OPPOSITION TO ABOLISHMENT OF
VILLAGE OF MONTICELLO JUSTICE COURT
INTRODUCTION
On November 25, 1997, a
Memo was submitted by
Village Manager, Cheryl Shiber, to the Mayor and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Monticello. In sum, said Memo
favored the abolition of the Village of Monticello Justice
Court, and further favored having the Town of Thompson
Justice Court take on the responsibilities of Monticello
Court. Said Memo is significantly flawed for the following
reasons:
STATISTICS WITHIN REPORT ARE MISLEADING
History has proven that crime is a socioeconomic
phenomenon. With increases in population, there will be
increases in crime. With decreases in the economy, there
will be further increases in crimes. A number of new
projects have been proposed for the Town of Thompson,
including creation of a Walmart and a larger Shoprite.
These projects, together with others, will significantly
increase not only the transient population, but permanent
relocation of individuals into the Town, for the purpose
of newly created job opportunities. This increase in
population will inherently result in an increase of crime,
resulting in additional cases before the Court.
Additionally, while the stock market and other economic
indicators demonstrate a profitable economy, history and
economics demonstrate that the economy works in a cycle. In other words, recession is inevitable. When this happens, some individuals will seek other
opportunities to survive, including committing crimes.
Other individuals will be unable to pay their bills and
expenses, resulting in lawsuits, which greatly increase
the case loads of the Court.
The projected plans for the Town of Thompson
resulting in an increased population, and the inevitable
cycle of the economy, will result in significantly more
cases to the Town of Thompson Judges in the upcoming
years.
On Page 1 of Ms. Shiber's Memo, she states 'with
the additional case load would come additional fines which
would constitute a benefit to the Town". Under this logic,
an increase in the case load in the Monticello Court would
result in additional benefits to the Village. What is
comical, is Ms. Shiber's graph in support of her theory of
projected costs to the Village, if the Monticello Court
were continued. By Ms. Shiber's own admission, the more
cases, the more fines and Court costs, resulting in
greater revenue. The graph would infer that the case load
in the Village of Monticello has significantly reduced
throughout the years, resulting in less revenues. In fact,
the case load in the Village has significantly increased
throughout the years, and will further increase with
expansion in population and decreases in economy.
The graph further implies, that in the future,
Court revenue will continue to decrease to the point where
no revenue is had, which is ludicrous. An equivalent or
increased case load would increase revenue, not decrease it.
The graph further fails to consider the aspect of
community service. On a number of less significant cases,
Judge Kesten has mandated community service for numerous
defendants in the Village of Monticello. These Defendants
perform services and provide a benefit to the Village.
While a number of issues commonly come before the Village
Board resulting in cleaning up of garbage, debris, and
eyesores, there is no question that defendants performing
community service have contributed significantly to the
reduction of the same, which benefit the Village would
otherwise be required to pay for. Under Ms. Shiber's plan,
said benefits would be dispersed throughout the Town of
Thompson, as opposed to concentrated in the Village of
Monticello. It is notable that most defendants in the
Village of Monticello are poor, and unable to pay fines
imposed by the Courts. Absent community service, these
defendants' inability to pay fines would result in
re-sentencing to a term of incarceration, which would be
an additional expense for the taxpayers. The failure to
place a value on community service in the "revenue"
portion of the graph further demonstrates why the same is
flawed.
THE ABOLITION WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT
THE QUALITY OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY
THE TOWN OF THOMPSON JUSTICE COURT
The vast majority of cases in the Town of Thompson,
involve vehicle and traffic matters. This is largely
because a portion of Rt. 17 is within the Town, resulting
in numerous traffic tickets, which generate fine revenues to the Town
of Thompson.
The vast majority of cases in the Village of
Monticello do not involve vehicle and traffic
matters. They involve criminal cases, which very often
require jail, probation, etc., rather than the payment. of
fines. The transfer of Monticello cases to the Town of
Thompson, would result in a significantly increased case
load to the Town, with lesser generated revenue, resulting
in a revenue decrease.
Annually, seven thousand (7,000) cases are divided
between four Judges serving Monticello and Thompson. Under
the proposal, the same case load, would be divided amongst
two Judges. The inference in the proposal is that the Town
Justices and staff have all this free time, because they
are not working to capacity. While the Thompson Court is
extremely efficient, it is obvious that they currently
have plenty to do, and are working at or near capacity. An
increase of four thousand (4,000) cases to any Court would
greatly reduce that Court's efficiency, contrary to
Supervisor Cellini's statement that the effect would be
hill. The significantly increased case load, would require
additional hiring of Judges and staff, which would
increase taxes to Town of Thompson residents.
Of the four thousand (4,000) new cases to the Town
of Thompson, several hundred would be disposed of as
misdemeanors. A probation report must be ordered for each
defendant convicted of a misdemeanor. The Department of
Probation is required to conduct an extensive
investigation into the Defendants' background and current
offense, which takes a number of weeks. One Town Justice
does not permit a waiver of probation report by the
Defendant. Several hundred new misdemeanor cases added to
the Town case load, would result in an increased burden
upon the Department of Probation to conduct said reports,
which would require additional staffing to the Department
and cost to the County taxpayers.
Cases are not completed within one day. Defendants
are required to be arraigned, several hearings are
normally held, pre-trial motions are submitted, Court
conferences, and trial, all consume a Justices' time. The
proposed increased case load would greatly diminish the
efficiency and attention that the Judge would be able to
provide to a given case.
The present Town Justices are attorneys. Each Judge
dedicates numerous hours per week to the Court system.
This is a great service to the Town because these Judges
could be earning a far greater income by conducting work
in their respective law offices. Each individual who
appears before a Judge expects that Judge's undivided
attention, regardless of the size of the case, and wants
that Judge to treat that case as if it were the most
important one in the world. The increase in Thompson case
load between two Judges would greatly decrease this
service.
THE INFERENCE THAT THE COURT MUST GENERATE REVENUE
IS INHERENTLY UNFAIR AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Our forefathers had created the Court system, as a
separate branch of government, which would not be
influenced by the other branches, as a means of fairly
determining legal issues. The mere consideration of
abolishing the Village Court defies this basic concept.
The implication is, that the Court must meet a "financial
quota", or face being abolished. The obligation of a Court
is to dispense justice, not raise revenue for the town.
The mere fact that the legislative branch of government,
i.e., the Village Board, are even in the position to
abolish the Village Court raises basic constitutional
questions and dangerously implies that the Court must
generate revenue for the benefit of another branch of
government, as a priority over dispensing justice, in
order to maintain its existence.
THE ABOLITION OF THE VILLAGE COURT WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR CITIZEN'S ACCESS TO
THE COURT SYSTEM AND INFLUENCE THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE
Previously discussed was the Court's increased ease
load, would result in a decrease in the ability of a Judge
to divide his attention between each case. There are other
issues which greatly effect a defendant's rights.
The vast majority of defendants in the Village of
Monticello are of limited or. no financial means. Numerous
defendants come from the housing projects within the
Village. They are unable to afford transportation, and
are required to walk to and from the Village Court, which
is centrally located. The abolition of the Village Court,
would require these defendants to walk down State Route
42, for approximately two miles, to the Ames Plaza.
This would create a dangerous situation for these
individuals, especially in light of the lack of
sidewalk, and great congestion of traffic on said road.
Since the Town Court meets in the evening, these defendants would be required to walk in hours of darkness, more greatly exposing dangers to them.
Further risk of danger would occur in periods of inclement
weather.
These accidents would be otherwise avoidable, and the
Village and Town may be exposing itself to liability from
lawsuits. The Court is designed to provide a service to
the community, and it would no way accomplish the same if
individuals had limited access to the location.
An individual is entitled to a speedy trial and
determination of his given case. Even considering the
Town's efficiency, the present wait for a trial on
criminal and vehicle and traffic matters is about two
months. The greater case load, would result in additional
delays in hearing cases, which would delay the
administration of justice.
A defendant has a right to be arraigned before a
Judge with all deliberate speed. The addition of four
thousand (4,000) cases between two Judges would result in
delays in arraignment, which may greatly prejudice a
defendant.
A number of cases before the Court are civil
matters. These are small claims and Justice Court cases,
in which the claim ranges from One Dollar ($1.00) to Three
Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00). Many Judges spend several
hours presiding over cases that amount to only a few
dollars. The design of the Justice Court system is to
allow individuals to have an inexpensive and speedy
procedure in determining their claims. The time to conduct
a trial, and obtain a decision would be significantly
influenced if the proposal were approved.
The Village of Monticello Police would be unable to
transport prisoners for arraignment at the Town Hall,
based upon their limited force, and requirement to be
present in the Village for emergencies. The Sheriffs
Department had indicated that while they would be willing
to accept this burden, there would be a charge to the
Village taxpayer, for this transportation.
The Village residents access to the Court and right
under law would be seriously impaired if the proposal were
approved.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, under no circumstances
should the Village of Monticello Justice Court be
abolished.
Dated: Monticello, New York
December 4, 1997
Respectfully Submitted,
LAWRENCE D. GOLD, ESQ.
2 Jones Street - P.O. Box 269
Monticello, New York 12701
(914) 794-3100