Friday, September 3, 2010
Law Ethics panel rips TV drug court
Posted by Max Brantley on Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:31 AM
- JUDGE MARY ANN GUNN
Whoops. The three-member panel not only strongly disapproved of the idea (even though it would provide no financial benefit to the judge or her staff) it sharply questioned Gunn's current local broadcasting, saying "we are concerned that your current program is inconsistent with the spirit of the Code [of Judicial Conduct] and Administrative Rule 6" of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Rule 6 allows broadcasting under certain circumstances.
The committee — retired Judge Edwin Alderson, retired Judge John Cole and UA law professor Howard Brill — noted that drug court is aimed at rehabilitating often young and vulnerable defendants. It is aimed at avoiding convictions and the notoriety that comes with them. The committee thought it unfair to even ask to defendants to participate in broadcasts.
In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant's entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?
The panel noted that, even if the defendant agreed to broadcast, there were witnesses to consider. The advisory panel encouraged Gunn to seek Supreme Court guidance on whether "the broadcast of drug court impairs the dignity of the proceedings" and whether they should be "taped or televised in any form."
The committee said, regardless of the propriety of existing broadcasting, that the Code of Judicial Conduct does not permit a judge to participate in broadcasting by a for-profit enterprise.
Does the taping, releasing to the general media and televising of drug court proceedings involving troubled and unfortunate individuals in a 'number one' ranked television show promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary? We think that the answer is that it does not.
While the national proposal Gunn mentions provides no money for her or court staff, the advisory committee said it "does advance her personal interests. The judge might not reap immediate economic benefit from this but the fame and public exposure could advance both her economic, personal and political interests."
The committee also raised the possibility that broadcasting could influence her conduct. "A reasonable person could conclude that putting on a 'number one' television show broadcasting people in their most unfortunate times and the possibility of doing this for a national audience could influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment." The use of the judge, staff and government facilities for such an end "may appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity or impartiality."
The ethics committee is only advisory. Any questions about a judge's conduct would be a matter for consideration by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.
In a telephone interview, Judge Gunn expressed surprise at the ruling, given that the court has been operating — and broadcasting — for six years. But she said she "respected" the committee's decision. She said she had not yet decided if she'd continue broadcasting the court, which is next scheduled Sept. 13. She emphasized that she viewed the proceedings as "educational outreach" and a service to others. She said there were no concrete plans about a national broadcast, which she described as being discussed as a "documentary series" but that it was viewed in the same educational vein. She also said she never encouraged participants in the court to waive objections to broadcast and always honored the requests of those who asked not to be filmed. A private production company currently does the filming and provides video to Fayetteville public access and to Madison County, also in the judicial circuit.
Speaking of...
-
Judge Gunn settles case by agreeing never to run for judge again
November 18, 2011Three pending disciplinary cases against former Circuit Judge Mary Ann Gunn, now presiding as a fictional judge over a fictional drug court in "Last Shot With Judge Gunn," were dismissed today in return for Gunn's agreement never to serve as a judge again in Arkansas in any capacity. /more/
- More »
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
Good Lord, there are some people in this state who make sense! Why a judge would do this to young defendants defies logic. Though the judge might not have considered the benefit to her of the televised proceedings, she might be totally innocent, it seems indisputable that they would benefit her.
like
dislike
It seems to me that a judge is, ipso facto, hardly of judicial temperament if s/he needs to ask an ethics advisory committee whether televising proceedings of a court trying defendants on drug charges is advisable. Duh!!!
And when you think about it, just what are the benefits of a televised drug court? Is it so other young people can watch and not get caught up in the drug culture? Just how many other young people would watch. The more I think about the more I think this judge wants the publicity.
As Mrs. Max could tell you, a judge asking for an advisory opinion is routine practice. Beats the hell out of waiting for someone to file a complaint.
I have been present in Judge Gunn's court for the graduation ceremony (must have been in the days before TV), and I can tell you that it was very much a feel-good, positive-reinforcement experience for the graduates, many with friends and family attending and cheering. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most graduates were eager for their 15 minutes of fame, and the broadcasts have the community benefit of de-demonizing the drug users, who turn out to be pretty ordinary folks, not to mention de-demonizing the judicial system to those who may yet be subject to it.
There is no doubt that the committee knows the ethical rules better than anyone else in Arkansas, and the idea of anyone making a profit out of the process is troubling (although it definitely would not be Judge Gunn), but it's hard to see how more de-demonizing would be a bad thing.
1. To allow this to be shown is a disgrace. The purpose of drug court is to give people a chance and deter these offenders from continuing a path that will likely lead to jail (which can happen for even for minor drug infractions such as marijuana possession). How do you, on one hand, say "hey, we will give you another chance" and on the other say "we are going to embarrass and stigmatize you".
2. Judge Gunn would definitely benefit from this, most likely down the line. Judge Judy, etc. were once real attorneys, but when confronted with the incredible pay offered by TV jumped the legal professon ship to be "TV Judges," which are not judges at all. Gunn wants notoriety and the inevitable benefits it brings.
3. People appearing before the bench are scared to death. A court room is intimidating and people don't know their rights or whether objecting will piss the judge off. Yes, they are there for a reason, and yes they did wrong, but I don't see every criminal broadcast on public access. I would like to see Opinion 6 modified by our esteemed S.Ct. to address proceedings like this.
4. Has any study been done to show that such program has any effect deterring crime? Again, if every criminal proceeding was broadcast then maybe, just maybe, there would be an argument for this. But they are not. Judges aren't held accountable by the public because the public doesn't know what goes on inside court rooms. Maybe if Judges did have the public eye scrutinizing their decision then such tactics could be justified. But as I see it right now, this is simply all for show, and for Gunn's personal benefit.
And that is me speaking my mind.
Silverback66, whether or not teen court grads might enjoy their 15 minutes of fame now, I can tell you from personal experience that they won't in 30 years.
Now my situation wasn't quite as illegal -- just two speeding tickets, a bit more than normal teenage mouthiness and the absolute certainty that I was grown up when I graduated from high school at 17.
I was mortified when a friend of my parents cornered me at a social event attended by friends and acquaintances a few years back and loudly detailed chapter and verse of the worry I caused my parents. That she was commending me on how well I had turned out didn't help a bit.
Let's hope those kids continue to fly right and never meet a Mrs. PouterPigeon 30 years hence. (I can still see that woman sailing across the room toward me. Shudder.)
Do I? Yes.
Before Mary Ann Gunn, if you were a druggie, (traffic tickets are nonexperiences) your alternatives would had been a jury trial which would have led directly to the Personal Integrity Institute that is the Arkansas penal system. You could not cover your genitals.
Has anyone else in this thread ever been in Judge Gunn's court? I am trying not to get annoyed.
Has any T-Partier ever talked to a Muslim?
When I'm in Fayetteville I usually run into her on the community access channel. Man. What a bitch. She berates and admonishes the hell out of folks that just can't control their addictions. This scrote needs to attend a year to two of al-anon meetings, or have a child or sibling wind up in rehab. Maybe then she could shrink her ego enough to actually try to understand the defendants as opposed to dispensing her garrulous prattle like steaming venom all over the courtroom. My name is Bruce, and I approved this message.
Silverback, I'm not talking about the drug court per se. I'm just not sold on the idea of televising it locally or nationally and letting everybody and dog, to say nothing of future grandkiddies, have access to those tapes or CDs or whatever format might then be available.
I hate to sound dire about this, but I think Arkansas is reaching a crisis point when it comes to the professionalism of our judges, especially at the circuit level. First, they’re not judges; they’re politicians. They raise money. They campaign. They’re elected. And even though their campaigning and fundraising have restrictions placed on them; it’s the exact same thing all other elected officials do. And after they’re elected, they are beholden to their own special interests- the people you can see them standing beside in Little Rock Soirée and Sunday’s social pages. And after they’re elected they get “black robe syndrome”. They start to lack judicial temperament, common sense, and basic humanity. Next thing you know they’re starting for-profit probation programs (Willard Proctor), treating everyone before them like trash (Mary McGowan) or trying to get their mug on television (Mary Gunn). I know these three lame asses don’t represent all of our judges, but they sure represent too many of them.
There has to be more to this story than meets the eye. It is strange that after six years they finally come out and say they do not like the idea of showing drug court cases on TV.
I would love to see Judge Gunn's request which from my reading of the law must be submitted in a formal letter with legal anaysis, etc. I read the judicial ethics letter on line and it is very emotional and frankly unprofessional. I am surprised a couple of judges and a law professor would sign off on it.
What I think we have here is a movement to censure the media from the courtroom. What else would explain this sudden shift in attitude? They would love nothing more than to keep their courtrooms "sacred" and away from the public. We need to be careful. Very careful. I applaude Judge Gunn for opening up her courtroom to the public. I wish all judges would.
Circuit Judge Gunn is all knowing, all political, all power hungry. This is a person with no heart that hates men. Abused children are put back with mothers in order for the Judge to show her hatred towards men as well as show the world her power of jurisdiction. Arkansas people are crazy as well as the political system if they stand by and not look at her statistics of abuse to human beings not only in drug court but family court. The States Attorney General is to oversee all Judges within their state looks like this one runs everyone and everything.
Has Gunn lost her freaking mind? Seriously? Just another person who's losing her soul to the devil seeking self glory at the expense of others. See you on Judgement day Mary Ann.
By the way, this BS about this being an educational program is nothing other than a cover she uses to help her to sleep at night and to avoid the reality of what she's doing. She has truly convinced herself that humiliating people and degrading them is a good thing, not realizing her very own greedy motives. Everyone else can see it, but she can't. She's blinded by her own lust and greed.
What's even more pathetic is that this woman is probably enjoying all the negative publicity she's getting on this very topic. Sickening.
Google "This American Life" and "drug court" for info about a Georgia drug court judge who abuses those forced to come before her. It was on KUAF this morning. A televised record could have put a stop to her while people are too scared to talk.
Author Archives
-
Tuesday talk
The line is open. Final words: * IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE EDITION: The market soared today, with the Dow up more than 300 on positive housing news.
- Dec 20, 2011
-
Copper theft leads to NLR mineral oil spill
North Little Rock officials report that thieves who broke into an electric transformer construction site on Highway 391 near Galloway to steal copper parts caused a released of 2,500 gallons of mineral oil, some of which ran into a nearby body of water.
- Dec 13, 2011
- More »
Event Calendar
-
Re: No beer today at Porter's Jazz Cafe
Porter's is -- or at least was -- open 7 days a week. Sales figures…
- on February 8, 2012
-
Re: No beer today at Porter's Jazz Cafe
Shut 'em down!
- on February 8, 2012
-
Re: The long march is on; today's flavor — Santorum
>>diddling little boys is involved.
How I wish they would have stayed with goat…- on February 8, 2012
Top Commenters
Blogroll
Site Index
News
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
Entertainment
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings
This Week's Cover
Quick Links
Special Publications
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
