Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Why You Gotta Be So…Mean?

My guy was tak­ing a five-year prison sen­tence, and had arranged for a few weeks to get his affairs in order. The deal was that if he didn’t show up on the appointed day the judge could con­sider the full (five-to-life) range of punishment.

He showed up late.

The judge gave him six years.

Me: Judge, is being five min­utes late really worth a year in prison?

Judge: He was fif­teen min­utes late.

Me: Okay. Judge, is being fif­teen min­utes late really worth a year in prison?

Judge: Yes. On sen­tenc­ing day it is.

No. No, it really isn’t. Sen­tenc­ing this guy to six years, tak­ing away a year of his life for such a minor infrac­tion, was mean of the judge: shabby, ungen­er­ous, and vicious.

Could the judge legally do it? Prob­a­bly. It was a vio­la­tion of our deal, but there wasn’t a whole lot that I could see to do about it, other than keep my cool, hope for the judge to relent, and start plan­ning my 2014 pri­mary cam­paign for this bench.

It didn’t take long. Within min­utes my office paged me: the judge wanted me back in court; she had changed her mind and reduced the sen­tence to the agreed-upon five years.

When I got back to court, the judge was not on the bench.

The best inter­pre­ta­tion of the judge’s actions is that she found in her­self an appro­pri­ate sense of shame, real­ized that she had been wrong, and promptly fixed it. While there was no apol­ogy forth­com­ing, I choose to believe that is what happened.

The alter­na­tive is this: that she intended all along to sen­tence my client to a nickel, but used him, his wife, and his fam­ily to teach the other defen­dants in the audi­ence a les­son about time­li­ness. If so, then instead of a moment of ill-considered mean­ness the judge is guilty of delib­er­ate cru­elty. That is not impos­si­ble; I just choose not to believe it.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

9 Responses to “Why You Gotta Be So…Mean?”

  1. Nancy Knox-Bierman says:

    This hap­pened to me last year and Judge Rea­gin not only let it stand, but turned to me, sighed and then asked to no one in par­tic­u­lar “why do they dress like that?”

  2. Robert Fickman says:

    Jus­tice must always be tem­pered with mercy.
    That rule is fre­quently for­got­ten in “Crim­i­nal” jus­tice Center.

    Being 15 min­utes late is not worth send­ing any­one to prison for an addi­tional year. Par­tic­u­larly in a Cour­t­house which was designed with­out any regard to the pre­sump­tively inno­cent. Clients have to Damn near fight their way through lines, secu­rity, more lines, crowded stinkin ele­va­tors, crowded floors into crammed court­rooms where they are greeted by open hos­til­ity by 90% of the court personnel

    Gee, I won­der how the accused would be treated if they were pre­sumed GUILTY? Shot on sight?

    Are some of the Har­ris County Judges cruel, heart­less, arbi­trary, capriscious, mean, crazy, insane with power, vis­cious, cow­ardly, lazy and stupid?

    I am glad ” wis­dom pre­vailed”. How very rare.

    Robb Fick­man
    Loved by all Judges

  3. Scott Hagaman says:

    »The deal was that if he didn’t show up on the appointed day the judge could con­sider the full (five-to-life) range of punishment.

    But he showed up on the appointed day.

    Was the deal instead that he must show up at some appointed time?

  4. Justin T. says:

    I sup­pose it could’ve been worse; he could’ve got­ten 20 years for miss­ing court.

    http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=219621;article=43714;

    Apolo­gies for the source, it’s a copy of the Waco Trib arti­cle which is now appar­ently missing.

    tl;dr– Matt John­son is a dick.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      When a judge rejects a plea agree­ment, a defen­dant has the right to with­draw a guilty plea and start over.
      That is, unless he fails to appear for his court date, which is what Young did.
      In that case, a judge is not bound to fol­low the rec­om­men­da­tions in the plea agree­ment as long as he stays within the statu­tory limits.

      I don’t think that’s the law.

  5. Ron in Houston says:

    Didn’t you recently have an arti­cle on psychopathy/sociopathy? Seems that what we have here is a dis­tinct lack of empathy.

    Any­way, you’ve got my vote.

  6. bryan simmons says:

    I had a sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tion with a cou­ple stacked sen­tences in a case that really didn’t scream for cumu­la­tion –at sen­tenc­ing (jury had given 11−11−11) two were stacked; one was cc. That was Fri­day. On Mon­day morn­ing in my fax was an order dated Sat­ur­day with­draw­ing the cumu­la­tion. I think he prob­a­bly started think­ing on the drive home and went in and changed the order to reflect his change of mind. I know it sur­prised the DA. I fall into that old trap some­times of for­get­ting that (most) judges are human beings too and (most) try to do what they think is fair and right. They just can’t help but be wrong some­times, I guess. But then there’s the ones who must be escaped men­tal patients, cause no ratio­nal human would act and mis­treat peo­ple the way some of judges I have known do. And I have prac­ticed and tried cases in the court­rooms of both Sam Kent AND Jack Skeen, so I know unhinged jurists when I meet them.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply