A lawsuit has been filed seeking to prevent use of drug court video in the commercial TV show. A Supreme Court rule now prohibits filming of such courts. An editorial in the local Northwest Arkansas newspapers that are sold in combination with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wasn't too concerned about the arguments in the case, writing today in an editorial, in part (note CORRECTION: I originally indicated incorrectly that the local wraparounds were the D-G itself):
No one challenged this practice in a suit brought before an appropriate court while these recordings were being made. Everyone who entered drug court did so as an alternative to going to trial on a felony charge. It was an opportunity to get off drugs and get the defendant’s life in order.Remarkably successful as it was, many people failed the drug court program. None of them successfully appealed and protested that either the televising or the recording of drug court harmed his or her case in any way.
No one claimed until recently that any harm was done by these recordings being preserved. Nothing was recorded that didn’t take place in an open courtroom. Any member of the public who was so inclined could have gone to court on any particular day, sat in the audience and watched the proceedings.
Some problems with this and one is obvious: Nobody in drug court could have imagined the judge was building a record she intended to take to commercial TV producers for national telecast. None of them anticipated the judge would haul off 76 bank boxes full of their records, some of them personal medical records, when she left office. None of them thought to ask the judge if the copies of the videos provided to her would ever wind up in California TV producers' hands.
So far, there's no evidence that those who are now objecting in a lawsuit to seeing their lives on national TV ever signed a waiver allowing their cases to be televised. And at least one defendant did object in a timely fashion. Too bad for her. Judge Gunn was the law, no matter what court rules then said about requiring approval of parties before court proceedings could be broadcast. The evidence is from a transcript of a hearing for a woman kept in Gunn's drug court for three troubled years, including an episode in which Gunn jailed her for being photographed in the proximity of a high-powered rifle (not a crime so far as I know.)
The transcript depicts an environment in which Gunn decided who'd be on TV, whether they wanted to or not. Being on TV clearly was part of Gunn's bargain if you wanted the alternative to jail that drug court provided. This is precisely the coercive effect the judicial ethics panel feared in finding the televised drug court was improper. Too bad the NWA newspapers didn't have a reporter in the courtroom for the episode memorialized below.
(PS — I've been told Gunn is getting participants for her TV show by paying a local drug treatment outfit for treatment of people willing to be on TV. She won't have jail as a hammer; just the end of payment for treatment. I've yet to find anyone with studies to show TV exposure is good drug rehab therapy. One agency refused to participate, I was told.)
On to the transcript:
FROM A TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DEC. 21, 2009
CASE OF STATE vs. SHARINA WATKINS
THE COURT: Now, Ms. Watkins, it's my understanding that you made a phone call saying that you weren't supposed to be on television and you were in your lawyer's office, and I want to know what lawyer it was.
WATKINS: My uncle went to speak to his attorney.
THE COURT: No. No. No. I want to know what lawyer you were talking to when you called Jones TV and said 'I'm not supposed to be on TV.'
WATKINS: I wasn't talking — I said — I did say I was in a lawyer's office. I was on my way to work.
...
THE COURT: Well, it's ultimately my decision who is on — when we televise, who's on TV and who's not. Now, your uncle, what's your uncle's name?
WATKINS: Ed
THE COURT: Ed, are you here? (raises hand)
Come on up, Ed.
It's my decision. They yanked ... the whole program because of that, Sharina.
WATKINS: When you — when you came into class, both you times you —
THE COURT: I understand that.
WATKINS: —visited, you said if you don't want to be filmed
THE COURT: That's right.
WATKINS: — all you have to do is ask.
THE COURT: You have to ask.
WATKINS: I've asked multiple times.
THE COURT: And then I make the decision, Sharina. I make the decision.
...
THE COURT: Sharina, what's your problem being televised?
WATKINS: I work for an organization — a company that has over 30,000 members and I work with a large portion of the public sector. And I thought that I wasn't to be on TV.
THE COURT: That's not my question .... My question is, what is your problem with —
WATKINS: My problem is that I — I — it's a professional job and my supervisor knows about it. He said it's fine that I know you're in Drug Court, no one else needs to know. You're not televised are you? And I said no. I requested to not be televised, sir. He saw me on TV and was very upset and that's why I called Jones Television.
THE COURT: One of the reason that you're on television is because we were merciful when you went to work at your last professional job drunk. We kept you in this program. We have kept you in this program despite some of your sanctions. You should have been terminated. ... Now if you are requesting special — I mean, they — they pulled the entire program, Sharina. It is to help educate the community. Every person is here, including the treatment team, are trying to teach the members of our community what drugs can do.
..
WATKINS: I was just ... going on your word. You came and spoke to us ... on two different occasion and you said if you want — if you don't want to be on television, you don't have to be. All you have to do is ask. I've done all that, so I don't ... understand. ... And they didn't pull the entire episode, they edited me out. The episode is still showing.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me tell you this ... You want to remain in this program?
WATKINS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. It will be my decision whether or not you are televised. Now don't you dare call ... any other organization, nonprofit organization that works with the Drug Court program Don't you call them. Don't you talk to them. Don't you call Altrusa or the schools or anyone else. It is not your place.
WATKINS: It's not my right?
THE COURT: Your place is to go through your counselor.
WATKINS: I did do that.
THE COURT: ... That's fine. I'm setting you for termination.
WATKINS: I don't understand.
THE COURT: You are not an active participant in this program. You know, you want special treatment.
WATKINS: No, ma'am.
THE COURT: And we have given you special treatment.
WATKINS: Ma'am, I just, I took you at your word.
THE COURT: Okay.
WATKINS: I asked to not be televised. I don't know how that is a problem.
THE COURT: My — what I told you all was if you do not want to be televised, sign up, then I look at it and talk to the treatment team. It is part of the community service of this program. And all I'm telling you is — you know, you have had an attitude since the day you walked in this door and we have bent over backwards but you seem to think that you are privilegted and you seem to think that we to break all of the rules or bend the rules for you, Sharina. And I'm appalled that a non-profit organization with our community outreach program would be affected by your telephone calls and threats. Now that's the last I'm going to say to you and I will see you next month at termination. That's the order of the court.
Showing 1-26 of 26
Gunn is a bully, plain and simple. She needs to move her TV court show to some other country. Somalia would be good.
Wow. If the ethics panel doesn't remove her from the bench for intimidation and denial of civil rights then this problem is that much worse.
Were those 786 banker boxes of records her personal files or court documents which are public records and should remain with the authorities? It would seem like any appeal of a record that relied on such documents would be in question since they are now controlled by a private individual.
She's brought the boxes back and they're locked up in the courthouse. But there's a great question remaining about on what authority she took the boxes away when she was no longer a judge.
"Your Honor, there was documentation of the facts on which I am basing my appeal. Seeing as the records of my case were removed from the courthouse under questionable circumstances, I hereby make a motion......"
well i guess it was on HER authority! she's JUDGE GUNN!!!!
wow, that transcript is troubling. i was always ok with gunn's court on jones tv but that was with the assumption that all who were on had agreed to it. i guess that's not the case. maybe the committee was right (obviously) to shut her tv stuff down.
i hate that, b/c done right, drug court on tv could be a benefit to the public.
i garuntee she took those files and stuff to "prepare" for and use in her tv show.
wow. again.
Narcotics Anonymous has a pretty good track record helping addicts deal with their addictions. The efficacy of maintaining anonymity during recovery is well recognized.
i agree too pavel but gunn's program was a benefit to the community at large as a method of prevention of drug use. like i said, done right it would/could have a benefit for the cummunity
gunn's tv show is of NO benefit
The courts can do a lot to convince a junkie or a drunk to seek help. Just the threat of possibly having to deal with the judicial system has pushed a lot of people into recovery. And that’s a good thing. Judge Gunn may have at one time been guided by benevolence and altruism, but greed seems to the only motivator these days.
If this woman's name were Judge McGillicuddy the "reality TV" remoras wouldn't come within 500 yards of her. "Judge Gunn" makes for everything reality TV bottom feeders love.
.
>>i agree too pavel but gunn's program was a benefit to the community at large as a method of prevention of drug use.<<
A major point of contention about Gunn's dog n' pony show is the very fact there is NO EVIDENCE whether drug court does any good. There's no studies, no peer reviewing what's happened. There are few, if any, follow-up investigations or summaries of those who have been thru drug court. I watched the little dog n' pony show about four times and each time I heard the judge remark something to the effect
'you've been here before haven't you 'billy-ray'
When this entire stinking episode washes out the wanna-be-star-trapped-in-robes is gonna look even funnier and her promoter and ex-local-tv-starlet at Jones TV could be in a big lawsuit in addition to costing non-profit Jones TV a helluva lot of money.
.
I've know Mary Ann Gunn for years and she is not an evil person. I think eLwood nailed it above when he stated she probably started out with good intentions, and then got caught up in her own publicity, and decided she was a "personality," and therefore national TV fame lay ahead. Greed triumphed over good intentions, as it usually does. She does have a great deal of appeal on television. I have recounted previously on the blog about my daughter-in-law from California, who was visiting on vacation and happened on Drug Court on Jones TV. She was immediately transfixed, and in the course of one week or 10 days became a great fan of Judge Gunn.
But I think Norma is probably right about the prospects for her new show. How can you have "reality TV" without reality. I do not think the show will succeed, and I have never thought that it should. There is something degrading about putting criminal defendants on TV for the pleasure of voyeurs; not degrading to the defendants, but to the criminal justice system. That is why I do not like "Cops," and other similar shows on television. I think that, after practicing law for 30-some years, even attaining a judgeship, Mary Ann was bored and wanted to try the Hollywood experience. She recently was divorced from her husband, Mike Mashburn, who suffered a very debiliating stroke a few years ago.
She made a bad decision, but she is not the ogre that some bloggers are trying to make her out to be.
A judge she is not! Bully, is the best word to use. Many people will choose drug court over jail anytime. That is a fact. Another fact is that all drug user's also lie and I mean lie as to wanting to get clean. No one, and I repeat that NO ONE! can be clean of drugs unless they themselves want to be! I would like to see how many of these so called court cases are still clean to this day. No, don't bother to show me, as Mary Ann has already showed how she can as well will bully anyone that doesn't see things her way. She's one of the reasons people have no trust in laws of society. Bully Bitch!
It sure looks like Mary Ann Gunn was abusing her authority by using her court as a racket to enrich herself and Jones TV.
Never thought I'd see the day when the Times blog argued for sealing records, Max.
I'm told that she honored at least one drug court participant's request not to be televised: Matt Jones.
At her very core Judge Gunn is a bully with a history of overstepping her authority and committing ethical violations from the bench. My heart goes out to Sharina who was very courageous that day in the courtroom. Other people have cowered when standing in front of Judge Gunn because there is such a strong current of evil force that pours from her physical being.
As someone who completed Judge Gunn's drug court program I can tell you it was all about her. She was 2 different people depending on if the cameras were on or off. When you entered the program you were asked to fill out a form about your drug use for your entire life and told this was confidential, I did this and then in front of the cameras and court she used this information to mock me about something that I did 30 years ago. I believe where she is at now pretty much sums up where her interests are, tr52
“all drug user's also lie”
By definition air, food & water are also drugs;
so I take it someone is confessing.
“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Rudyard Kipling
I find it very interesting but not surprising to read about this from out of state (North Carolina). Up until I got a link to this story, I only knew Mary Ann Gunn from my adult sister's disastrous mistreatment by Mary Ann Gunn in divorce proceedings, where Gunn refused to enforce an existing, valid child support order from another Arkansas county, which violated all legal precedent and decency. I could not believe that six months had gone by and my sister had not received payments even while her ex was hiring a top law firm from Saline County run by Aaron Jones (attorney who was also a crook and was subsequently convicted and sent to prison for 10 years for arson). No judge here in North Carolina would allow child support to go unpaid in plain sight of the court for nine months while kids go without (and the father was employed in the same job as when the child support order had been established a few years before). I wrote a letter appealing to Gunn to look into the non-payment but never received a response, and the months continued to go by without financial support for my sister and kids. My sister lost her house, then was evicted from a rental -- and then Gunn belittled her for being poor in open court even though Gunn had created that situation herself. Something smelled very bad in the way Gunn handled this; at best, for some petty reason, she decided she didn't like my sister, and just ignored the law and didn't care what happened to kids losing their homes and changing schools multiple times, going hungry. What a disgraceful, greedy, crappy and shameless human being. As for drug court serving any purpose being televised beyond entertainment -- that's a joke. Just an excuse to get a publicity-hungry, petty, greedy politician's picture on TV for free re-election advertising (and as it turned out, a future career). If the purpose is to scare people away from committing drug crimes, why not show the people who didn't get the "drug court" alternative and instead had to go to prison?
Of course, now they are pathetic papers. You were right about that one.
Hackett... I practice law and I can tell you that unfortunately, that's a large amount…
Funny. Seems I recall just such a scenario being played out before -- traffickers needing…
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
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