Court Operations Oversight

Show Table of Contents Hide Table of Contents 

Latest News

Background

I started this project mainly as a placeholder right now, to record any issues we notice about court procedures that may need further investigation.

Jovan Jackson "obfuscation"

Jovan Jackson was involved in operating a dispensary, Answerdam. He was arrested for selling marijuana, although he did not actually sell it himself and it was in a dispensary and only to people with physician paperwork. He was cleared in a first case, but then brought back to trial in a second case. In the second case, they did not allow the defense to mention that running a dispensary was legal when he was arrested. I went to the courthouse to see this case but I did not have the department where the case would be heard.

I first walked down the hall and looked for paperwork next to the door of each hearing room. It was actually in Dept. 15, but at that location they had installed metal detector screening equipment so it would not be possible to get to the display case next to the door or look in without going through the secondary screening.

I went to the clerk of the court to look up the case. I had Jackson's name. The clerk first asked me if I knew his birthday. Huh? I was able to look at the screen and give her the birthday that was listed. Then, she said she found it, but there was nothing listed except 5 days earlier. I checked with my assistant by phone and she gave me the case number, and they still could not find it. I walked around for a while, but did not look into the courtroom where it was being held because of the security on the outside. I was leaving the courthouse and I noticed a fellow in the wheelchair who I had met at the ASA meeting the day before, and I recognized him and asked him about the case. He said it was in Dept 15 and we walked (rolled) up together.

Later, I went back down to ask the clerk about it. First, I asked if they had a list of all the cases being tried that day. "We don't have that sort of list, our computers are very old and we just can't make a master list." Okay, so I then asked for the supervisor. She said that again, the case was not being heard. Then she went back, talked on the phone and worked on the computer, came back, and said that indeed, it was in Dept. 15. I asked the first woman why she could not find it, and she said that maybe she didn't go to that screen, but now it shows up.

I asked the security guards if there was any conceivable way anyone could get a weapon into the facility, since there is security at the main entrance... why do they have the extra level of security? They said they did not know, they just do what the judge wants.

It is clear to me that they desperately want to limit the number of people that show up for this case.

I was a bit disappointed also that the judge took the entire discussion of the jury instructions off the record, and proceeded to carry on lengthy discussions with the attorneys about what they wanted in and out, only opting for one detail to be put on the record, and then dismissing the court recorder completely. I have a feeling that was to limit the Judge's liability in the case regarding what the instructions were, because the discussion about what to put in or out would be very important for any challenge to the case in an appeal. The attorney for Jackson should not have agreed to taking it off the record, in my opinion, and I think it limits the ability of the public to review the cases if they do this, plus do not allow any recording devices, etc.

Images

Timeline

• dd mmm 2008 - Description

Recent Articles and Media: (Add | All Media)

This is the most recently published 20 articles, most recent first.

Discussion List

See List Serve for all email discussion lists and to add more.

Comments