CASE STUDY: COURT PROCESS INTRODUCTION For this simulation, imagine that you are a police officer who has applied for a position in the Gang Unit. Your sergeant has recommended you for the job, but she has warned you that there are a number of highly qualified candidates. She suggests that you prepare for the interview by reviewing the criminal justice approaches and theories that are utilized in addressing gang violence. During the interview, you will need to answer some challenging questions about the current and future directions of law enforcement for the Gang Unit. HISTORY OVERVIEW In the early years, the court system approached offenders of gang-related crimes much as they treated all youth in the court system. Their cases went through juvenile court, and there was a focus on rehabilitation and intervention. Juveniles attended court with their parents or guardians. They were seen by juvenile judges who specialized in the relevant area of the law. Trials were held in informal rooms rather than in courtrooms. Juveniles and their parents were kept together as a family unit. State social workers determined what resources families needed, and proposed intervention strategies, such as addiction counseling or family therapy. Later, in response to the increase in gang-related crime, the juvenile court system became less lenient. Where youth offenders in the past may have gotten a slap on the wrist every time they were caught painting graffiti, the court system started increasing the punishments and decreasing the number of times a youth could commit a crime before being held accountable. HISTORY CASE STUDY In September 1993, one 13-year-old girl and two 15-year-old girls were sexually assaulted for eight hours by members and initiates of the Denver Street Gang. Over that time, the 13-year-old was raped by nine or ten young males. In March 1994, five of the alleged attackers went on trial in Denver Juvenile Court. Four of them were brothers, and all of them were between the ages of 13 and 16. On March 17, the four brothers were convicted of two counts each of first-degree sexual assault. The fifth boy was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual assault. The two youngest defendants, who were 13-year-old twin brothers, were placed in residential child-care facilities. The three older defendants were ordered to serve the maximum two-year juvenile sentence in the state Department of Institutions. During sentencing, the 15-year-old convicted of assaulting two of the girls showed no concern for the consequences of his actions. According to the judge, this reflected "an attitude of ‘I don't care, you can't do anything to me'." The 16-year-old was similarly unapologetic. The judge noted,"There is a complete lack of remorse. He seems uninvolved, almost amused by all this". EVOLUTION OVERVIEW However, as gang-related crimes became more violent, the philosophies for dealing with the juvenile offenders started to change. By the 1990s, many of the cases that originally would have been tried in juvenile court were moved to the adult system. Most of the gang-related crimes were committed by youth who were 15, 16, and 17-years-old. Since the age for adult court started at 18, it wasn’t that much of a stretch to try the offenders as adults, but the process was much stricter and more aggressive. The youth offenders were assigned attorneys and went to trial in traditional adult courts. Their parents were not able to be a part of the process. This change in philosophy was a result of communities sentiment that if juvenile offenders committed adult crimes, they should answer for those actions as adults. Rather than pursuing rehabilitation, the adult court system focused on punishment. Young perpetrators were arrested and sent directly to jail. Within a limited time they appeared before judges, who decided whether they should stay in jail or get out on bond. State attorneys then decided whether the perpetrators should be tried as juveniles or adults. If a state attorney decided to try a perpetrator as an adult, the accused was assigned (or hired) an attorney, and the defense and prosecution entered the bargaining phase. If the accused waived the plea bargain, he or she went to trial. Often the accused had to wait for up to a year for the trial. As technology became more prominent in evidence collection, time to trial for juvenile offenders increased. This was especially true in cases where DNA was used as evidence, as even today, it can take over three months to run DNA results, Another shift that occurred as a result of technology was the collection of testimony. As recording devices became more commonly used, state attorneys were required to audio record all witness testimony. Both the defense and prosecution needed to listen to these tapes before the start of the trial. Some cases had hundreds of hours of recordings, which caused delays. Despite these obstacles, state attorneys attempted to bring cases to trial as quickly as possible. Defendants, on the other hand, recognized the value that delays offered. Witnesses disappeared or decided not to testify after they learned how dangerous their testimony could be via threats made by the defendants and their "entourages." EVOLUTION CASE STUDY On July 2, 1999, Errol McGowan was found hanging from a door handle. Mr. McGowan had worked as a doorman at the Charlton Arms Hotel in Telford, England. Prior to his death, he and two other doormen had filed a complaint alleging racial abuse by a gang of 10–15 white youth. Traces of DNA were found on Mr. McGowan’s watch. Samples of DNA from nine gang members did not make an identical match. The scientist, Dr. Jonathan Whittaker, explained that ten DNA "bands" were identified in the sample from Mr. McGowan’s watch. The DNA from five of the gang members matched three of those "bands," but he explained that was the match rate that one would expect from the general public. Coroner Michael Gwynne asked Dr. Whitaker if the lack of conclusive DNA evidence could exclude the gang from involvement in Mr. McGowan’s death. Dr. Whitaker testified that it could not. He stated that the majority of the DNA in the sample that had been taken was from Mr. McGowan himself, but that there was "definitely DNA from other people or person." Despite the DNA evidence, no one was ever convicted in the McGowan case. CURRENT OVERVIEW Today, gang violence trials get a good deal more attention because the crimes that have been committed by gang members are more serious. In the past, gang-related crimes centered on incidents like graffiti. These days, gang violence often results in murder or serious injury, and the quality of life in neighborhoods is negatively impacted. In the face of public outcry, the court process has changed noticeably. The process is influenced by criminal justice entities like the courts, judges, and attorneys. It is also shaped by legislators, because stronger laws and stricter guidelines mean that it is easier to prosecute the crimes. Budget cuts have impacted the court process as well. Before the economic downturn, budgets were increased, so the criminal justice system invested in more support and resources. Law enforcement agencies established more gang units, task forces, invested in sophisticated equipment, and surveillance techniques. Then the economy started to downturn and budgets got slashed. Most large urban areas try to maintain funding for gang related crimes during difficult economic times, but in smaller areas, there have been reductions in services and support systems. Often a local gang task force or unit is merged with another, which means that people are doing more work with fewer resources. One area that experiences major cuts in both large and small jurisdictions is prevention. Programs that target at-risk youth often are eliminated or drastically reduced in scope. This frees funding for investigating and prosecuting gang related crimes, but it leaves more youth vulnerable to gang influence, which perpetuates the cycle. Despite the reduction in funding, there have not been significant delays in gang-related crimes going to trial. This is because everyone in the system understands that the longer it takes to have a trial, the more likely it is that there will be additional victims due to retaliation. CURRENT CASE STUDY Ashley Benton’s trial for fatally stabbing Gabriel Granillo began on June 18th, 2007. The two were involved in a fight between their respective gangs, the Crazy Crew and MS-13. Benton claimed that she had stabbed Granillo in self-defense as he swung a bat at her. When Benton left jail after posting bond, she was surrounded and escorted by six deputies for her own protection. MS-13 had issued a death threat in retaliation for her involvement in the death of one of their members. During the trial, security was even tighter. Authorities feared that rival gang members, some of whom would be called to testify, would initiate fights in and around the courthouse. The Sheriff’s Office arranged for extra personnel to patrol in and around the courtroom itself. These officers included additional bailiffs and officers from the Emergency Response Team. The hallway to the courtroom was cordoned off, and spectators and witnesses were searched with handheld metal detectors. Prior to reaching the courtroom, everyone was required to go through a checkpoint with large metal detectors and X-ray machines. A private firm, Initial Security, was responsible for running the checkpoint. Security around the checkpoint in the lobby was provided by the Harris County Precinct Constable’s Office and the exterior area around the Criminal Justice Center. There were also foot and bike patrol officers working the perimeter of the center to prevent potential gang fights. Bomb-sniffing dogs and additional "spotters" roamed through the courtroom, courthouse, and the surrounding areas. Despite all the precautions, the lead defense attorney was still apprehensive before the trail started. "It was pretty nerve-wracking," he said. FUTURE Now that you have explored how the issue of gang violence is addressed through the court process, it’s time to prepare some recommendations that you will present in your interview. Once you have filled them out, create a PDF of your responses and submit them to your instructor in the assignment area of the unit. 1. What approach or approaches do you think are best for addressing gang violence through the court process? 2. What role do sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, class, and gender play in the issue of gang violence as it relates to the court process? 3. What changes would you suggest for the future of court processing for this issue?
Purchase answer to see full attachment