RID Board Presentation
On September 3, 2002
By Judge Don A. Layton
I wish to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I believe it is very appropriate that dialogue between the community and legal system occur.
There are areas that I may not discuss because of judicial ethics. Be sure that any inability to answer questions is not intended to be unreasonable, only ethical.
Opinions are useful. I am reminded of a story that went as follows:
An important and very well publicized murder trial was soon to begin. In preparation for the trial, the tiresome jury selection process took place, each side hotly contesting and dismissing potential jurors.
One prospective juror, Dan O’Keefe, was called for his question session. He was asked, “Property holder?” Dan replied, “Yes, I am, Your Honor.” Then he was asked, “Married or single?” Dan responded, “Married for twenty years, Your Honor.”
Then the Judge asked, “Formed or expressed an opinion?” Dan stated with certainty, “Not in twenty years, Your Honor.”
R.I.D. serves a positive role in the community. Your education of the public has contributed to greater awareness of the offense of D.U.I.
The Court Watch Program brings a balance of individual rights and review of a public trial. As a judge, I welcome the participation. Those who have observed Division I know from the inception of my term I have provided open announcement documented by specific court orders of all D.U.I. cases. Carol Higgs, my Judicial Aide, is always available to share docket information and does so frequently. In presiding over all cases the Court must consider its role and position.
Pope John Paul II summarized power in the following: “Power is for service, not for Privilege.”
If all involved, the Judicial System and community, provide service, we could make major impact on D.U.I. We can do this by enforcement of the law, prevention and education and rehabilitation for our most chronic offenders.
R.I.D. and Court Watch have had an impact on legal proceedings. The impact has been more on the defendants and the general public than the courts. In Anderson County at the General Sessions Court level, D.U.I., during my four years, has received a priority treatment from “day one.” A kind article in your winter 1999 newsletter recounted my position and philosophy. I believe that over the last four years my record supports the positions I asserted in that article.
I have sought to maintain a docket free of dilatory tactics. One Knoxville lawyer who was accustomed to routine continuances after trying a D.U.I. case in ten days remarked “Anderson County has a Rocket Docket.” I'm proud to dispose of cases timely. They say, “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.” I believe punishment delayed is ineffective. As a parent you wouldn’t punish a child two to three days after bad behavior.
An issue of concern about timely prosecution is the method of alcohol testing. This testing can be accomplished by blood or breath. The discretion of which testing method to use rest with the arresting officer or agency. The use of a blood sample creates an immediate continuance of four months under T.B.I.’s current work production. This means that not only are first offender’s cases postponed four months, but also chronic multiple offenders.
Some officers prefer the blood test because they are confronted with fewer challenges by the Defense Counsel. If a breath test is used the officer must meet the “Sensing Requirements.” They are that the:
- test was performed by T.B.I. standards
- operator was properly certified
- machine was certified
- defendant was observed for 20 minutes
- operator followed procedures
- there be an identification of printout
While there are appropriate cases for blood testing consideration to delay should be factored into the process.
What are key points to D.U.I. Prosecution? What you see in court is the final phase like baking a cake, there is much preparation which goes on before trial. The total picture of a D.U.I. prosecution includes:
- the circumstance of the arrest
- the review of the defendant’s record
- the investigation and communication with the prosecutor
- the scheduling of the case for trial
- the proper reporting of the disposition
- monitoring future compliance
What are some legislative areas that could be reviewed?
- The issuance of restrictive license could be quarterly renewable—conditioned on payment of fines, court costs and restitution and proof of employment.
- Victim’s rights could be enlarged. The definition of victim to include anyone involved with a D.U.I. offender. I recently, over the objection of the Defense Counsel, allowed a father to speak where a child was killed.
- The R.I.D. representative should be familiar with court procedures.
- Another important area would be to work with school boards to mandate drug/alcohol education classes in our public schools.
Recently during my attendance at the National Judicial College we discussed the consideration of D.U.I.—Drug Courts.
These concepts are rehabilitative and the Court becomes active in rehab monitoring.
The use of the “carrot and stick concept” is costly and time consuming, but can be effective. Tennessee ranks 10th on crime rate in the nation according to the Knoxville Sentinel February 24, 2002 issue.
R.I.D. must remember there has been and always will be competition for funding and enforcement of the law. RID must be vigilant in the legislative process.
We have a society that has a breakdown in respect. Respect for the law. Respect for others. Respect for one’s self. A world where many offenders routinely thumb their noses at authority. Some say those individuals are ill. Others say they are not worthy of compassion. The legal system must deal with each argument on a case by case basis.
Pope John Paul II summarized my belief as follows: “Freedom can not be found by excluding moral truth and personal responsibility.”
It is this personal responsibility which I hope will lead to reduced crime not only on D.U.I. cases, but all criminal activities.