And justice for all?

In order to reveal some of the broken aspects of the justice system, I'd like to share some of the experiences in my legal sojourn.

In my case, I took a plea for two charges, one had a mandatory sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison, the other was 5 to 15 years but had probation available. In preparing for my case, the prosecutor had presented evidence that was inconsistent at best, and blatantly untrue at worst. I pointed this out to my lawyer, who basically dismissed it as "unimportant." Well, as it turned out, this was not only the primary factor, but the only factor that the judge cited in the "partially mitigated" sentence of 7.5 years.

There was a long list of mitigating factors, including the lack of criminal history, my work in the community, my remorse, and my network of supportive family and friends, and a psychological exam showing little risk to act out. The aggravating factor was the number of images – which was unsubstantiated. The "evidence" was a computer program that looked through the computer to find " known or suspected" examples of potential child porn. The prosecution cited them all as confirmed examples, and suggested that perhaps there were more, with no evidence to back that claim.

So I submitted an appeal with the assistance of a public defender. I did not and do not claim innocence in the charges. But I maintained that the "aggravating" factor was not accurate. Well, the public defender also omitted this in the appeal and took a different approach.

The amazing and incredulous aspect of this, however, is that the only people to look at and decide on this "appeal" were the very same prosecutor and the very same judge that sentenced me in the first place. So in an attempt two points out any bias, inconsistencies, or mistakes in judgment, the decision falls to the very same people who are suspected or accused of those deficiencies. Will, needless to say, they disagreed and denied my appeal. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the whole purpose of an appeal is to provide a new objective perspective on a case as a means of checks and balances. I'm sure it comes as little surprise that a minuscule number of cases are ever granted any form of relief in this process.

I am now on the journey of having the state court of appeals view my case, but I must do so without legal representation. I'm on my own. This difficulty is greatly exacerbated by the fact that I have extremely limited access to legal resources in our library. The few resources that are available are in high demand and library hours are extremely limited. These resources are also written in a "legal speak" designed for a knowledgeable attorney. The Arizona Dept of Corrections maintains that this scenario satisfies the constitutional rights of inmates to have access to legal material.

So overall, I am far from optimistic as to the outcome of my legal journey. I have learned much and continue to study about the legal system. I once thought that the objective was to give a defendant a fair and balanced trial. I have learned that there are a myriad of obstacles to that end. In my current appeals process, I am significantly limited to what objections or facts can be raised based on previous trials. I have also learned there are a number of statutes and policies that protect a prosecutor from a potential "wrongdoing."

I should also point out that the defendant has significantly more options if they do not sign a plea bargain, yet the system will apply significant pressure to take a plea. In my case, I was looking at 100 to 300 years if I went to trial and lost. The plea appears to be a "no brainer," but I implore anyone in a legal battle to seek resources and information aside from the lawyer's counsel. In my situation, I believe it made sense, and I know I was guilty, but be aware of the limitations it provides. Above all, do not trust the system to make any attempts to do anything on your behalf. This system wants you to be charged, to generate more income for the state, and to boost statistics as to what a fine job they are doing to protect society. The truth is not important.

This is not merely a "sour grapes" whiny lamentation of my personal situation. I see these scenarios again and again, and have heard similar sentiments from legal representatives, probation officers, pretrial case managers, and in several research articles and publications. I think it's important that people realize this reality, and I hope none of you or your loved one's ever has to go through such a process.