State attorney, chief judge at odds over Duval courthouse

[Tripoli1711]

Stephen-

True point.  Except prosecutors are not isolated from the impact of the administration of justice.  They deal extensively with the victims of crime.  The prosecutor's decisions are often heavily influenced by them.  And by the way, they are the important consideration, not the defendant's family.

I often times felt quite bad for the families of these defendants, but that cannot cloud the judgment of the right thing to do in the case.  Overall though, there are two important flaws in your thinking, even when dealing with victimless crimes.  (well, crimes where 'society' is the victim)

1) You almost immediately become desensitized to the pleas of  mercy from defendants or family.  Do you have any idea just how often you hear a slightly different variation of the same sob story from defendant or family?  Day in and day out, all day every day, it's the same thing said in a slightly different way.  95% of the time it is horseturd.  I defend criminals now.  That's how I now know the story is 95% crap.  All of the emotion may be heartfelt for the 5 minutes before the Judge, but it ends there.  Thus, "seeing the faces of who is touched by the administration of justice" is going to have next-to-no impact on a prosecutor.  It's same shit different day.  I always did my very best to be fair.  I didn't want to hammer people for no reason, but I didn't want to let people get off light.  The puppy dog eyes of a defendant's child doesn't go very far at all when dealing with real crime.  Sure, those eyes may make me think twice about a 30 day sentence instead of 10 or 15 in a multi-offender driving with suspended license case, but when you are dealing with crack distributors or armed robbers, I could give a crap less about the sob stories, and so could everyone else I know who is working there.

2)  In my experience, those close to the "real" defendants (felons of some seriousness) are either totally oblivious or just as guilty in spirit as the defendant.  They either have 0 respect for authority and the system, or they are a poor old grandma who had this kid dumped on them to raise by their irresponsible daughter.  The overwhelming majority fit the same mold.  Those in the 2nd category tend to get it.  You have to put their loved one away.  They typically keep a "what went wrong" or "what can I do" type attitude about it.  Deep down, however, they aren't the ones we are contemplating building a bridge to avoid.  They understand the role of the prosecutor and while it all upsets them, they seem to adopt some understanding of it.  The others are either life-long criminals themselves or they had full knowledge of what their loved one/friend was up to... and didn't give a crap.  You could serve milk and cookies to them and they would still see all cogs in the judicial process as "instruments of justice coming out of the sky".  Because they all share this perverted view of the world that people are out to screw them.  We have your cousin on video with a gun in the clerk's face.  "You lie, you doctored that video".  "He confessed on a jail call to his girlfriend"  "Y'all set him up, she's working with you".    This is the attitude of that very large group of "support" for defendants, and walking past them on the way back to the office isn't going to change their opinion of "the man" nor is it going to change a prosecutor's perspective on how to do their job.

[fsu813]

So has there been a rash of violence on prosecutors walking into courthouses or something? What am I missing?

Sure. A bridge would be a perk. So would a lot of things. This is just a case of a prosecutor trying to secure a perk that she and her department would like very much.

I don't blame her for advocating for it, but the logical answer is "no".

[Tripoli1711]

What point is that?  Prosecutors need to be more touchy-feely and idealistic?  

That isn't the real world.  The system can be too hard on people sometimes.  That was something I always tried to avoid.  What you appear to endorse is substituting emotion for justice.  Yes, all justice has an objective and emotional component but what I gather from you is you would take it much too far.

I struggle to find a more eloquent way of saying it, but I can't so:    You just don't understand because you haven't been there.

Listen, over 90% of the people who actually look at jail time don't give a damn about their kids or their families.  They aren't a good person who just screwed up once.  At least not with me they weren't.  Everything I had discretion on I felt I played it pretty straight.  College kid with a little cocaine?  Bad call, dude, but you don't need a felony or jail time.  4th time around with it?  Different story.  

No.  Most everyone who is actually looking at going to jail for a while is on about their 3rd or 4th instance of selling crack cocaine.  Or they go on burglary streaks knocking off cars and houses.  Or they are on their 4th DUI.

They all come into court with people who rely on them.  Pastors who talk about what a good kid they were (typically upon cross examination, 4-6 years ago was the last time the Pastor saw them in church).  People begging you to keep him out of jail.  We need him.  He provides for us.  He's really good.  He's committed to getting it straight this time... I promise... just this once, pleeease.

Again, trust me, I now orchestrate these performances.  Sometimes they are truly sincere.  Often times they are sincere in their fear of consequences but not much else.

If we cut them a break because somebody loves them, what exactly is that going to do?  "Oh well, you did stab somebody in the neck with a broken beer bottle during a fight, but you fix cars every other weekend and make a few bucks for your kids.. so we won't send you to jail on their account".

Listen, it sucks for the kids and the family, etc... but these people don't want to stay out of jail for their family, they want to stay out of jail for themselves.  If they keep getting a pass, they will keep sticking glass or guns in people's heads.  That is more unacceptable than a sad child.  I'm sorry but it is.  That may make you uncomfortable but it's reality.  If the family gets "punished" by the justice system, don't look at the State, look at the defendant and ask yourself who is in control of whether their family gets "punished".

[danno]

There is a time and place for them to meet face to face.  Probably on the street is not the best.

[Tripoli1711]

Perhaps the reading into it came from what I perceived to be a bit of a swipe at me.  When you say it may be best that it was a "former" job it is somewhat upsetting.  I am very proud of the work that I did and frankly think I was an asset to the fair administration of justice... so I greatly disagreed with it being "better" (for the collective all, I assumed) that I not be doing that job anymore.

I do not think I am nihilistic.  (In fact, I seem to be advocating a moral compass).  If you mean overly skeptical, I don't think I am extremely so.  The mouse can only get shocked so many times before he becomes skeptical of the value of getting that piece of cheese.  I love defending people too.  I often times sympathize with their situation and work like hell to help them out.  In a truly detached sense, however, a person being honest with themselves would not see the system as the problem.  The criminal is almost always the reason his family suffers. 

I may be right-wing on several things, but seriously this isn't one of them.  Like I said, I am more inclined toward leniency than many.  You should never meet my wife, who is a current prosecutor.    But I do not believe sympathy for the defendant's family should cause the justice system to feel guilty when it finds a defendant guilty, nor think twice about advocating for a proper sentence on behalf of a crime victim.

[Tripoli1711]

Well then sorry to get touchy based on miscommunication.

I generally get off rather light.  People think every night at home is a running episode of law & order or something, but it isn't.  The same rules apply for this marriage as any other marriage:  even though i am formally trained to argue and advocate, she's always right.

[Dog Walker]

Stephen,  There are at least two kinds of "humans".  Human beings and human animals.  Frank Herbert in his first Dune novel had an interesting take on the difference.

There are a lot of mixed up human beings in the criminal justice system as well as people who are there because of stupid laws, but there are a lot of human animals in there as well.

[Mad Cowford]

Speaking only for myself, the important reasons for the bridge to me are severalfold:
1.  Prosecutors often travel to court with their testifying victims and witnesses, as well as the families of victims.  These victims are often victims of sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and violent crimes.  Witnesses and victims' families are often concerned for their safety, especially when they know the Defendant or the Defendant's friends/family.  The easier and safer we can make things for them, the better.
2.  Especially during trials, prosecutors will stay late at the courthouse.  I've gotten verdicts as late as 11:00PM.  A couple weeks ago another prosecutor got a murder verdict at 11:45PM.  That's a generally unpleasant time to be walking a couple of blocks back through a poorly lit area after 20-30 of the defendant's friends and family have preceded you. 
3.  Almost every prosecutor is in court a minimum 4 days a week, and many have morning and afternoon court.  We are often transporting sensitive files.  It's not unusual to see misdemeanor attorneys pushing carts with 3-4 buckets loaded with 100 files.  We also have to transport evidence, charts, tech equipment, etc. when necessary.  The further the distance and the worse the weather, the greater an issue this has been. 
4.  Right now prosecutors and prosecution witnesses enter and leave through the same entrances that jurors, defendants, and defense witnesses do.  This has made for a number of awkward and tense interactions.  I've been accosted at and around the courthouse a number of times, though thankfully never directly threatened. 
5.  Until a few years ago, most of the State Attorney's Office was located inside the courthouse and was just an elevator ride down to the courtroom floors.  I don't think that diminished our "public" contact any.  It just made it easier and safer for quick ingress and egress when necessary. 

[JeffreyS]

How about you do not build a suburban campus in the middle of downtown. You could build a 15-20-40 story building that houses everyone with private secure elevators. Oh well I will probably visit our new urban style transportation center more often anyway.

What are sure 5 blocks really, OK scratch the urban style comment.

[Charles Hunter]

The judges are going to have secure facilities - entrances, elevators, corridors, etc. - how many physical threats or attacks have there been on Duval judges?  I say, give the SA the bridge.

[fsu813]

An update:

Duval courthouse plans to have third-floor bridge for prosecutors â€" for now

Jacksonville is moving forward with plans to build a controversial elevated walkway connecting the third floors of the prosecutor’s office and the new Duval County Courthouse.


State Attorney Angela Corey has said connecting the buildings is essential for the safety of her staff, while Chief Circuit Judge Donald Moran calls the $660,000 walkway wasteful.


“There’s nothing wrong with them walking through the door like any other law firm,” Moran said.


The bridge still has to meet budget requirements and Mayor John Peyton has to be convinced of the security need, a city spokeswoman said. But the city needed to make a preliminary decision this month so the courthouse design can accommodate the bridge and, for now, the elevated walkway is in.


Prosecutors’ offices will be in the old federal courthouse, a $20.3 million renovation project about 100 feet from the county courthouse site.


Corey and Moran have differed for months on the need for the skybridge.


For Corey, it’s among her top priorities in the renovation, and Mike Weinstein, her office’s executive director, said you cannot put a price on the safety of employees.


Designs from all four firms in a 2002 competition include a bridge, Weinstein said, so others saw the need for it long before Corey was elected last year.


But, Moran says, those designs came when the Public Defender’s Office was also going to be in the building and before the new courthouse was moved closer to the offices.


“It doesn’t serve functionality, it doesn’t serve durability. It doesn’t serve anything,” Moran said.
The original plans also came when the budget was $190 million and the project was going to be done in 2005.


After budget issues, along with firings of consultants and contractors, the courthouse complex is now at $350 million and set for completion in summer 2012.


Moran said the bridge would also create a security issue because someone will have to staff the doorways to make sure only staff are allowed in.


Weinstein said previously that access will be controlled and everyone visiting the State Attorney’s Office has already been through security at the ground level.


Prosecutors now walk across Market Street between their offices and the courthouse.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-12-07/story/duval_courthouse_plans_to_have_third_floor_bridge_for_prosecutors_%E2%80%94_for_

[reednavy]

Agreed, it is a waste.

[tufsu1]

It is a waste...but coming from Moran, its pot meet kettle

[mtraininjax]

I am sure there will be more things that Moran and Corey will fight about, in public, so I can't wait........Yawn.

[I-10east]

The Courthouse walkway is scheduled to be completed in March.

www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=541661