District attorney violates spirit of open judiciary
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
8 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Compassion for murder victim Sally Blackwell's family is understandable and commendable. Victoria County District Attorney Stephen Tyler, however, took that compassion too far by trying to keep the public in the dark about the plea-bargain hearing for suspect Jeffrey Grimsinger earlier this month.
Sheriff T. Michael O'Connor took some heat unfairly for pointing out that Tyler went to inappropriate lengths to keep the hearingso quiet that eventhe sheriff didn't know about the case'sresolution. The Sixth Amendment to theConstitution guarantees defendants the right to a speedy and public trial.
Through his actions, the district attorney violated the spirit of an open judiciary. Local media might not even have been aware of the case, if they hadn't received tips through other sources. The public would have been justifiably outraged to have only after-the-fact reporting of a case that held high community interest. As it was, the district attorney's actions served to prevent media from outside Victoria from cover ing the proceedings. While that actually might benefit this newspaper sometimes, the principle of open government is more important than any self-interest.
Tyler campaigned on the promise of being a prosecutor, not a politician. Attempts to control the media smack more of political maneuvering. Almost all cases should be posted on public dockets and held in open court. The public and its representatives in the media need to scrutinize the court system and all other branches of government.
Tyler's campaign last year benefited from criticism his predecessor, Dexter Eaves, received for how he handled a case in June 2003. In the sentencing of Department of Public Safety Trooper Roy Gonzales, Eaves waved an Advocate reporter out of the courtroom. Eaves said then that he wanted to preserve the dignity of the defendant and didn't want to turn the sentencing into a spectacle.
The public had little sympathy for protecting a defendant being sentenced for official oppression. Even though everyone has much more compassion for a murder victim's family, the principle of open government remains the same. It's not the role of prosecutors to decide what the public should and should not know about court proceedings. Their job is to uphold both the letter and spirit of the law.
Imagine if Tyler decided to schedule an impromptu plea hearing for his former chief of staff, Michael Ratcliff, who is accused of sexual misconduct with a teenage boy. Already, the public is clamoring for the district attorney to appoint a special prosecutor in the case. If Tyler is unable to see the conflict of interest he has in prosecuting this case, he might well decide he wants to avoid a media circus when resolving it.
The sheriff expressed correctly his anger with how Tyler handled the Grimsinger hearing. The district attorney would be well-advised to reconsider his approach in future proceedings.
Even when well-intentioned, public officials get into trouble when they ignore the checks and balances that are the foundation for a democracy.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
8 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
steve is doing a good job. steve is following the law to the letter.
August 14, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.The Advocate needs to worry about todays news that going on and do not worry about the past.
June 1, 2009 at 8:59 a.m.The item printed in today's editorial page is Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down. You can also read recent editorials here - Click here for Editorial section -
If you look at the date on this story you are commenting on (Click View Story) you will see the original print date is January 27, 2008. As far as I know, this was not printed in today's edition. I do see it on the front page of our online site, listed under Most Clicked.
December 13, 2008 at 12:46 p.m.WHAT IN THE WORLD???
What is this crap?....was this a mistake?
This whole incident is long ago over and forgotten and now this old editorial pops up defending our illustrious moustache challenged sheriff for his infantile and inappropriate behavior in a case from month's ago.
This has to be an error.
First of all in any murder case.....without a doubt, the feelings of the family of the murdered person should be first and foremost as long as they don't interfere with the trial or legalities.
This family requested an "out of the limelight" resolution and agreed with the plea bargain. They also publically criticized the Bedroll Toting Sheriff for his horrible behavior and grandstanding which showed a total disrespect for the victim's family and a massive degree of self-absorbtion on the part of the sheriff.
There is no question, the sheriff's behavior was inappropriate and the D.A.'s respect for the wishes of the family is admirable.
Perhaps the sheriff is pushing for some positive press? If so he is just dragging up an incident that made him look very bad.
December 13, 2008 at 11:47 a.m.I was thinking the same thing. Yesterday's Caller-Times had "Letters to the Editor" from weeks and months past and now the Advocate is printing an editorial that is almost a year old. What in Heaven's name is going on?
December 13, 2008 at 7:27 a.m.Why is the Advocate running an editorial from almost a year ago? Can't we all just enjoy the peace and quiet over the DA controversies while they last? Is this an attempt to keep the controversial fires burning in the public conscience? If so, I would just as soon let sleeping dogs lie.
December 13, 2008 at 7:17 a.m.