North Country Gazette



Judge Hall, Post-Star Team Up To Deny Fair Trial Rights

Posted on Monday, 5 of May , 2008 at 4:34 pm

 COMMENTARY

QUEENSBURY—The Glens Falls Post-Star has become an albatross to the fair administration of justice in Warren County—and so has Warren County Court Judge John S. Hall who seems to forget that as a judge he is supposed to be the impartial arbiter of facts—not an arm of the prosecution.

In Warren County, with the tag team of Hall and Post-Star reporter Don Lehman, it has become more of a Laurel and Hardy show to see who can most egregiously violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Alicia Lewie, 23, of Greenwich, the mother of a baby boy who was beaten to death by her roommate last November, is standing trial this week before Hall to answer charges of second degree manslaughter, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.Lewie’s roommate, Michael Flint Jr., 23, has pleaded guilty to second degree murder in the death of 7-month-old Colbi Bullock and is in Warren County Jail awaiting sentencing on June 4.

Lewie had appeared before Hall last week in a pre-trial hearing but Lehman’s report following in The Post-Star certainly gave no presumption of innocence. The headline screamed that the judge had encouraged Lewie to accept responsibility with Lehman’s account of the hearing saying that Hall has warned her that “judges generally don’t look favorably on those who don’t accept responsibility for their misdeeds”. Sounds like a prejudgment of guilt to us, how about you, of a judge trying to intimidate a defendant into entering a guilty plea.

Such a headline in such a prominent place in the newspaper would certainly tend to prejudice any potential juror. She’s entered no guilty plea  and wants to present her case to a jury—a fair and impartial jury to which she’s constitutionally entitled but which Hall and The Post-Star have tag-teamed to taint.

As the trial opened Monday, prior to jury selection, Lewie’s attorney Michael Keenan rightfully asked Hall to recuse himself based on The Post-Star article and headline but Hall, as most judges so when asked to remove themselves from a case, he denied the request, claimed he could be fair and refused to admit that he was biased or prejudiced. Right. We hear the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale too.

True to form, later Monday The Post-Star editorialized in their report of the situation—hardly an unbiased, objective report—saying that “Hall did not encourage her to plead guilty, instead instructing her about the pitfalls of going to trial”.

When we read the Post-Star headline of last week, we got the same impression that Keenan and no doubt many others did—that Hall had already decided her guilt and was encouraging her to plead guilty and he would give her the least possible time in prison that he could.With Keenan raising the issue on the record, the stage is now set for a constitutional challenge on appeal, should she be found guilty as charged following a jury trial. Both the state and federal Constitutions guarantee all defendants the presumption of innocence before trial—being innocent until proven guilty.The Constitutions states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution which has to collect and present enough proving evidence to convince BOTH the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, in the Lewie case, Hall appears to be just another arm of the district attorney’s office and sadly, there is no presumption of innocence because of Hall and The Post-Star. To say it’s a disservice to our justice system is an understatement.

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system is the holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the crime charged. It is the judge’s job to be the impartial arbiter, no to engineer plea deals, not to try and coerce a pre-trial guilty plea.

In re Oliver (1948) the Supreme Court held that a public trial “has always been recognized as a safeguard against any attempts to employ our courts as instruments of persecution”. The Sixth Amendment prohibits American courts from beginning a modern day version of the Star Chamber.  In Shepherd v. Maxwell (1966) the Supreme Court ruled that too much pretrial publicity can deny the defendant a fair trial.

The Post-Star has in the past and and continues to act more as a public relations tool for law enforcement, but by using unfair and unconstitutional tactics. Critics have long decried the blatantly biased  reporting of Don Lehman, who openly mocks defendants at trials and cozies up to the prosecutors table, trying cases in the headlines and pages in the pages of  The Post-Star, trying tainting jury pools which serves to deny defendants of their constitutional right to a fair trial.  So much for balanced reporting.

On what is becoming an uncomfortable pattern, Judge John Hall has been told by higher courts that he doesn’t have more power than the U.S. Constitution, although he thinks that black robe and gavel make him the highest deity in Warren County.Hall has rapidly become known for his denials of defendant’s constitutional rights and has had sentences and convictions vacated because of his denial of the defendant’s constitutional rights. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/070206HallVacated.html

Hall was overturned by the state Appellate Division, Third Department in the drug case of Clifford Pierre as well as the case of Queensbury Constitutional scholar and activist Von Lindahl. The Appellate Court ruled that Hall had violated Lindahl’s rights by not allowing him the opportunity to testify before a Grand Jury. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/121506LindahlCase.html  http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/102706GunConviction.html

In the case of Warrensburg resident Cale Carpenter, on trial for first degree sexual abuse of an 8-year-old girl and endangering the welfare of a child, a prospective juror made statements during jury selection that cast serious doubt on his ability to be impartial and thereafter, he didn’t give an unequivocal assurance of impartiality. The district attorney’s office even conceded this point in their response brief.

When asked whether he could be impartial, the juror responded, “the more I think about it, no”, adding, “I’ve got little ones”. The defense had exhausted its peremptory challenges and Hall denied the defense’s challenge for cause. The appellate court found Hall’s denial to dismiss the juror to be reversible error and ordered a retrial. Hall also allowed prohibited hearsay medical evidence into the trial which the appellate court ruled must be omitted from any retrial. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_09964.htm 

Carpenter had already served 17 months of the sentence imposed by Hall. Hall has quickly become an icon in Warren County, but not one who personifies reverence and respect but more like a buffoon in a black robe who exhibits blatant disregard for the Constitution and ignorance of even basic concepts of law.John S. Hall personifies every favorable argument against judicial immunity.

He should be stripped of his robes and banished from the bench before he violates the rights of any more defendants and causes any more illegal incarcerations.

Time and time again, he has ignored established constitutional law, established statutory law and seems to make it up as he goes along.

Hall is even at odds at times with the Warren County district attorney’s office with sentencings, the public defender’s office and many defense attorneys. Defendants whose constitutional rights he’s trampled on demand that he be removed from the bench. Voters and taxpayers should be irate that his repeated reversals and apparent lack of knowledge of the law is causing cases to be retried at double the cost and setting the county up for liability claims.

Is Hall protected by judicial immunity? Does he have carte blanche to ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, improperly convict and wrongfully incarcerate individuals? No.

Judges such as Hall have become corrupted with power and as evinced by the cries which are becoming louder and stronger across the nation which are demanding judicial accountability for the growing number of wrongful and illegal judicial acts, often done outside of jurisdiction. Charges of judicial tyranny are gaining strength in numbers.

Warren County Court Judge John Hall and his “judicial acts” need to be placed under a microscope. There’s already been some alleged violations of the state’s Code of Judicial Misconduct and perhaps more review and complaints are warranted. While New York State doesn’t have a provision for recall, Hall is a perfect example of why it should be implemented.

Hall not only violates the rights of defendants who appear before him but his demeanor and acts seriously compromise the Warren County district attorney’s office and law enforcement agencies of the county in their efforts to prosecute and enforce the law. When Hall’s improper actions result in an appeal and ultimately a reversal, it’s at the cost of not only Kate Hogan and her office, but Warren County taxpayers as well. It’s like sending Hogan and her staff into the courtroom arena with one hand tied behind their backs.

Hall was the first Democrat in many years to be reelected to the bench in Warren County, the county would be well served for him to be the first Democrat to be removed. 5-5-08

Category: Adirondacks, Constitution, Courts, Crime, Government, Media, New York State, Opinion, Police, Warren County

COPYRIGHT 2007 - NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of the publisher.