On arraignments in New York jails - Part II

As I said previously in my blog on this topic, Part I, New York Court administration introduced a "pilot" system of arraignments of criminal defendants in County Jails.

I will repost, for the reader's convenience, the conflicting reports of the goals of that "pilot program"

Declared goal as per press release	Prosecution’s view of the goal	Judge’s view of the goal	Police view of the goal	Public view of the goal
Ensuring indigent criminal defendant’s constitutional right to counsel to comply with a settlement in a lawsuit against the State of New York for violating indigent defendants’ 6th Amendment right to counsel, confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the year 1963, 54 years ago	Convenience to police, cuts of expenses	Convenience to judges	Convenience to police	Consolidation of "services" at arraignment to cut public expenses on such arraignments. Crime control

I did describe in Part I the team of judges introducing the "pilot" program - predominantly former prosecutors with a history of misconduct and/or corruption.

Since then, a reader has sent me a tip about another local news source covering the story and about the outrageous interview of the not-so-bright Chief Administrative Judge Molly R. Fitzgerald (helped, I am sure, by the even less-bright-than-herself law clerk Porter Kirkwood, see description of their "accomplishments" in Part I).

Now, WBNG.com 12News took upon itself to explain to the public what the "pilot program" was about.

And did they explain.

Come again?

From this astounding piece of journalism I, as well as all other readers, have learned that:

• even though the arraignment is the INITIAL stage of criminal proceedings, 
• it applies only to NON-LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

In other words, it is an unnecessary procedure that costs taxpayers money.

Because, if people who are only arrested by the police are already deemed guilty (by WBNG.com's Josh Martin), why do we need arraignments and all other criminal procedures?

Well, I do not think Josh Martin, or his editor for that matter, bothered himself too much with an answer to that particular question.

Presumption of innocence is a complex concept to comprehend, I guess.

But, let's go further down Josh Martin's extraordinary statement.

The "pilot program", according to #WBNG.com's #JoshMartin is actually meant to "SAVE YOU SOME MONEY" and to "KEEP OFFICERS SAFE".

Voila.

Gone are the claims that the program was actually nothing of the kind, but was meant to COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASS LAWSUIT to actually satisfy the needs for competent legal defense at arraignments for indigent criminal defendants.

Same as with the previous "professional" media source I reported about in Part I of this blog series, Press & Sun Bulletin, Josh Martin of WBNG.com decided to interview none of criminal defenders and none of the criminal defendants - while reporting that 14 of them were already arraigned - as to their thoughts and feelings about the new "pilot program".

The only people he interviewed were:

Judge Fitzgerald and

Police officers.

Well, we owe Josh Martin who in his youthful lack of understanding of the world, actually reported (and video-reported) what police officers and Broome County Sheriff Mark Smolinsky said about the "pilot program":

Holding a court proceeding in a party's witnesses' (prosecution witnesses') office is a great thing, apparently.  A "one stop shop", and it is designed and works well for the convenience of police officers.

And, as Judge Fitzgerald chimed in, for the convenience of judges and attorneys, too.

Nobody recalled convenience of bail/bond witnesses, likely, as indigent as indigent defendants.  Apparently, if it would cost extra money to officers to go to the small municipal courts, if it would be so inconvenient to not-so-poor judges and attorneys to go there "in the middle of the night", as Judge Fitzgerald, who is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, openly admitted, then how inconvenient and costly will it be for defendant's witnesses to appear at the arraignment/bond/bail hearing in a "centralized location" instead of within a walking distance from home?

Remember, the whole program was aimed, and taxpayer money were provided by the legislature, to help INDIGENT defendant - and thus to help their taxpayer-funded defense counsel, NOT to provide a convenience to police officers, prosecutors and judges.

In the included video interview, first, as an introduction, the news anchor asks Josh Martin:

"This is a change that will affect TAXPAYERS across the county, correct?"

And, Josh Martin, instead of showing any knowledge of why the pilot program was actually funded by taxpayers, rushes ahead and repeats his asinine paragraph from the article - with a smirk:

The video piece then quotes Broome County Sheriff Mark Smolinsky saying that "all in all it was the biggest common sense approach to be put in place" and continues:

Josh Martin then repeats his take on what arraignments are - and gives a glimpse of the inside of the improvised "courtroom" within the Broome County jail.

There is an intercom device visible, and a computer monitor, but I did not see an audio recording device - and arraignments must be kept on record.

The overview of the room shows a VERY limited number of seats, and, since the arraignments are to be held in jail, there is only one door - behind the judge - that will be locked, in accordance with jail security rules. 

Imagine if a member of the public wants to enter or exit that courtroom - they will have to ask the judge to ask the police officer to ask the other police officer on the radio to unlock the door and provide surveillance to the member of the public to go pee.  Imagine how many people would like to attend these proceedings, and that is just part of the inconvenience to the public - I described other inconveniences in Part I in a table.

But, inconvenience to the PUBLIC, those people who FUND these proceedings, do not count either - as long as there is a convenience for the police officers, prosecutors and judges

I already explained in Part I, in a table, how jail security rules will affect what was supposed to be a PUBLIC hearing - which neither Josh Martin, nor Sheriff Smolinsky, nor Judge Fitzgerald even try to mention.

So, accessibility of arraignments by the public is not even a big concern of the authorities - it is not a concern AT ALL.

And that, as I said before, is another class lawsuit waiting to happen.

So, dear taxpayers of the State of New York, it is as always - in order to fix one problem, the corrupt team that only knows how to fix things into their own pockets and in their own favor - "fixed" the problem right back into another bigger problem - now depriving indigent criminal defendants not only of proper legal defense, but also of a public arraignment.

Because, if it is so damned convenient for the police officers, prosecutors and judges to hold arraignments in jail - here is what they ARE going to be held, the majority of them, or the majority of them for indigent defendants.

The police will simply and "conveniently" arrest people only on weekends and only at night, in order to put them through the "convenient" - and secret - arraignment procedure behind locked doors.

Martin then reported that the program launched "this past Monday" - and showed a video interview of Judge Fitzgerald.

First, look at the eyes and facial expression of this woman.

This is the Chief Administrative Judge of a very large judicial district.  There is no thought showing in the eyes, none at all.

And here is what she said: "It's more efficient, people do not have to go ... wherever ... (waving her hand) in the middle of the night - they come here.  The room is equipped.  And it's working really well".

This is the degree of thought, the degree of preparation for public speaking, and the ability for PREPARED public speaking that this Chief Administrative Judge of a large judicial district shows.

I keep wondering - WHOSE appointee is she?  Who is pushing the career of this imbecile up and up?

And, of course, Judge Fitzgerald is portrayed at the background of an American flag and framed on both sides in the background by police officers (Sheriff Smolinsky on the right)

- sending the public a clear message what this program is REALLY about, and what their money is REALLY going to be used for - the convenience of judges and police, not ensuring legal rights of indigent criminal defendants, which was what the money was asked and received for.

By the way, at the end of the video, Josh Martin talks, once again, about savings to taxpayers - but claimed that "it is unknown" how much savings the program will bring.  Not even an estimate.

Great program.

Great journalism.

I wonder who will file the new class lawsuit - because it is a matter of time that such a lawsuit WILL be filed.

And, to New York taxpayers - employing brainless, corrupt and arrogant "golden boys" (and girls) COSTS money.

A lot.