U.S. Supreme Court Opines on Issues in IRP6 Case - Pt. 1

May 28, 2014

SUMMARY

 

I have sought guidance from written opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) related to the handling of our case by government officials in Colorado.  Opinions from the Supreme Court substantiates that the IRP6 have suffered numerous constitutional violations as both the accused and as private citizen as it relates to concealing and denying access to court transcripts. SCOTUS opined that the IRP6's First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have been violated. Let's review their findings together.

 

The Sixth Amendment reads "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and PUBLIC trial. The Court Reporter's Act is rooted in the Sixth Amendment given that the court reporter is required under the act to promptly "file [original shorthand notes and original records] with the clerk of court who shall preserve them in the PUBLIC RECORDS of the court for not less than 10 years." The Act further states that "the original notes and other original [unedited] records and a copy of the transcript in the office of the clerk shall be open during office hours to inspection by any person." 

 

WISDOM OF SCOTUS

 

In the case of Gannett Co. v. Depasquale 443 U.S. 368 (1979), SCOTUS provides a thorough analysis regarding the IRP6's and the public's right to a public trial.

 

"This provision [Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial] reflects the tradition of our system of criminal justice that a trial is a 'PUBLIC event' and that what transpires in the court room is PUBLIC PROPERTY. And it reflects, as well, ‘the notion, deeply rooted in the common law that justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.

 

More importantly, the requirement that a trial of a criminal case be PUBLIC embodies our belief that secret judicial proceedings would be a menace to liberty.  The PUBLIC trial is rooted in the principle that justice cannot survive behind walls of silence...This Nation's accepted practice of providing open trials in both federal and state courts has always been recognized as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of PUBLIC OPINION is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.

 

The PUBLIC trial guarantee, moreover, ensures that not only judges but all participants in the criminal justice system are subjected to public scrutiny as they conduct the public's business of prosecuting crime. This PUBLICITY ‘guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.’ PUBLICITY ‘serves to guarantee the fairness of trials and to bring to bear the beneficial effects of public scrutiny upon the administration of justice.’ ‘The commission of crime, prosecutions resulting from it, and judicial proceedings arising from the prosecutions...are without question events of legitimate concern to the PUBLIC.  Indeed, such information is ‘of critical importance to our type of government in which the citizenry is the final judge of the proper conduct of public business.’

 

‘Secret hearings-though they be scrupulously fair in reality are suspect by nature. PUBLIC confidence cannot long be maintained where important judicial decisions are made behind closed doors and then announced in conclusive terms to the public, with the record supporting the court's decision sealed from PUBLIC view.’ The ability of the courts to administer the criminal laws depends in no small part on the confidence of the PUBLIC in judicial remedies, and on respect for and acquaintance with the processes and deliberations of those courts. 6 Wigmore, Section 1834, at 438. Anything that impairs the open nature of judicial proceedings threatens to undermine the confidence and to impede the ability of the courts to function...I therefore conclude that the Due Process Clause of the [Fifth] Amendment, insofar as it incorporates the PUBLIC trial provision of the Sixth Amendment, prohibits...excluding the PUBLIC from a proceeding within the ambit of the Six Amendment's guarantee without affording full and fair consideration to the PUBLIC's interest in maintaining an open proceeding.”

 

FINAL THOUGHTS & CONCLUSIONS

 

Concealing and denying the IRP6 and the public the complete original shorthand notes and original [unedited] transcripts is equivalent to holding a secret trial and a violation of our Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. SCOTUS explained in clear and concise language that we have a right to publically criticize and scrutinize the actions of both our judicial officials and the fairness of our judicial processes. When the Colorado and mainstream media refused to give credence to our injustice, we took our cause to the Internet to raise awareness. We feel we have been denied a fair trial and are being unjustly persecuted by the American justice system and we therefore seek to publically challenge the judicial processes and the delayed administration of justice that keeps us wrongly incarcerated over the past 22 months. Judge R. Brooke Jackson taking judicial notice in a civil proceeding related to the transcript by justice advocacy organization, A Just Cause, and issuing his opinion and findings does not abrogate our right to review court transcripts as a citizen and the accused. Justice cannot satisfy the appearance of justice when public records are being hidden from public view in violation of the law and the Constitution.  We and the public have right to conduct our own comprehensive review to draw our own conclusions of whether we should have faith and confidence in those who are responsible for “perform[ing] the high function of justice in the best way, [to ensure that] justice satisfies the appearance of justice" as stated by SCOTUS in Offutt v. United States 348 U.S. 11 (1954)

 

“Because the courts control neither the purse nor the sword, their authority ultimately rests on PUBLIC FAITH in those who don the robe” Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 536 U.S. 765 (2002)

 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion in the SCOTUS case Press Enterprise v. Superior Ct. of California, 478 U.S. 1, discussed with solemnity the people's right to judge the judicial process by stating: ‘it would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and importance to the people that the manner in which criminal trials are conducted.’

 

Stay tuned for Part 2 of U.S. Supreme Court Opines on Issues in IRP6 Case where I discuss the First Amendment right of access to the courts for the IRP6 and the public.

 

 

 

Please reload

Featured Posts

How Negative Word of Mouth Impacts the Criminal Justice System and Self-Radicalization

February 23, 2016

1/5
Please reload

Recent Posts

October 29, 2014

Please reload