• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

James M. Redwine

  • Books
  • Columns
  • 1878 Lynchings/Pogrom
  • Events
  • About

legal system

Distancing

May 28, 2021 by Peg Leave a Comment

President Lincoln reportedly used to occasionally sit on the back steps of the White House and talk to old friends who might just drop by. President Truman used to play poker at his Key West, Florida White House with ordinary folks. President Jackson invited the hoi polloi to his inauguration and they came and trashed the White House. There was a time America’s leaders thought of Americans as equals, or at least not as persona non grata. Now there are fences and armed guards at the White House and the only time a president makes personal contact with Americans is to have a photo op. Democracy is now pretty much non-democratic.

Our politicians often ascribe the responsibility for this metamorphosis to need for security, that is, fear of contact with us. I suggest it has more to do with their desire to just pick up their tax payor funded paychecks while being left alone. Kind of like getting COVID-19 checks not to work. Anyway, my experience in working for the public has been that it has not been a concern for my security or anyone else’s that has brought about such distance between public servants and the public. But it comes more from a realization that there simply is very little difference between those who control the government and those who are controlled by it, and the controllers are afraid that will be found out. At least that is true with the judicial branch and the legal system. I invite you, Gentle Reader, to return with me to at least one incident from those “thrilling days of yesteryear” to help me illustrate my concerns about the loss of direct connection to our office holders.

When the State of Indiana used justices of the peace to process most minor legal matters such as driving offenses and small civil claims, the “courts” were often held in the homes or store fronts owned by the justices. One would appear before some non-formally trained person who would dispense justice in a relaxed atmosphere and at little cost. Then we “improved” the system by requiring legally educated and licensed judges and publicly financed court facilities. Everything became more complex, costlier and more distant.

In Posey County, Indiana the County Court that replaced the Justice of the Peace system in 1975 was jammed into a portion of the 1927 Memorial Coliseum Building. The original coliseum was built as a community center. It had a swimming pool, a gymnasium, a stage for shows and a pool table. The new County Court, including the judge’s chamber, took up three small rooms next to where the pool table was. And another feature was the closet in the approximately 20-foot by 30-foot courtroom where the Daughters of the American Revolution ladies kept their regalia to be used in their meetings that also were held in the courtroom.

When I was the Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Posey County, 1976-1978, I tried six-person jury trials in that courtroom. As we had no separate jury room we would try a case then leave the jury in the courtroom alone to deliberate on their verdict. Everyone in the courtroom could reach out and almost touch everyone else. Of course, there was little pretense of confidentiality. I know it sounds bizarre but it worked okay and no one, including the judge and the attorneys, could arrogate themselves into special status. Please let me tell you about one of my favorite cases from that halcyon time.

I was a little younger then and one of the cases I prosecuted involved a misdemeanor charge against a Billy ______ who was about my age. Billy represented himself in the jury trial. After Billy and I traded accusations and insults during final arguments the judge gave the case to the jury then ordered the courtroom cleared except for the jury. Billy and I stepped out to the adjoining room where both a soft-drink machine and the pool table were located.

As we attempted to ignore one another, Billy turned to me and said, “Hey, Jim, do you play pool?” As I grew up in Pawhuska, Oklahoma at a time when the only thing other than the ball field was the pool hall, of course I played pool.

“Yeah, Billy, I play pool and I can beat you at that too. By the way, I thought you did okay in court, but be prepared for the gavel to fall.” I was much more sure of myself then.

“Jim, do you want to put anything on the pool game?”

“No, Billy, that would be illegal; go ahead and break.” I did not mention that a portion of my tuition at Oklahoma State University came from non-legal lucre.

Well, we played as the jury was busy deciding they didn’t care if I thought Billy was a menace to society; they sided with Billy. Since that trial Billy and I have had several contacts of the legal variety and you may note Billy is still playing pool but now my pool table is in my barn.

In my opinion, America could use a reprise of some of that by-gone legal system where the people who are processed and those who do the processing are not separated by layers of convolution. As Eva Peron might say, ♫ I’ll keep my promise, don’t keep your distance.” ♫

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: America, COVID-19, Democracy, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, Pawhuska, Posey County Tagged With: County Court, Eva Peron, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, judicial branch, justice of the peace, Key West Florida, legal system, loss of direct connection to public servants, Memorial Coliseum, Pawhuska, pool table, Posey County, President Lincoln, President Truman, State of Indiana, White House

The Constitutional Convention and Cable News

September 29, 2017 by Peg 1 Comment

The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787. The delegates kept the proceedings secret to avoid, “licentious publications of their proceedings.” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, stated that no Constitution would have ever been adopted if the debates had been public. Remarkably, for four months the secrecy was maintained.

Can you imagine the motives CNN, FOX and MSNBC would have projected upon George Washington, et. al.? No delegate would have escaped the allegations of lying or even treason to the Revolution.

But inside the Convention the fifty-five delegates, half of whom were lawyers, debated the most volatile issues of the day. Slavery, whether we would have one-man-one-vote or an electoral college, large states versus small states, foreign attachments, the establishment of courts, provision for national defense and many others. How did they do it?

Of course, I do not know. However, I am pretty sure no one was called a liar for stating his views and no one was ascribed venal motives. Most likely George Washington as the presiding officer of the Convention made sure each delegate had an opportunity to present his views and everyone else had an opportunity to respond.

Maybe it is because I am a judge and once practiced law but it seems likely to me the Constitutional Convention proceeded much as a court case. First an issue would be brought up, States’ Rights for example, then each delegate who wished to would state his position. Then, after extensive but civilized debate a vote would be taken.

This time honored approach to resolving controversies has served the legal system and America well for over two hundred years. First define the issues for resolution, a criminal trial for example, then allow each side to fully present their views without threats or name-calling.

I humbly suggest this same respectful approach will work in every conversation from government to individuals. Shouting down or using force to prevent those one disagrees with from speaking will not result in the kind of result we achieved in 1787.

As I was writing this column I received an email and an attachment from my friend Jerry Wade of New Harmony, Indiana who used to live in New York City and who still subscribes to the New York Times.

Jerry must have been really bored recently because he has obviously been following my column about our country’s increasingly uncivil discourse. Jerry sent me an article by Bret Stephens that appeared as an opinion editorial in The Times. It contained an excellent analysis of the current climate surrounding “Freedom of Speech”, a.k.a., “If you don’t agree with me, you must be crazy!”

I will share a small portion of Stephens’ article with you.

“We disagree about racial issues, bathroom policy, health care laws and, of course, the 45th president. We express our disagreements in radio and cable rants in ways that are increasingly virulent; street and campus protests that are increasingly violent; and personal conversations that are increasingly embittering.”

Stephens does suggest a solution:

“… [T]o disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

In other words, to have productive intellectual discourse we have to first concentrate on being civil.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Gavel Gamut, Judicial, Language, Law, News Media, Slavery Tagged With: civilized debate, CNN, Constitutional Convention, electoral college, establishment of courts, Father of the Constitution, fifty-five delegates, foreign attachments, FOX, George Washington, issue for resolution, James M. Redwine, James Madison, Jim Redwine, large state versus small state, lawyers, legal system, licentious publications, MSNBC, one-man-one-vote, Philadelphia, present views without threat or name-calling, provision for national defense, Revolution, slavery, States' Rights

Do Right While We Help Ourselves

August 12, 2017 by Peg Leave a Comment

If you read last week’s column (hey, I can dream can’t I), you know I am preparing to help the National Judicial College teach Rural Court Judges. Last week we talked about the theory that our law arises from our history and culture, our Volksgeist. Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935) put it, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience”.

Posey County, Indiana has produced several influential thinkers on what our law should be and do, that is, what is the proper purpose of our legal system? Our most famous citizen was and still is Alvin P. Hovey (1821–1891). Hovey was an attorney, a Posey Circuit Court judge, a general and the only governor to ever come from Posey County (1889–1891). He also sat on the Indiana Supreme Court when it decided a poor person was entitled to the same protection of our laws as a rich person.

Another of our famous predecessors was the brilliant and courageous Frances (Mad Fanny) Wright (1795–1852) who gave her entire adult life to an effort to free slaves and secure equal rights for women. Unfortunately, her good deeds were often overshadowed by her lifestyle. Still she fought for those who could not fight for themselves.

Frances Wright’s companion and fellow traveler was former Congressman Robert Dale Owen (1801–1877). Owen knew Abraham Lincoln from having served in Congress in 1843–1847 while Lincoln served in Congress 1847–1849. Owen’s 1863 letter to Lincoln urging him to free the slaves is credited with influencing the President to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

Robert Owen and Alvin Hovey were also Posey County’s delegates to the Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1850–1852 that produced our 1852 Constitution in which our legal system demands fair and equal treatment regardless of a person’s ability to pay. The Preamble sets forth the first principle of our government is to establish justice and, as set forth in Article I, “That all people are created equal”.

Article I, Section 12, guarantees equal justice to rich and poor alike: 

“All courts shall be open and every person for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.” 

While there are many reasons we need justice from our legal system, I suggest the two most important areas concern whether our government wants to lock us up or take away our children. Of course, there are many wealthy people who are charged with crimes and even some wealthy people who the rest of us believe should lose their children to state care. However, it is simply a fact that most people who go to jail are poor as are most parents whose children are removed by the courts.

It is usually the poor and powerless who are caught up in the terrifying, confusing and expensive legal system. And frequently these poor people are not highly educated nor do they have friends in high places. They need help and both Indiana and federal law guarantee that help to them, including representation by an attorney. If the rest of us want to lock someone up or take away their children, the least we can do is follow the law ourselves and provide these people with legal assistance as our Constitutions demand. This is not only required by law, fair, just and reasonable, it is good for all of us. If the innocent are not locked up or the guilty are fairly sentenced or children are not removed when unnecessary or when necessary are removed carefully and with efforts to help the children and the parents, such justice is in our own self interest. In other words, not only is it right, it is smart and in the long run saves us money as it helps people recover so they may contribute to society. And it helps families remain united or reunite.

If we can spend trillions on matters beyond our borders, we should not be mean-spirited and self-destructive with our own citizens. Plus, it complies with the law, especially those state and federal Constitutions some of us are fond of saying we revere.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: America, Circuit Court, Democracy, Gavel Gamut, Internet class, Judicial, Law, National Judicial College, Posey County, Rule of Law Tagged With: Abraham Lincoln, Alvin P. Hovey, Congress, Congressman Robert Dale Owen, Emancipation Proclamation, equal rights for women, fair and equal treatment regardless of person's ability to pay, fair just and reasonable, Frances (Mad Fanny) Wright, free slaves, general and governor from Posey County, Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1852, Indiana Supreme Court, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, legal system, National Judicial College, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., poor people, Posey Circuit Court Judge, Posey County Indiana, required by law, Rural Courts Judges, volksgeist, wealthy people

© 2022 James M. Redwine