Open court, open records
A small piece of the internal workings of a newspaper and, occasionally, how we spend our money:
Late Friday afternoon, court reporter Eric Collins and his editor, Janet Brindle, came to me to say that the public defender on this case had filed a motion to close the courtroom when evidence is presented pertaining to the health of the suspect, Eric Booker. Given that the case centered on the accusation that Booker intentionally bit a police officer to infect the officer with the HIV virus, his health is pertinent. And we wanted to hear the testimony.
We called our attorney -- we actually reached him after 5 p.m. on Friday! -- and he prepared a motion requesting the trial be open to the public. Interestingly, state law does allow a judge to essentially close a trial during such testimony. But it is no secret that Booker allegedly is infected. It was in the indictment, and we reported it in our first story about the case last year. Our attorney filed the motion Monday morning.
As it turned out, Booker pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and the original motion to close the hearing ended up being moot. As a result, our motion wasn't heard. We still consider it money well-spent, even though I suspect our attorney, Alan Duncan, probably doesn't need it. (That's a little joke, Alan.)
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Your lawyer filed a motion to open the record & courtroom on case case where the facts were already public record - a case where the defendant ultimately pled out on a lesser charge.
All hail investigative journalism.
This weekend, my Mom (who still takes your paper) told me about a story (which I have been unable to pull up on the N&R website) in which local prosecutors offered up excuses for not prosecuting perjury. Apparently, as crimes go, it's not considered "important" in the grand scheme of things.
I guess they all missed that class on US Code and NC General Statute in prosecutor law school. Yes indee, the law says a lot. But it has to be enforced.
The very credibility of our justice system depends on the fear of lying under Oath - if not for the fear of God, then the fear of the state and its "penalty of perjury". The crime has no statute of limitations because at some point someone somewhere considered it a very serious offense. But, in reality, there is no "penalty" for perjury - unless you are Martha Stewart or Lil'Kim and the prosecutor wants to make a name for him/herself.
Here's a great example (well, maybe not for the N&R's editorial board). My website, http://www.asheboropediatrics.com posts a criminal complaint that was first brought to the attention of the Randolph County District Attorney back in 2003. Very well-paid (haha) Randolph Hospital administrators (using the public's dime to pay the lawyers by the way) bent and broke the law in order to drive a Pediatrician out of town after she did her job. OBTW, this doctor (and her partner) got state and federal loan repayment to come home and start a practice, so all of that taxpayer money was poured down the drain when they left town.
These fine upstanding community-minded gentlemen then used the law as a weapon to destroy the physician . . . and when that did not work, they lied and lied and lied some more (under Oath) to cover their tails and save their hospital some money (liability for their gross negligence). It's perjury, it's contempt, it's fraud. But hey. No big deal. We're only talking about one doctor. Why should she expect to be able to rely on the law?
Now, one of these fine gentlemen has been appointed by the Asheboro City Council to help guide the city into its future. It does not matter at all that he has been caught red-handed lying and cheating. He hasn't been sanctioned or fired - and, as things stand, his golden parachute is intact. The doctor whose life and career he trashed is still eeking out a living on the road. It's a great lesson for the kiddies about the way our system of justice and government really works.
Where is the N&R . . . and its reporters . . . and its lawyers on this case? In your push for open government and ethics and more accountability (I believe you call it "the public's right to know" - except for Danish cartoons), do you not think that prosecuting perjury (especially if the DA has a victim of the crime jumping up and down and pleading for help) is important? I mean, Oprah ripped an author to pieces on her show for the "truthiness" of his memoirs (it probably sold more books and boosted her ratings). Randolph Hospital takes great pains to tout its connections and "cooperative relationship" with Greensboro's Moses Cone. So why isn't any of this "civically relevent"?
I wish I did understand the inner workings of your newspaper.
Posted on March 7, 2006 1:28 PM