ILNews

TV drug court raises ethical concerns

Jenny Montgomery
October 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

MontgomeryNewsAnalysisOn Sept. 26, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals released a position statement about the new television show, “Last Shot with Judge Gunn.” The group is opposed to the new syndicated show on the FOX network for several reasons, but among its chief complaints are that the judge on the show has no real authority and the defendants have already been sentenced to probation, but are not active participants in drug court. The association also claims that the show is misleading and potentially damaging to people who are struggling to overcome addiction.

Mary Ann Gunn is the latest in a long line of TV “judges” who dish out down-home legal advice. But unlike some of her predecessors, Gunn isn’t dealing with cases involving bad dogs, bickering roommates or damaged property. Gunn – who stepped down from the Arkansas judiciary this summer – features real-life drug and alcohol offenders on her show.

Each 30-minute episode is purported to show drug court proceedings. But the offenders on the show are on probation, not active participants in the drug court program. If they were in the program, they’d likely be on the path to recovery already, as part of a strict rehabilitative structure that is inherent to how the state’s drug courts operate. Most drug court treatment programs in Arkansas last an average of 18 months.

For Gunn’s show, bailiffs and other legal professionals earn extra income by reprising their real-life roles in a rented courtroom on Saturday mornings. The Arkansas Dept. of Community Corrections, whose officers oversee people on parole and probation, originally said its employees could participate in the show. Arkansas DCC spokeswoman Ronda Sharp told Indiana Lawyer that after receiving many phone calls from the public, “… it became apparent that the situation was terribly confusing to the public and would be confusing for offenders.” For that reason, DCC leadership decided to prohibit employees from being on the show.

“Offenders might face a situation of seeing their officer and not knowing whether the officer was an officer at that point or acting as an officer. The possibility for confusion was too real and could potentially cause problems for offenders and officers alike,” Sharp said.

Gunn, a former Washington/Madison County drug court judge, sought an opinion from the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee in 2010 about whether she could broadcast drug court proceedings nationally. In issuing its opinion, the ethics committee wrote that the state Supreme Court should consider reviewing Administrative Order No. 6 to determine whether drug court proceedings should be broadcast, as Gunn had been doing for years via public access station Jones TV.

The Supreme Court modified Administrative Order 6 to specify that drug court proceedings should not be broadcast. And two men who successfully completed the drug court program filed a lawsuit on Aug. 11 against the state and Jones TV. In William Garrison and Joshua K. Thompson v. State of Arkansas and Jones TV, No. CV11-2388-4, the men claim that one condition of their participation in drug court was that the charges would be dropped, and records concerning the drug offenses would be sealed. They claim producers for Gunn’s show are now using actual footage from her former court to promote her program, and that even when drug court participants objected to being filmed, filming continued. Footage from Gunn’s real-life courtroom broadcasts is still available on YouTube. Garrison and Thompson are seeking to have all recordings from Gunn’s former court sealed. On Sept. 22, Arkansas Business reported that Jones TV would permanently go off the air as of Sept. 30 because of “challenging economic times.”

Marion Superior Judge Jose Salinas presides over drug court in Indianapolis. He said that while each state may follow different models for its drug court programs, he thinks that any broadcast from drug court would be – and should be – boring. In his court, any contentious issues are settled in private, when he meets with the prosecutor, defender and caseworkers to discuss how all drug court participants are proceeding through the program. And in the courtroom, Salinas calls participants to the bench one at a time, speaking to them in hushed tones to explain what was decided in his chambers. When the defense or prosecution approaches the bench, they do the same. No one yells at each other or attempts to embarrass program participants by chastising them.

In its 2010 opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee wrote: “One purpose of drug court is to avoid a conviction and the notoriety that comes with the conviction; to turn around a person and to get this issue behind him or her. In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it’s released into the public domain, it is there forever and can come up from time to time during the defendant’s entire life.”

By ignoring that opinion, Gunn has obviously ruled in favor of fame over protecting people from harm. After all of her years on the bench, she should know that people who enter the legal system as a result of drug and alcohol abuse are often struggling with serious emotional issues. While the show pays these people to appear – and for their eventual treatment – one has to wonder what the long-term effects of their uncomfortable celebrity status will be.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT