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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT