HOW WE SEE IT: What Gunn Says, What She Does

— Judge Mary Ann Gunn promised the public and a review committee from the state Supreme Court that televising Washington-Madison Drug Court didn’t hurt the fairness of the proceedings or punish anyone who didn’t want to be on TV.

This isn’t true. We now know from a court transcript that the judge berated a defendant for getting cold feet about appearing on television. The judge told her she’d be kicked out of the drug program - tantamount to a jail sentence - over this. Thankfully, that didn’t happen.

“Well, it’s ultimately my decision who is on - when we televise, who’s on TV and who’s not,” Gunn said according to the Dec. 11, 2009, transcript.

So much for voluntary participation.

The transcript is on nwaonline.com. Here’s the portion that appalled us the most:

“It will be my decision whether or not you are televised. Now don’t you dare call any other organization, nonprofit organization that works with the Drug Court program. Don’t you call them. Don’t you talk to them. Don’t you call Altrusa or the schools or anyone else. It is not your place.”

“Not your place.”

It is the “place,” Judge Gunn, of each citizen to protest an injustice.

Let’s take Gunn’s word, although we have before, that this was a single lapse. Let’s take the judge’s word, although we have before, that the defendant here had wiggled out of obligations and orders from the court, that this wasn’t the only issue and that she had received much mercy before this hearing.

The fact remains that this bit player in a drama on a local cable TV program was threatened with time behind bars by the star of the show for ruining a performance.

We have argued on these pages that court proceedings should be televised as long as justice suffers no harm, that televising proceedings would put judges up to public scrutiny and guard against judicial abuse. We argued with those who said justice is better maintained away from such a public view. We still support the principle of judicial openness, but the chief local practitioner of what we preached has failed us, the public and justice. This is a wound to televised courts that will leave a scar even if it heals.

We wish we had a video recording of Gunn’s berating this defendant. We’d post it on our website. That would be justice. Instead, all we have is Gunn’s stating the obvious when interviewed: “I shouldn’t have said that to her, I really shouldn’t have. I wanted the focus to be on her and not her complaints.”

Gunn then goes back on even that small step in the right direction. She complains about others, singling out Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times in Little Rock, who first published the transcript online; attorney W.H. Taylor of Fayetteville, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of two drug court graduates who don’t want further publicity; and Washington County Circuit Judge William Storey. These men, she said, are a small group rushing to criticize her next venture, a private production of a TV show based on her drug court experience.

It’s a safe bet that this “small group” is much larger now.

Taylor and Storey wouldn’t comment on this matter.

If they are indeed responsible for bringing this evidence to light, we thank them along with Brantley. They directed a brighter light in a darker, more secret corner than any televised drug court show ever did.

Drug court showed the public the travails of private people in their struggle against drug addiction. It did much good, we believe. However, Gunn’s actions were an abuse of both power and public trust.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 08/31/2011

Upcoming Events