Volunteer notes

 The deputy in felony arraignment court made an announcement that communication with defendants was prohibited, and there was to be no talking. Many court personnel were having side conversations throughout his announcement, so it was difficult to hear.

 I waited for multiple appearances, all scheduled for 1:30 p.m., but by 2:45 p.m., none had been heard. Delayed start times in the government center are not only inefficient, but disrespectful to defendants, victims, and their families.

 In order for protection court this morning, two cases needed a Spanish interpreter, but only one was available. Parties from each case needed to talk with a guardian ad litem before the hearing, so one set had to wait while the other met with the guardian and interpreter.

 When a no contact order was issued in felony arraignment court today, the defendant asked what he was supposed to do if the victim contacts him. The judge did an excellent job of explaining that it was solely the defendant’s responsibility to terminate the contact.

 I am concerned that the use of acronyms and abbreviations are often not understood by defendants or victims. DANCO, PSI, Rules 20 and 25 are used repeatedly by attorneys and judges. In two cases today, defendants needed to ask for an explanation of one or more of these terms.

 When the petitioner asked the judge in family court to dismiss the order for protection, the judge made it clear that she was very concerned for the petitioner’s safety. When the petitioner turned down the judge’s offer to amend the petition from no contact to no abuse, the judge reluctantly dismissed the order and told her never to hesitate to come back to court in the future.

 In a revocation hearing for a defendant who violated his probation, the judge did a very thorough job of explaining why he was going to execute the 21-month prison sentence, noting how the defendant had not fostered trust with the court by blatantly violating the no contact order.

 A jury trial was scheduled to start today for a fourth degree criminal sexual conduct case, but the defendant asked for a continuance. The judge was reluctant to agree to it because of the many continuances already granted. One hearing scheduled for March was rescheduled five times, and when it was finally heard in June, the defense requested another continuance. The judge went through each date in the case’s history where the defendant had made such a request and stated that yet another continuance was unfair to the victim. But in the end, the judge continued the trial again for another three months.

 The judge in order for protection court today was very involved in each case and concerned for petitioner safety. She asked petitioners if they had or wanted an advocate, ensuring they had the support they needed. In three of the cases, the petitioners wanted to dismiss the orders, and in each case, the judge gave the option of amending the order to allow contact, but not physical violence. All three petitioners chose to have the order amended.

This article appears in the Spring 2011 WATCH newsletter. You can download the entire issue (as a .pdf) here.