On a recent day trip, I found myself in the St. Louis County courthouse. I was once an attorney, who like a number of others, became disenchanted with the system and sought a career change. The law is like a fine scotch. One must acquire a taste to fully appreciate it. When faced with an inferior brand the taste my be bitter but the passion remains. And so I journeyed through the metal detectors, having to first remove my belt, and then up the escalator to find a courtroom.
I found one where both civil and criminal cases would be heard that day. Not full blown trials with a jury trying to sort out the evidence as presented, but settlement conferences, motion hearings and criminal sentencing. A taste of both worlds.
The first case coming before the court was a civil case involving a wrongful death. The judge uncomfortably addressed a man and woman involved in the matter. Although I was not privy to the particulars of the case, I could gather from the judge's remarks that a young child had been killed in an auto accident. The child of the man and woman. Apparently settlement talks between the insurance company attorney and the attorney representing the parents had stalled. The judge was was expressed sorrow for the loss. Nothing could bring the child back and that monetary compensation was the only avenue open. Yes, the insurance company's offer was meager, but a conservative St. Louis County jury might decide that no compensation at all should be forthcoming. The parents stood motionless and speechless as if lost in a time warp. Could they actually hear what was being said? The child had been killed, but a jury might be unable to find legal fault. The judge then sent the parties off to discuss the matter and return at a later date.
I watched the father as he left. His eyes were moist, but no tears fell. I really don't think he had been able to fully comprehend what had just occurred. He didn't appear to be looking for sympathy. He wasn't going to argue the point. He simply continued to walk out of the courtroom. The court was now in recess.
Fifteen minutes passed and the door to the side of the judge's bench opened. Five young men, handcuffed and wearing brown jumpsuits bearing the words "St. Louis Co Jail" on the back, were ushered in by two correction officers. They sat in the seats normally occupied by a jury during a trial. The court then reconvened and the first case, a sentencing hearing, began. The defendant had originally been charged with Burglary 1st Degree, Assault 1st Degree and Armed Criminal Action. A jury only found guilt with the Burglary charge and so the judge was to pass sentence this day. The defendant's lawyer spoke of the good character of his client and that numerous members of the community including Boy Scout leaders would echo the sentiment. Also the four young children of the defendant would now be fatherless and most likely be dependant upon public assistance to meet their needs.
I looked around the courtroom. I was reminded of a wedding ceremony in which the bride's family and friends occupied one side of the church; the groom's the other side. The extended family and supporters of the defendant took up one whole side of the courtroom. Extra security officers and bailiffs began a subtle entry.
The defendant was asked if he wished to speak. He mumbled a bit and then read excerpts from a prepared written statement. Everyone, police, prosecutors, victim had treated him unfairly. He was not a violent man, on the contrary he was a kind,compassionate individual and a loving father. No reason for him to be here.
The judge gave a synopsis of the facts of the case. The victim's was entered by the defendant and a young relative in order to even an old score. The victim was shot in the head. Since 1984 the defendant had been charged and convicted each year in which he was not incarcerated of some felony ranging from auto theft to federal weapons violations. A robbery charge was pending in another Division of the County. The defendant's attorney had previously asked that any sentence of this court run concurrently, as opposed to consecutively, with the sentence handed down by another court for a different conviction.
The judge was now ready to get down to the business at hand. Since the defendant was a persistent offender by virtue of his previous convictions, he was subject to a longer time behind bars. Range of punishment ran from 10-30 years or life. I figured the judge would give 25. I was amazed when the judge said, "Life".
Immediate cries of anguish and disbelief arose from the the right side of the courtroom. Sobbing weeping. Cries of prejudice. Some of the family were led from the room and order restored. The bailiffs and security officers were at the ready.
The judge then began the part of the sentencing dealing with the effectiveness or more likely the ineffectiveness of defendant's counsel. When asked if the lawyer had done everything asked, the defendant immediately replied, "NO". Again the everyone is against him. I was always amazed and perplexed by the fact that these questions are asked after sentencing, when the defendant has found that he is on his way to prison. Of course he is not going to have positive things to say about his attorney. He was convicted. The attorney lost. Ask the questions before the sentencing.
The judge abruptly stopped the proceedings and ran from the courtroom. Reinforcements began to arrive. More security officers, bailiffs and correction officers appeared on the scene to control more anticipated outbursts. None arose and then defendant was eventually led away.
A stark contrast appears in the two cases. Not in the sense of the subject matter, civil vs. criminal. But in the human emotions displayed. A man and woman lost an innocent child and were being advised to take the money and forget about it. There were no cries of outrage on their part. They would handle their grief in private. On the other hand, a career criminal, a man responsible for his actions and his family place blame on everyone and everything except where it belongs.
