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