to prosecute. After several minutes, a city prosecutor accustomed to justice court arose and asked how on earth the panelists could justify turning down
cases brought by the police. He just couldn't grasp it, or imagine saying no to local law enforcement. I was proud to see the professional prosecutors firmly and unanimously agree that
prosecutors exist to do justice, not to win for the sake of winning, and that they absolutely must dismiss bad cases early on.
Utah's own contribution to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sutherland, made this clear in United States v. Berger when he stated that prosecutors (and this would apply to judges also) must
be sure both that guilt does not escape and that innocence does not suffer. This message has yet to sink in at too many justice courts.
Paul Wake
|
