Membership: Join Now : Login

How to smell an Oklahoman hack job

One of the Oklahoman's criminal justice stories caught my eye this morning, and it seems to be one of the typical slanted hack jobs. I thought I might share why I decided that.

Man to stay in custody despite law

Jul 02, 2005: MIAMI, OK - District Judge Robert Haney refused to release a convicted murderer and career criminal Friday although he said a new state law requires him to do so. The judge's move could set up a challenge to the new law dealing with mentally incompetent criminals.

It caught my eye because that sounds like an "activist judge," doesn't it? Judge Haney knows what the law says, but because he doesn't like it, he's just not going to follow it. He didn't find it unconstitutional, he didn't find that it didn't apply to this defendant, he just isn't going to obey it.

I thought, "Well, that can't be right," so I read the whole story. Some excerpts:

Under a state law effective April 1, Haney said he was required to dismiss criminal charges against Arthur Monroe Hevel, 33, of Miami and proceed with a civil commitment hearing.

Haney split his decision by dropping the criminal charges but refused to release Hevel back into society.

Well, maybe it was right: the judge said the law required him to do something, but he didn't do it.

[...] After the 20-minute hearing Friday, Haney said, "I am not real happy with it (the law), but the Legislature passed it (law) and we have to live with it."

The law cited by Haney results from an U.S. Supreme Court decision that says those held as incompetent for trial must be reviewed within a reasonable time. Oklahoma lawmakers put the limit at two years.

"These are some of the most dangerous people in the state of Oklahoma," said Assistant District Attorney Ben Loring, who fears that some of the 122 Oklahomans who are currently held as too incompetent to stand trial will be released into society while still dangerous.

OK, wait, stop.

If a court rules that a criminal defendant is not competent to stand trial, he's committed to a mental institution (if dangerous to the public) until such time as he is competent, is my understanding. If he's not a danger to the public, he can't stand trial but he can't be incarcerated, either. This is because that, at least in pre-Guantanamo America, we do not punish people who we admit cannot receive a fair trial by assisting in their own defense.

But the state simply can't declare someone incompetent to stand trial and leave him committed to a mental institution forever. That's life imprisonment without trial. The case must be reviewed to see if the defendant can now stand trial, or is still a danger to the public. The Supreme Court ruled that this has to happen "within a reasonable time."

This article seems to be saying that a new Oklahoma law would require releasing "some of the most dangerous people in the state of Oklahoma," according to a prosecutor (whom, I'm sure, would never exaggerate about a defendant's risk to society, cough cough), even if they're still a danger to the public.

Yet the article never mentions this law, either by statute name or legislative bill number. Even if you can find the statutes online, you can't find this law. It all but defies belief that the law would require releasing defendants who were actually found as dangerous to society by the mental health process, as opposed to simply declared "dangerous" by a prosecutor, but that is what the Oklahoman is saying - without enough information to let you verify it.

Kenny Wright III, Hevel's public defender, said he requested a jury trial to determine his client's mental status.

"The judge has chosen not to give us a jury trial, so we are planning on an appeal," Wright said. "That will cause the higher courts to look at what the Legislature did by passing this law."

OK, wait up again. Whether in criminal or civil commitment matters, you are entitled to a jury trial before the state takes away your freedom. Only you can waive that right. How can a judge "choose not" to let a jury hear the case? The Oklahoman doesn't say.

Wright said the appeal should cause the Legislature to possibly amend the law to allow the court to function more efficiently.

"It's a poorly written law," Wright said.

Why is it poorly written? It's not like I can't believe the lege would write completely stupid laws, but what part of it makes even the defense say that it needs clarification?

Haney ruled Hevel's mental status has not changed, he said. In the criminal cases, Hevel was found mentally ill and in need of treatment because he posed a danger to society, Wright said.

Hevel was recommitted to the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health.

Haney said orders written by the Department of Mental Health put the department in charge of releasing Hevel. On Friday, Haney ruled that Hevel could not be released unless the court is notified and a hearing scheduled.

OK, now my head is really spinning. Is the Oklahoman saying that the judge examined evidence, ruled that this man is still a danger to society and incompetent to stand trial, but that a new state law forces his release anyway? That would really be a bad law. I wish I could go read it.

Hevel has written several letters to the court with claims of being immune from prosecution because he professes to be the president of the United States. At other times, Hevel maintains he is a professional wrestler.

"He (Hevel) is evil," said Chris Ramsey, the former Delaware County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hevel's case. "I think it (the law) shows a complete disregard for the public's safety. There is absolutely zero degree of common sense in passing this."

This follows five paragraphs listing the genuinely violent and atrocious past acts of the defendant, which in turn followed two paragraphs at the top of the article listing more of same. The story can spend seven full paragraphs showing us how dangerous this guy is, but not three words to tell us exactly what law is allegedly forcing his release.

State Rep. Jari Askins, D-Duncan, a former judge, co-authored the new law. If anything, she says, the law tightens restrictions on how incompetent criminals are handled and gives judges more authority to decide their fate.

Askins said lawmakers spent two years working with the state Department of Human Services and Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services to ensure these people would be properly dealt with, once a judge decided their status.

And now we come to the payoff.

In 2004, Jari Askins was chosen as Speaker-Elect of the House by the state Democratic Party. If the GOP had not won control of the House in the 2004 elections, Askins would have been Speaker of the House. Instead, she was the House Minority Leader, something the Oklahoman doesn't bother to mention. She's also considered a candidate for statewide office, such as Lieutenant Governor.

She is a former judge, but her B.A. is in Journalism from OU, from what is now the Gaylord School of Journalism. She was also on the Pardon and Parole Board, so she has particular expertise in these matters.

You don't know any of that from the story, whose basic flow is now simple to see: "A bad law will release a dangerous man over a judge's objection. The judge, prosecution, and defense all agree it's a bad law. The defendant is a very bad man. It was written by a Democrat who worked with the state bureaucracy, and she says it's not a bad law."

The last sentence of the story confirms (or, at least, says that Askins says) the law gives judges greater flexibility to deal with defendants like this guy "once a judge has decided their status." But the judge in this case decided he was a danger, but says the law requires him to release the defendant anyway, which he refused to do.

That's a basic conflict in fact - both Askins and the judge can't be right. What does the law say? The story doesn't tell you, and won't tell you how to go find it for yourself. Could it possibly be that if you could read the bill in question, you might see that one or more Republicans also "co-authored" the bill? Or co-sponsored it?

Or that there are other facts in the case beyond what the story says, and those force the defendant's release? If the health department says this guy is no longer a danger to society, why would the judge want to find otherwise? Did he hold a true hearing, or just say "this guy's evil, he's not getting out?"

There's a lot of missing information in this story, and what information is there boils down to "a prominent Democrat wrote a bad law that lets dangerous people out on the street." Any information that would let you challenge this premise is studiously missing from the article.

That's why the Oklahoman got its reputation. This guy may belong in confinement. Someone obviously thinks he doesn't, but you won't find out who or why from the Daily Disappointment, especially when a Democrat can be made to look bad.

Discuss
[ Print This Page ]