James M. Redwine

Law Enforcement

Mox Nix

by Leave a Comment

American soldiers stationed in Germany picked up the German saying “Macht nichts” and anglicized it to Mox Nix. Either way it means, it doesn’t matter, kind of short hand for don’t sweat the small stuff. If you read the Gavel Gamut entitled “Wheat from the Chaff” you might recall the general topic involved the American legal system’s treatment of high-profile cases such as the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin matter. Judge Cahill in that Minnesota jury trial was faced with several issues related to publicity about the case. The judge was asked to change the venue of the jury trial out of Hennepin County, MN; he refused. The judge was asked to sequester the jury; he refused. And he was asked to recuse himself as judge; he refused.

The basis for each of these requests from defendant Chauvin was imputed bias because the judge, jury, victim, defendant and witnesses were from Hennepin County and, there might be prejudice due to personal experiences with the local area and populace, or from the pervasive local media coverage. The defense asserted the judge and jury would perforce decide the case not based on the evidence but without regard to the proven facts, or worse in spite of them.

While I have no position as to the validity of such allegations in the Chauvin case, in general, it strikes me that such fears evince disdain for the character of judges and jurors. Do those who aver a trier of fact would find someone guilty or innocent based on personal bias in the face of admitted evidence proving the opposite really think so little of their fellow citizens? Haven’t we all had to make many difficult choices that often go counter to what we would prefer? Then why would we assume others are made of lesser stuff than we? If we were the judge or jury wouldn’t we swallow hard and decide the case as required by the law and the evidence in spite of what we might wish the facts to be? So why not afford our fellow citizens that same consideration?

Does that mean no case should ever be venued or no judge should ever recuse? Absolutely not and I was neither the judge nor a juror in the Derek Chauvin case so I take no position on whether Judge Cahill erred or whether the jury based its verdicts on improper factors. Those issues are now going to be reviewed by the Minnesota appellate courts which will have the duty and ability to ascertain whether the trial was fairly conducted by the judge and proper verdicts returned by the jury.

Most judges and most jurors most of the time have the ability and character to recognize when their personal feelings and news accounts must be set aside if a just verdict is to be reached. In those circumstances where human frailty overcomes treating others in court the way we would expect and like to be treated, we do have appellate procedure as a safeguard. Most cases are decided in circumstances where extraneous matters could be influential on the outcome. However, America’s legal system and the citizens who are responsible for operating it have the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff and they have the character to know when to say Mox Nix.

Of Motes And Logs

by Leave a Comment

Last week the National Basketball Association deferred its 2020 playoff games out of respect for the Black Lives Matter movement. The incident that was the catalyst for the Milwaukee Bucks professional team to decide to boycott game five of the playoffs against the Orlando Magic team was the shooting of 20-year-old Jacob Blake, a Black man, on August 23, 2020 during an encounter with the police in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Blake informed the arresting officers he possessed a knife but he did not wield it. Blake’s shooting struck many as part of a continuum that began May 25, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota when 46-year-old George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died as a result of an encounter with police. In between Floyd and Blake several other incidents of police/Black person violence have made national news. History records numerous such incidents and a great many more have not been recorded but exist in the psyches of both minority and majority populations. Until cell phone cameras became ubiquitous such incidents tended to get lost in the vagaries of competing memories. Today the incidents are often still in dispute but there may be video and audio evidence to analyze in search of the facts as opposed to mere opinions.

In my experience the truth as believed to be proved by whatever evidence may exist tends to depend to a large extent upon the ability of the observers to set their personal prejudices aside and apply a degree of objectivity to the situation in question. Although such matters as the Blake and Floyd cases are qualitatively light years from sporting events, perhaps an analogy may still be apt when it comes to determining the actual facts as opposed to opinions about the perceived facts or, more likely, the projected ones.

When a sports fan endures the indignity of an umpire’s or referee’s close call against the fan’s team, it is the rare fan who congratulates the official for his/her judgment. What may look like interference to the referee may look more like “no harm, no foul” to the fan. Of course, when it comes to issues of race the emotions are much more complicated and visceral and deadly force or resistance may be involved. If in war the first casualty is truth, when it comes to matters of race and ethnicity truth often depends more on the culture of the observers than observation alone. That is why the wise people who founded this country fashioned a government of laws. Without law the scales of justice tend to dip in favor of whoever has the power to put their thumbs on the scales even when they would swear, and probably believe, they are fair to a fault.

About the best we can hope for, even in ourselves, is that we recognize our judgments on matters as fundamental as human rights are often influenced by our particular frailties and that our frailties come from our particular culture. Then we can bring up the logs that are in our own eyes and try to account for them in determining what the evidence truly proves in any particular case. People whose duty it is to make judgments on the behaviors of other people often learn, sometimes the hard way, that their conclusions about what certain evidence proves have been subconsciously affected by personal factors related more to the person doing the judging than the actual behavior of the ones they judge. This phenomenon has been recognized by trial lawyers and judges since we homo sapiens first began to settle our disputes in court instead of with clubs. That is one of the main reasons attorneys prefer to settle cases by compromise as opposed to seeking the full measure the attorneys believe their clients may be entitled to from a decision by a judge or jury after a trial. Over 95% of all court cases settle without a trial. The attorneys know that it is rare for a court decision to be intentionally biased but it is often subconsciously so. And if this is true with trained judges it is good to keep inherent biases in mind with such organizations as political parties and the media.

There are remedies to unjust treatment that has resulted from unrecognized prejudices. However, such things as money damages are usually insufficient compensation, especially if permanent disability or death to either an offender and/or officer occurs. Prevention is a better treatment. And prevention requires that we look deep within ourselves, hopefully well before, but at least at the time of a racially or culturally charged incident. Such introspection should be demanded of all whose job it is to control the behavior of others; police officers and judges come to mind.

But all of us would do well to recognize our potentional to unfairly discriminate based on factors we rarely acknowledge to ourselves. Of course, one of the best remedies for eliminating prejudicial behavior is an atmosphere where all points of view are allowed to be considered and evaluated. That is why Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) stated that the right of free speech is … “the dread of tyrants”. Perhaps Douglass recognized that tyranny can also come from within each of us and that the atmosphere of our current Cancel Culture that is festering hate on college campuses, in the news media, in politics and even among friends may be the place to start addressing systemic prejudices.

Spare The Rod …

by Leave a Comment

When our early immigrants from Great Britain set up their legal system in New England they did not have prisons and, often, not even jails. What passed for justice included such corporal punishments as standing in the stocks or being bound to the whipping post, usually in the village square and always in public view. That shaming was part of the punishment. Also, it was erroneously believed to reduce recidivism. The great French legal philosopher Paul-Michael Foucault (1926-1984) posited that the “public” part of public punishments was essential to helping eliminate cruel and unusual sentences for crimes.

If a petty thief could have their hands hacked off on the public square, society would more likely be averse to such disproportionate penalties. According to Foucault, modern governments began to remove punishments such as beheadings from public view not out of a concern for general sensibilities but out of a desire to prevent the people from rising up against the government. If the public, through its governmental officials, see fit to physically punish a miscreant, especially a political prisoner, then the public should be witness to the gory spectacle.

Recently, perhaps as a concomitant of the Black Lives Matter phenomenon, such vestiges as public whipping posts are being removed from public lands and moved to museums. The state of Delaware allowed public floggings as criminal punishments until 1972. Now the places where the public could watch as a person was beaten with a cat-o-nine tails are being removed from such places as jail yards and courthouse lawns. Even the memory may be lost.

In 1817 Posey County, Indiana did not yet have a jail but in one of the county’s first criminal jury trials the defendant, one Mr. Green, was found guilty of hog stealing and sentenced to 49 lashes at a post just outside Posey County’s first courthouse which was the living room of Absalom Duckworth’s home.

Under the procedure of 1817 the defendant’s lawyer, Richard Daniels, had the right to immediately petition for a new trial. He did so and Judge Isaac Blackford took a lunch break to consider the motion. During the lunch hour Sheriff John Carson, who either did not know or did not care about the petition for new trial, tied Mr. Green to the whipping post and flogged him without the Judge’s or the attorneys’ knowledge.

When Judge Blackford reconvened court, Attorney Daniels stood and requested a new trial. The Defendant grabbed his attorney by his coattails and said, “For God’s sake, Dick, do stop. I’ve had enough already!” I suppose no one could accuse the legal system of delay in 1817.

I do not condone or recommend corporal punishment as a sanction for criminal behavior. However, I do agree with Foucault; excluding the public from the imposition of Draconian sanctions makes such unfair outcomes more likely. For example, the spectacle of public whippings was legal in Delaware until 1972, but there had not been such a horrific punishment in that state since 1952 when a husband was lashed 20 times for beating his wife. There is no evidence such a sanction affected spousal abuse. But it surely caused citizens to lose respect for their legal system.

A Thousand Words

by 2 Comments

I was born in Pawhuska, Osage County, Oklahoma where I spent my first 19 years (1943-1962). Osage County is adjacent to Tulsa and Tulsa County. The Tulsa race riots of 1921 were never mentioned during my 12 years of public education and one year at Oklahoma State University.

I served as a judge in Mt. Vernon, Posey County, Indiana from 1981-2018. Until March 14, 1990 the lynchings of African Americans that took place on the courthouse campus on October 12, 1878 were unknown to me and never brought to my attention.

Upon being made aware of the Posey County murders I began to search for more complete information. A friend of mine, Glenn Curtis, who was born and raised in Posey County advised me he had seen a photograph of the 4 young Black men hanging from locust trees outside the courthouse door. He told me he remembered the elongated necks, swollen tongues and cue ball sized eyes of the hanging bodies. I have searched for a copy of that photograph since 1990.

October 12, 1878 Mt. Vernon, Indiana Courthouse Campus

My friend, Doug McFadden, who was also born and raised in rural Posey County told me that his grandfather told Doug that the day after the lynchings Doug’s grandfather watched as white citizens used the hanging young Black men for target practice. And while there was no photograph taken of the young Black man Daniel Harrison, Jr. who on October 10, 1878 was burned to death in the fire box of a locomotive in Mt. Vernon, another Posey County native friend of mine, Basil Stratton, told me that his grandfather, Walker Bennet, was an eyewitness. Walker told Basil that as a young boy he was present and saw several white men, including Walker’s father, force Harrison into the steam engine. Basil’s grandfather told Basil he never forgot the Black man’s screams and the smell of his burning flesh.

I have long thought that a photograph of the lynchings might be the evidence needed to finally get a memorial to the victims erected on the Posey County Courthouse campus. And yesterday my friends, Liz and Jeff Miller of Posey County, emailed me a copy of just such a photograph. Jeff and Liz received the copy from our mutual friend and historian, Ray Kessler of Mt. Vernon. Ray told me when we spoke by phone last night that he got the photograph from Karen McBride Christensen of Indianapolis who retrieved the picture from Georgia’s Emory University archives. I do not, as yet, know how it came to be there. Because of its graphic nature I have not attached it to this newspaper article. However, it did call me to reprise an article on race relations I first published July 4, 2005. Gentle Reader, as recent events may lead one to conclude the issues discussed in that article remain raw in our national psyche today, I offer it once more for your consideration.

 

 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO U.S.!

LET’S HAVE A PARTY AND INVITE EVERYONE!

(Week of July 4, 2005)

The United States Supreme Court has occasionally succumbed to popular opinion then later attempted to atone for it.  The Dred Scott (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1892) cases come to mind as examples of institutionalized injustice with the partial remedy of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) being administered many years later.

In Dred Scott, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that American Negroes had no rights which the law was bound to protect as they were non-persons under the U.S. Constitution.

And in Plessy, the Court held that Mr. Plessy could not legally ride in a “whites only” railroad car.  The Court declared that laws that merely create distinctions but not unequal treatment based on race were constitutional.  SEPARATE BUT EQUAL was born.

Our original U.S. Constitution of 1787 disenfranchised women, and recognized only three-fifths of every Black and Native American person, and even that was only for census purposes.  Our Indiana Constitution of 1852 discouraged Negro migration to our state in spite of Posey County Constitutional Convention Delegate, Robert Dale Owen’s, eloquent pleas for fair treatment for all.

Were these documents penned by evil men?  I think not.  They were the result of that omnipotent god of politics, compromise, which is often good, but sometimes is not.  Should you have read this column recently you may recall that I strongly encourage compromise in court, in appropriate cases.

However, as one who grew up in a state where the compromise of the post Civil War judges and politicians led to the legal segregation of schools, restaurants, and public transportation, I can attest that some compromises simply foist the sins of the deal makers onto future generations.

When I was 6 years old, my 7 year old brother, Philip, and I made our first bus trip to our father’s family in southern Oklahoma.

We lived on the Osage Indian Nation in northeastern Oklahoma.  It sounds exotic but our hometown, Pawhuska, looked a lot like any town in Posey County.

In 1950 our parents did not have to worry about sending their children off with strangers except to admonish us not to bother anyone and to always mind our elders.

When mom and dad took us to the MKT&O (Missouri, Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma) bus station it was hot that July day.  Oklahoma in July is like southern Indiana in July, WITHOUT THE SHADE TREES!

My brother and I were thirsty so we raced to the two porcelain water fountains in the shot gun building that was about 40 feet from north to south and 10 feet from east to west.

Phil slid hard on the linoleum floor and beat me to the nearest fountain.  And while I didn’t like losing the contest, since the other fountain was right next to the first one, I stepped to it.

“Jimmy, wait ‘til your brother is finished.  James Marion! I said wait!”  Dad, of course, said nothing. He didn’t need to; we knew that whatever mom said was the law.

 “Mom, I’m thirsty.  Why can’t I get a drink from this one?”

 “Son, look at that sign.  It says ‘colored’.  Philip, quit just hanging on that fountain; let your brother up there.”

Of course, the next thing I wanted to do was use the restroom so I turned towards the four that were crammed into the space for one:  “White Men”, “White Ladies”, “Colored Men”, and “Colored Women”.

After mom inspected us and slicked down my cowlick again, we got on the bus and I “took off a kiting” to the very back.

I beat Phil, but there was a man already sitting on the only bench seat.  I really wanted to lie down on that seat but the man told me I had to go back up front.  And as he was an adult, I followed his instructions.

Philip said, “You can’t sit back there.  That’s for coloreds.  That’s why that colored man said for you to go up front.”

That was the first time I noticed the man was different.  That was, also, the point where the sadness in his eyes and restrained anger in his voice crept into my awareness.

As a friend of mine sometimes says, “No big difference, no big difference, big difference.”

And if all this seems as though it comes from a country far far away and long long ago, Posey County segregated its Black and White school children for almost 100 years after 600,000 men died in the Civil War.  In fact, some of Mt. Vernon’s schools were not fully integrated until after Brown was decided in 1954.

And, whether we have learned from our history or are simply repeating it may depend upon whom we ask.  Our Arab American, Muslim, Black, Native American, and Hispanic citizens, as well as several other “usual suspects”, may think the past is merely prologue.

Sometimes it helps for me to remember what this 4th of July thing is really about.  It’s our country’s birthday party; maybe we should invite everyone.

There is nothing equal about separate.

Is Anyone Listening?

by Leave a Comment

One judge bragged he could look an attorney right in the eye the whole time the attorney was making an argument but never hear a word the lawyer said. In fact, that judge was just like the rest of us. Much of what we appear to hear may as well be a foreign language. We smile and nod but are totally unaffected by much of what others try to convince us. And, of course, we all know very little that we say to others has any hope of convincing them to truly agree with us, even as they nod their heads up and down. If you are married, you might feel the truth, and frustration, of this phenomenon.

It is not just the state of my ability to hear that prevents me, and probably you too, from comprehending what someone in a movie, on television or even someone right next to us in a noisy room is saying. Just as a traffic cop continues politely filling out your citation while he does not consider your reasonable explanation, most of us already have our minds made up about practically everything. Therefore, please do not attempt to confuse us with information on the subject at hand.

In many situations it is not our fault that new facts are irrelevant to our decisions. Take our hypothetical traffic cop for instance. He/she often has but a moment to observe some fleeting situation. He/she may have an ill child or a demanding spouse or be behind on his/her rent. What he/she does not have is the time or inclination to debate with you.

The same thing happens with judges. By the time a case gets to court the judge may have already read the file including briefs and depositions. The judge may have predetermined his/her decision and arguments in court are simply something that must be endured, not listened to. Trial judges often believe that is exactly how appellate court decisions are made.

Regardless of your circumstances, you may feel no one is hearing what you want to say. Actually, others may hear us but they just have their minds made up and the competing demands of our busy lives drive out our ability or desire to reevaluate our positions.

That may be why the same sermons get delivered at almost every religious service and why parents have to constantly admonish their children to do their homework. We hear but we do not listen. We see but we do not comprehend. The constant drumbeat of others attempting to confuse us with their thoughts eventually becomes just so much “sounding brass or tinkling cymbals”. 1 Corinthians 13:1.

So the next time you grab someone’s arm and ask intently, “Are you listening to me?”, you can almost certainly assume they are not. On the other hand, you can hope they will at least smile and politely nod in response.

The New Philadelphia Story

by Leave a Comment

Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant starred in the 1940 movie The Philadelphia Story. The movie was a happy feeling comedy based on divorce and remarriage; all’s well that ends well. The movie was set in Philadelphia and neither legal system failures nor anarchy were anywhere to be found. In the 1940 America of the movies and for those Americans usually depicted in the popular culture and news media of that era there was a symbiotic relationship between the powerful and the populace. But in today’s Philadelphia story of August 15, 2019 there is evidence of the current armed struggle for power among various factions and a lack of respect for the right to have opposing views.

Philadelphia police officers who were attempting to serve an arrest warrant were fired upon by a man wielding an assault rifle. Six officers were shot and after a stand-off of several hours the shooter surrendered. This might sound like the all too familiar genre of a mass shooting. Unfortunately, this incident involved some citizens at the scene taunting the police and a public dispute between U.S. Attorney William McSwain and Philadelphia Prosecuting Attorney Larry Krasner. McSwain was appointed in 2018 by President Trump to represent the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Krasner was elected in 2017 to represent the 26th District of Philadelphia.

Before Krasner was elected he was a criminal defense and civil rights attorney who, according to Wikipedia, “aggressively pursued police misconduct”. McSwain and Krasner have taken divergent approaches to criminal law enforcement. McSwain is conservative and Krasner is liberal. The two public servants see their duties differently. That is not unusual. Such differing philosophies are part of the complicated woof and weave of democracy. It is good to have more than one viewpoint represented in our government. What is not good is interference with the police by those the police are sworn to protect. Nor is it good when public officials do not, at least, accommodate various views of how our legal system should operate.

If our current Philadelphia Story is either a harbinger of worse law enforcement to come or stark evidence of a general desensitization in our culture to respect for our democratic system of government perhaps we should attempt to define the root causes and diagnose effective remedies. Neither of those tasks is simple. There are no silver bullets for complex and confusing conundrums. Of course, just saying it is too rich for the human mind to resolve may be the general societal attitude that brought us to where we are today. But if you, Gentle Reader, have some thoughts on these complicated but important matters you are most welcome to share them. Just check out the website (www.jamesmredwine.com) and, thank you. Perhaps in the next few weeks we might start something worthwhile.