|
|
|
| |||||||
| ||||||||
| Home | Contents | MediaStream ↑News+Blog↑ |
Entities | Newsletters | Book | Philosophy | Photos |
From: Glenn Campbell <familycourtguy[at]gmail.com>
To: Susan Roske [Chief Juvenile Public Defender]
Teresa Lowry [Chief Juvenile District Attorney]
Date: May 17, 2007 7:47 AM
Subject: Problems with Hearing Master Compan
Susan and Teresa --
This is a one-way communication. I don't expect either of you
to respond in any direct way, but maybe you can nudge me
back to center if I have gone off the deep end.
I have grave misgivings about the quality of Process in
Steve Compan's courtroom.
This is something that affects both the P.D. and the D.A.,
because no one benefits when the court process lacks
credibility.
After watching part of a trial last night ([John] Jones v.
Brasier/Robison), I have decided to focus on four fairly
concrete procedural defects, which I have seen again and again:
1) Compan continuously interrupts the closing arguments of
both the State and the Defense. In essence, neither side is
allowed to present closing arguments. What happens instead
is that when either side begins to speak, Compan immediately
starts arguing with them. Neither side gets out more than
one or two sentences of their argument before Compan
intervenes and controls the show from there on. This is not
consistent with my understanding of the adversarial process.
2) Compan issues verdicts that appear arbitrary, because he
doesn't explain his final reasoning. During what should be
closing arguments, he takes over the stage and editorializes
extensively about the evidence, but when he issues his
verdict, it seems to come out of the blue, without any
explanation for why he has disregarded exculpatory evidence or
chosen one witness over another. You might argue that a
judge has no obligation to explain his rulings, but by
giving no rationale he conveys the impression that he has
just flipped a coin or blindly favored the State.
3) Compan unnecessarily yells at, browbeats and humiliates
adjudicated youth and sometimes even lawyers, for no
effective purpose. I might not object to this occasionally
for selected juveniles, but Compan uses humiliation
indiscriminately, even when a kid has clearly learned his
lesson already. When Compan starts yelling, the kid often
has no way out; whatever he says, Compan is going to
belittle him even more for it. Some of these tirades come
off as sadistic. In contrast, I have never heard Leeds or
Voy yell at anyone. They only give the calm warnings that
the law implies. Yelling and humiliation are not good
juvenile justice practice no matter what the kid may have
done.
4) Compan reveals far too much of his personal life when
lecturing each adjudicated kid. These lectures often strike
me as both ineffective and inappropriate[ly] intimate, but from
a more practical standpoint, they seem to seriously delay his
calendar almost every day, forcing unnecessarily long waits
by kids and parents.
Beyond these four points, I have many misgivings about
Compan's overall judgment, maturity and judicial
temperament. I seriously doubt he would have got this job
without Jones juicing him in, and I think his personality is
inappropriate for it. I have decided, however, that it would
be most prudent for me to simply to focus on those four items and
seeing if I can change them -- by force if necessary.
What do I intend to do? I plan to send Compan a "written
warning." This will be a letter describing my four concerns
above -- cc'ed to you and to Voy (but not implying your
involvement in any way).
Of course, I am nobody in the court system, and my rulings
have no force of law. However, if the objectionable
behavior doesn't change, I do have the "power of the
press" -- whatever that may be.
I have learned a lot by studying union procedures for dealing
with personnel problems. An underperforming employee
needs a "Performance Improvement Plan", and every warning
needs to be thoroughly documented. In the organizational
world, when an employee isn't living up to expectations, he
is supposed to be given concrete feedback and an
opportunity to improve, right?
I was ready to write the letter last night, but the cooler
side of my brain prevailed, and I have now decided to wait a
few weeks. As you might have surmised, I don't shy away
from this kind of battle. However, I also have a practical
consideration: My juvenile justice booklet hasn't yet been
approved by the judges, and if I shake things up too much
right now, I might jinx the deal.
Writing the booklet makes me realize even more that there is
a whole separate set of rules for Courtroom 17. Voy is the
gold standard of what a good judge should be, and Leeds just
does the law, but walking into Compan's courtroom is like
walking into a dysfunctional family with a troubled and
egocentric dad in the middle.
Compan himself has had a deeply dysfunctional childhood and his
own history of [addiction], which he does not hesitate to
discuss in court. In effect, each court hearing becomes
a sort of therapy session for him where he has to make
himself the center of attention and assert his power.
Defendants and lawyers are often foils for his troubled
internal drama.
What's most disturbing is that all the lawyers in this
courtroom have had to adapt to this dysfunctional dad. What
kind of professional pride can you have when you can't even
present a closing argument without Dad constantly
interrupting and belittling you? Both D.A. and P.D. have to
suffer this, and it isn't healthy for any of them, let alone
the defendant.
Everyone who resides in this courtroom seems to have
developed some immunity to the bad behavior of the hearing
master, but every time I walk in I am shocked. Nothing like
this happens in any other courtroom I have been in.
As the self-appointed defender of "The Process," I can't let
this continue.
On the other hand, once I embark down this road, it will be
difficult to turn back. My attempts at half-measures haven't worked.
Compan certainly doesn't take hints, so I am going to have to achieve
a higher volume level to get anything done.
I want to make sure I have seen all sides of the question before I act.
Glenn
I didn't mark the email as "confidential," and I expected it to be discussed within each office, but I didn't anticipate the extent to which it would be forwarded around juvenile court. Around May 22, someone gave it to Compan himself. Although it hadn't been my intention, I wasn't upset about Compan receiving this email. It said things that needed to be said, and now that Compan had received it, he had a fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised.
Unfortunately, Compan responded with more aggression.
On May 23, unaware that the email had been given to him, I approached his bench and asked if I could make an appointment to talk with him. I wanted to express to him directly the concerns that I had outlined in my email. He said, "No" and started yelling at me about the email. He used the same tone with me that he used when yelling at defendants and lawyers. He said that I wasn't his boss, the judges were. He then ordered me out of "his" courtroom.
He then began a deliberate campaign to discredit me and sabotage my work in the court. The sordid details aren't necessary here, but I have ample evidence that he sought to have me blocked from all future contracting work for the court.
I feel that he has given me no choice but to publish the original email.
 |
©2005-07, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las
Vegas, NV 89173.
This is an independent and unofficial website. All opinions expressed are those of the webmaster and not any other party. Information conveyed here is accurate to the best of our knowledge but is not guaranteed. You should seek your own independent verification of critical information.
Total page hits at FamilyCourtChronicles.com: |
