THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, June 26, 1994 TAG: 9406250094
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 02 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Joe Banks
DATELINE: 940626 LENGTH: Medium
I suggested as much to the General District judge last week, when I again showed up in court as subpoenaed and, for the fourth time, the petty larcency case was postponed.
{REST} ``If you can come up with a better way, I'll make you the clerk of court . . .without the approval of the other two judges,'' he said.
While I'm not interested in being the court clerk, I'll offer some suggestions based on the three cases in which I have been subpoenaed - and disgusted - since 1992.
On the night of Feb. 14, 1992 an ODU student was killed with a .38-caliber handgun.
On the morning of Feb. 18, 1992, I was shot with a .38-caliber handgun.
The attorney for the suspect in the Feb. 14 shooting hoped to raise the possibility that the guy who shot me also was responsible for the fatal shooting 4 days earlier. The lawyer hoped that I would testify that his client resembled the man who shot me. What he didn't realize is that I knew that his client was in the Norfolk City Jail within hours of the Valentine's Day homicide.
Subpoeaned in that case, I'm at the defense lawyer's beck and call for two days. About mid-afternoon on the second day of testimony I swear to tell the whole truth . . .
I hadn't even completed my answer to one of the initial questions when the judge interrupts and asks the jury to leave the room. The judge objects to the defense attorney's game plan and dismisses me as a witness.
Suggestion: Grant those of us who don't believe we should be there a chance to say so before the jury is seated and/or before testimony begins. Let the attorneys argue the merits, let the judge decide and let us out of cases in which we don't belong.
On Feb. 17, 1992, a Portsmouth-bound motorist who thought he was in the fast lane of the Downtown Tunnel, hit me in the Norfolk-bound lane of the approach to the Midtown Tunnel. Convicted on various driving offenses, the defendant appeals in hopes of a lighter sentence.
Once the appeal was scheduled, I was ordered to appear in the morning. But the case wouldn't be heard until mid-afternoon. After the lunch recess, the defendant's attorney asked me if I would be satisfied with his client agreeing to such-and-such a sentence, which would be lighter than the one he had received and forgoing what amounts to a second trial.
When I said no, little did I know that client would end up receiving basically the suggested sentence.
Suggestion: Common sense says all General District Court cases, for example, cannot be heard at 9:03 a.m. Yet we all are expected to be there at 9:03. Stagger the times at which we are expected to appear. Call in half the group at 9:03; the other half after lunch.
In cases such as the appeal of the mistaken motorist, have the defendant's attorney, assistant commonwealth's attorney and victim confer. Defendant's attorney makes suggestion; assistant commonwealth's attorney, who has a far greater familiarity with a judge's sentencing practices, advises the victim whether the offer's a fair one. If the victim agrees, agreement is entered. The amount of time spent in court by everyone is reduced; aggravation, costs and/or lost wages of everyone involved is reduced.
In December 1993, I reported a theft. A suspect was arrested. The first hearing was postponed for reasons not made clear to the courtroom as a whole. Because I didn't know the lawyers involved and they don't know me, nobody told me that I could leave.
Suggestion: Announce dismissals and continuances at the start of court sessions; explain that any and all involved in the case - except maybe the defendant - are free to leave. Query those involved in the case and coordinate a court time that is palatable to all - not just the lawyer(s).
The second hearing in the petty larcency case was postponed when the plantiff was a no show.
The third hearing was postponed when I called to inform the court clerk first thing June 13 that I could not attend the Tuesday hearing because of a relative's death over the weekend. It was Tuesday morning when the victim was informed that the hearing had been postponed.
Suggestion: Somebody has the names and phone numbers of all people involved in the case. Couldn't somebody pick up the phone and inform all parties involved.
When the clerk called me back that Monday to tell me the case had been rescheduled to June 21, I assumed that the date had been cleared with all parties involved. Silly me. Apparently the arresting police officer was unaware of the continuance. As the suspect, the victim, the lawyers, and I stood around at the front of the courtroom, the arresting police officer was on a vacation cruise.
The judge promises that the case will be heard July 12.
I just hope that the next time I witness a crime that my frustration with the court system doesn't stop me from calling the cops.
by CNB