subject: Okay, I'll Call You The State If You Call Me Santa [print this page] . That is my attitude when I am in a good mood. This particular judge may have seen me enjoying that status, but he never did anything to inspire it.
My client had been charged with a DUI, which is legalese for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol ratio. It is a serious crime, and the fact that my client got picked up for possession of wacky tobacco the next week did not help her application for the citizen of the year award.
She went to court on these two charges and was given a suspended sentence on the "DUI" and a conditional discharge for the green leafy substance rap. Her suspension for the DUI was revoked, and she served the time for it. She was released, and went home thinking the whole nightmare was behind her.
A few days after she got home, the sheriff invited her to return to jail. There was a small matter of the conditional discharge that had been overlooked when she was released. She had violated her probation, and had to serve the suspended time for the marijuana charge, too. Instead of accepting the sheriff's offer, of free room and board, she came to see me.
I filed what is called a "motion to modify sentence for her." Among the facts I cited for relief is that the reason she had been revoked originally was that she tested 001 in her pre-jail alcohol screening, when she reported for 1 of the 5 weekends she was supposed to serve as a term of her probation under her original sentence. That isn't a lot. In fact, you need a .08 to be considered too drunk to drive here.
The prosecutor wasn't willing to change the sentence. He was afraid being reasonable about it would "set a precedent." This is gov-speak for "we wouldn't want someone else to have the right to fight a shockingly unjust sentence in the future because we might have to justify our own stupidity." Okay, that's just one person's interpretation, and that one person gets mad every time she thinks about the situation. But, what the heck! She's right!
Of course, the judge wasn't any more reasonable. Even though she had already served 2 months for the breathelizer's very low alcohol reading, the judge wouldn't be able to sleep at night unless she did the additional time for her "conditional" discharge.
So, you have a situation where she was at less than 1/10 of 1% which is 7.9 points less than the amount needed to be driving illegally, and she ended up in jail for 5 months for something she didn't do which was drink. She feels it is possible that the soy sauce she used or some candy she ate may have given a reading. Frankly, I think the breathalyzer was a bit out of kilter.
I made the mistake of pointing these facts out to the judge, which only honked him off. I tried to convince him that it was nothing personal. Its just that the full force of the law seemed a little much in this instance. I hoped Indiana didn't want to jail her denizens for such a petty violation of her oh so just laws.
The judge yelled that he WAS the state, and if I thought differently, I was very near committing contempt. I tried again to explain that it wasn't personal. I was just asking for mercy. After all, sending the lady back to jail wasn't justified, and the judge did have jurisdiction and authority to modify her sentence.
"I AM the STATE, Miss Uttermohlen!" he roared again.
My poor client had to serve the time. My questions are:
What possible benefit does society gain when one of us citizens are treated so harshly? Shouldn't there be room to reconsider results when they are so far out of line with what is being punished? After all, even one drink would have netted a higher reading unless the breathalyzer was way out of whack. Even if a defendant, say, took a swig of cough medicine or mouthwash, before going to jail, the reading would have been higher. It is more likely that the breathalyzer itself was to blame, than that even soy sauce or candy was at fault..
Shouldn't a judge be allowed to, nay, expected to use a little common sense? In any event, if he is, as he said, "The State," I'm moving to Illinois. At least their corrupt officials are open about it.
