I’d like to ask America a few questions.  Do YOU have faith in our justice system ?  Do YOU believe that every person brought before the bench is guilty ?  Do YOU trust that the officers testifying are providing an unbiased version of the facts ? And not editing their reports, or their testimony, to fit their personal prejudices.  Are YOU confident that the prosecutor has provided all the information necessary to meet the intentions of full disclosure ?  Do you believe that no prosecutor would, purposely, withhold evidence that would exonerate his prime suspect ?  Is the judge, guiding the trial, protecting the decorum of his courtroom ?  Or is he (or she) simply dictating the defense ?  Eliminating avenues of inquiry that would call into question the validity of  the official investigation and thereby the accused’s guilt. Is the jury capable of an unbiased decision ?  Has the jury pool been sequestered from all the hype-mongering media coverage ?  Coverage that addresses only the loudmouthed hosts need for ratings and a raise.  Ignoring, in most instances, not only the evidence but the very principles of innocent until proven guilty.  Has the accused been given the best possible defense ? And can WE, honestly, say that every person in prison in America deserves to be there ?  If, like me, you answered no to these questions.  Thank you !  For renewing my faith in the average American.  Of course;  I don’t believe that everyone in prison is innocent.  But; neither do I believe that everyone in prison received a fair trial.  Like any bureacracy.  There’s always room for improvement.  And in keeping with my promise in the first of these treatises.  Allow me to propose a few.

            Before I begin, in earnest, let me explain that all of the circumstances mentioned above have ocurred in an American criminal court.  Makes the term “American Justice” sound rather oxymoronic doesn’t it.  With these ethical, moral, and criminal violations it seems like the last thing anybody is getting in an American court is justice. Some officers have admitted, under oath, to doctoring their police reports.  And I don’t mean editing for readability or spelling or adjusting the order to better reflect how it happened.  I mean “doctoring” with the result, intended or not, of inciting prosecutorial bias.  Strange, that sounds vaquely like evidence tampering.   Only of a more dastardly and despicable nature.  Because in court, without physical evidence, it will boil down to the officers word against the defendants.  And who do WE think juries and judges are more likely to believe ?   I’m certain that the majority of “beat cops” are as accurate and truthful as they can be after the adrenaline rush of a contested arrest or any number of other violations in which they may be involved.  Yet; as one bad apple can spoil the barrel.  One prejudiced or lazy officer can discredit an entire force.  As the “tip of the investigative spear” all investigating officers must realize that any statements offered, credible or not, pro or con, must be included.  Not just to find the guilty, but to ensure the exoneration of the innocent.  Which is far more important due to its direct effect on community trust and support.  Investigations in the field are about evidence.  And all evidence must be preserved and included in any report.  Without bias by the investigating officers.  And all officers must recognize the need for their neutrality during the investigation.  Right up until the evidence indicates their suspect, that suspect is arrested, and they are sworn in to testify.  As Friday and Gannon said - “Just The Facts Ma’am”.   With this simple phrase as their mantra and an unwavering dedication to finding and reporting the truth.   I believe that no police investigation in the country can go wrong.

             In discussing the court; its protocols and positions, I’ll treat it as a whole unit.  Digressing only to point out its flagrant failures, as practiced, and possible improvements that could be made.  As a unit the courts intentions and methodologies have not changed in over two hundred years.  And really don’t need revision.  After all it is the purpose of the courts to determine the guilt or innocence of those brought before the bench.  Its primary problems reside in the manner with which these ends are met.  Judges must understand that they are there merely to ensure that the protocols of the courtroom are enforced.  The discipline and decorum of the court must be maintained or most cases before the bench would be reduced to nothing more than a shouting match. With the loudest voice winning.  However that implies that the judge must maintain a certain personal restraint.  By the nature of their position; they cannot allow their personal distrust or distaste to hinder the prosecution, the defense, or prejudice the jury.  They cannot state their belief of the defendants guilt or innocence, or make damaging or libelous statements about the defendant,  which could be considered prejudicial, at sentencing.  Resulting in someone who they perceive as a remorseless counterculture antagonist being given a harsher sentence than a person who they feel was simply misled - for similar offenses.  Neither is it the position of the judge to pre-determine what lines of questioning or evidence the defense may use.  I realize that in many instances State Legislatures or Federal laws have attempted to limit what may be deemed as a legitimate defense.  But that is a question for the jury to decide by their verdict.  This trust in twelve Americans supersedes the Legislatures and is the manner by which legitimate precedents are set.  Politicians cannot possibly think of every manner in which what would normally be a crime would be allowable. Documented cases of spousal abuse, where the abused spouse committed murder in self defense is a prime example of these circumstances.  How many wrongly convicted women served unnecessary prison time because legislators (mostly men) said that it was not a legitimate defense; and was therefore disallowed by the judge.  Had the jury been trusted to determine the truth, and as necessary, set precedent with a not guilty verdict.  Many women currently being pardoned, and these convictions expunged due to the changing morals of the nation, would never have served time in the first place.  Further,  perhaps it wouldn’t have taken another thirty years to change the attitudes of the court.  To conform to the morals of the nation.  That the assaults on these women (and children) were unacceptable.  The power of the jury must be recognized as sacrosanct and superior to any legislative limitations or controls.  With the right to view any and all manner of evidence that a competent defense deems legally applicable.

            Of course.  None of these improvements to jury standards can be completely and equitably instituted until the jury itself is equitable.  So why do normal citizens strive so hard to avoid jury duty ?  Why is the civic service of jury duty considered worse than the plague ?  Is it the low pay most states allow to jurors for their service ?  Most don’t even cover the cost of a lunch downtown.  And they only provide lunch if the jury ends up sequestered.  Or is it the hardship created on most families with one breadwinner off from work for, in the worst case scenario,  thirty to 120 days (OJ Simpsons trial lasted 134 days).  While, admittedly, most trials last fewer than five days.  No family can afford to have a significant portion of its income lost for an indeterminate time.  And with jury remuneration at all time lows in over half these United States.  It is no wonder that the potential hardship makes jury service an impossibility for most citizens.  In Missouri, where jury pay is six dollars a day with a gas allowance of seven cents per mile.  Doing the math shows that the average income earner pays the state nearly eighty dollars per day, in lost income, to serve on a jury.  This includes loss of one days wages at ten dollars per hour less the six dollars the state is so generously giving.  Add in the cost of fuel at three dollars a gallon with a twenty mile one-way trip; a vehicle getting 20 miles to the gallon accrues a two dollar and eighty cent fuel credit to the six dollars in fuel cost.  The total loss to the juror is a whopping $76.80.  PER DAY !!  My question;  isn’t there a minimum wage law ?  And why is it not applicable to jury duty.  Are the current and former legislators incapable of the simple math I used to calculate this ?  And if so what does this indicate about the quality of your childrens mathmatical education ?  Or is it simply that they don’t want to be questioned ?  Under the standard line of “you wouldn’t understand the complexities of state finances.  What I know.  Is that the capacity to completely comprehend the increasingly scientific nature of forensic evidence demands a jury of higher ability.  It must not, due to the risk of financial hardship be limited to retirees, federal or state employees, or the disabled.  Demographics that would tend not to question too deeply the competency or quality of the investigating authority.  The jury pool is then reduced by what has become a legitimized method of  tampering.  By ensuring that those who by their nature, appearance, or attitude are unlikely to convict on unsubstantiated evidence or innuendo.  Or accept the quality of the investigation simply because the system says they should.  Rendering the most inquisitive members of our society unavailable to serve their community in its most critical need.  Justice.

            How do we change these inadequate standards, both in remuneration and attendance ?  While the solutions would seem obvious.  Increasing the minimum pay to persons who are selected for jury duty.  It’s not as simple as it would appear. While that might be affordable in civil cases as a part of the court costs levied against the loser.  No state budget could survive if it was required to pay every juror the minimum wage for eight hours a day, regardless of how long the trial lasted.  And as I’ve said before.  I am not a fan of government handouts.  I do believe, however, that the first step is linking the fuel reimbursement to the price of gas, by statute.  Effectively removing from future Legislatures any debate in the setting of this portion of the compensation equation.  And ensuring it remains comparative to inflation.  In Missouri, this would mean more than doubling this compensation from seven to sixteen cents per mile - immediately.  The primary result of this action would not increase the State’s budget unreasonably, but would at least relieve the jurors from the loss currently experienced.  After all; it’s one thing to lose wages but noone should be forced to pay to do so.  Secondly, is the increase of jury pay.  It is an extremely poor policy when it won’t even pay for your lunch.  And the institution of a national minimum of twenty-five dollars per day would not be unreasonable.  Further, the true loss of income should be reflected on Federal income taxes by addition of an itemized deductible on tax forms.  The state providing the juror with a form stating time served and monies paid.  This could then be submitted to the Internal Revenue Service with the applicable hourly wage rate information to offset the jurors true loss.  The expediency of this method is that,  while the jurors still suffer an immediate loss of income.  They are reimbursed by the nation, for service to the nation, at the end of the fiscal year.  The third part of the equation concerns trials that take longer than thirty days.  Few jurors can remain essentially unemployed for that period of time.  Service of this magnitude must be accompanied by guarantees of non-eviction and utility maintenance for those losing such a substantial portion of the family income.  Similar to those programs instituted during the response to the COVID pandemic.  The next piece of this puzzle is the inclusion of the unemployed.  The State has ample access to the unemployment rolls by those receiving these benefits.  And the availability of these citizens is uncontestable.  The fact that they are not already included reinforces the accusation of jury tampering.  Since this sector of society may be perceived as less likely to accept the investigators competency or the prosecutor’s version of events.  They could easily be called upon to serve their neighbors and their nation, without penalty to their benefits, adding their numbers to the jury pool.  The final piece of this puzzle is child care.  By providing some type of court operated child care fewer women would require dismissal based on the needs of their preschool children.  After all; women with small children are as able bodied and able minded as those with or without school age children.  And; if included as a part of the testing and licensing mandate for the operators of these businesses.  The subsequent institution of this service to serving jurors could be done at a minimum of cost to the state or county.  With oversight of these potential licensees being performed by the members of the agency legally responsible for their certification.  With some of those costs offset by subsidies from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services.  Our ultimate intent must be to increase the demographic of potential serving jurors.  We must remember the greater the jury pool the more likely we are to truly achieve justice. 

            Of all the positions in the courtroom.  The one which demands the strictest adherence to the proper rules of evidence, disclosure, and ethics is that of the prosecutor.  Too often it seems that prosecutors are more concerned with their win / loss record than they are the quality of the investigation.  Or the veracity of the evidence against the defendant.  Accepting at face value any testimony or reports that they may receive from the investigating authority.  Without demanding corroborating testimony from separate sources.  Their use of questionable “jailhouse confessions”, conveniently provided, by convicts known for their willingness to aid an investigation.  In exchange for favorable testimonials in their own cases.  Results in this type of testimony having a “contrived” appearance.  And, more often than not, this testimony enters the record without its own corroboration.  The defense having been denied unfettered access to prison records, personnel, or inmates that may bring this “negotiated” testimony under greater scrutiny by the jury..  And while the letter of the law may not require the prosecution to disclose evidence it doesn’t intend to introduce in court. The intent of justice does.  The abscence of interviews casting doubt on the guilt of the accused or exculpatory evidence from the disclosure to the defense, whether by accident, design, or tradition, is contrary to the ideals of justice in America.  Especially when the public defenders office has no dedicated investigative arm. And, is often considered “the enemy” by investigating agencies.  These types of prosecutorial misconduct are hard to find and harder still to prove.  Because they depend on silence.  Either, as stated, ignoring exculpatory evidence.   Or excluding inquiries that discredit those interviews suggesting guilt from the defenses discovery protocols.  Highlighting incriminating evidence or testimony without investigating for evidentiary corroboration.  And keeping silent about these facts (or lack of them) until after conviction.  That’s why this type of misconduct is usually unknown at the time of the trial.  And not discovered until some future appeals process is instigated.  Usually before a sentence of death is carried out.  And always long after the those responsible have retired or died and can no longer be penalized for their criminal or procedural violations. 

            And that brings us to the last failure of our system.  The lack of an adequate defense.  How many innocents are pressured into plea agreements under threat of long terms of imprisonment if taken to trial ?  How many Public Defenders operate under an avalanche of cases to such an extent that no defendant is truly provided an adequate defense ?  And there is the real failure.  Because without the willful acknowlegement of guilt required by a plea agreement.  Most defendants in America today could claim a mistrial simply on the caseload of their Public Defender.  Not including the lack of  an investigative arm operating on behalf of the Public Defenders office.  Our governments, Federal, State, County, and Municipal all fear the public understanding these facts.  The truth, in these instances, could demand the review of every case in the courts in the last 50 plus years.  To evaluate the validity not only of the initial evidence against the accused, but of any coercive duress that may have been applied to achieve the plea. After all the courts primary obligation is proving guilt.  Right ?  WRONG !!!  While the philosophy of our adversarial system is defined as innocent until proven guilty.  It is practiced more, by modern standards, as guilty until you can prove your innocence.  Which,  with evidence or interviews that would exonerate the defendant undisclosed and  limited income - very few citizens can do.  How many of us have millions to spend in defense against a bottomless prosecutorial pocketbook.  Including the unlimited investigative access that starts with the local constabulary and can progress to include federal agencies. While the defense has no investigative capability with which to seek out and rebut any inconsistencies in the prosecutions case.  Unless, as I’ve said, you can afford it.  And here is where we institute the first change to our system.  Distributing equality to both the prosecution with its investigative capabilities, and the defense by alloting its investigation needs to the Internal Affairs Division of individual police departments.  Re-enforcing their obligation to ensure the proper deportment of the applicable police officers.  And at the same time verifying the accuracy of the investigative reports disclosed to the defense and potentially discovering contrary testimony that wasn’t.  This is perhaps the first and most obvious option to restore the balance to our adversarial system.  However it still fails to address the extreme caseloads carried by most Public Defenders.  The solution to this inequality is to abolish the Public Defenders courtroom position.  Farming out, so to speak, the Defenders responsibilities to local legal representation as an obligation for bar membership.  Utilizing the Public Defenders personnel, not as overworked litigators, but only as an oversight agency.  Further, as local representation is appointed to provide this courtroom presence, a system of remuneration based on outcome would be instituted.  Those lawyers who pressed for a plea agreement would receive a fixed payment.  While those who proved the innocence of their clients would receive their standard hourly fee plus any costs they incurred for investigation or special consultants.  This incentive pay would demand the prosecutions case is supported by facts in evidence.  Not just on the testimony of  uninspired, prejudiced, or lazy officers.  Nor; the reliance on even more questionable jail house convicts.  More importantly, it encourages the appointed private counsel to investigate the circumstances of their clients guilt or innocence.  Ensuring that weak, circumstantial, or charges manufactured under duress, are revealed as such prior to a wrongful conviction. 

            This nation was founded on the principles of law and equal representation.  If George the Third had granted our requests for more autonomy in local matters, and representation in his court and Parliament.  We, at least the original colonies, might still be part of the British Empire.  And after our Founding Fathers had won our independence.  The government they instituted was founded on the principles that they had been petitioning the King for.  Had they believed that an accused had no rights they would not have provided for their legal representation in our Bill of Rights.  And our founding Fathers would never have considered withholding any type of evidence from the defense’s disclosure.  While they may have lacked the forensic capability available in the modern courtroom.  The one thing they didn’t lack, that they considered essential for the judge, the prosecution, and the defense.  Was honor.  They would not have considered a victory through unethical means as victorious.  They would have considered it a blight on their honor as men.  And as a sin in the eyes of their Maker.  And it’s to these standards, both ethical and procedural, that each States Attorney General should be holding themselves and court personnel liable. As the official elected to oversee the States Department of Justice.  It is the States Attorney General’s responsibility to enforce the standards set forth by any applicable legislation.  Ensuring that not only the private sector members but, the departments public employees, adhere to strict standards of conduct concerning the legal dictates of every case.  And any case, past or present, which further investigation, public or private, shows that these standards have been violated.  Should be reviewed by the States Attorney General, both in trial transcripts as well as investigative depositions, for determination of further action.  Be that action appeal or mistrial recommendations to the States Superior Courts.  Possible pardon recommendations to the Governor’s office.  Or recommendations to a Grand Jury for possible filing of criminal charges against the offending court personnel.  Additionally; no Attorney General has the right to pick and choose which laws they will enforce.  Excluding laws from enforcement which disagree with their personal or party politics.  The tolerance or promotion, by a States Attorney General, for any action or petition which seeks to ignore, thwart, or in any way subvert established legal procedures.  Reveals a contempt for the very laws that they have sworn to uphold.  A contempt which should not go unrecognized by the states voters - or unpunished.

            The statue of “Justitia” which decorates many of the country’s courts and seals is always shown with her scales balanced, her sword at rest, and her eyes blindfolded. These iconographic representations are all indicative of the virtues associated with the ideals of true moral justice.  Her blindfold speaks to the need for justice to be impartial.  Free from any limitations or undue influence by personnel, position, or access.  The resting sword reflects the need for justice to be hesitant in its judgement and execution of sentence.  But determined to mete out that sentence, even to the fullest measure, when honest evidence and argument have proven the accuseds culpability.  Her scales while intended to represent the weight of evidence, for or against, equally.  Through prosecutorial and /or investigative prejudice as well as the limitations of defense itemized earlier. Have become heavily predisposed to guilt.  And this inequality, in our justice system, must be abolished and the balance restored.  As these are national problems practiced in every state of our Union.  That restoration must be addressed on a Federal level to ensure compliance on a State or local level.  Our system of courts has become too dedicated to proving the guilt of whomever is charged.  Without regard to their true guilt or innocence.  Allowing the system to become easily swayed by the prejudiced “tunnel vision” of some investigators.  And the subsequent effect this prejudice has on the prosecutors has corrupted the intent of our system of courts.  Innocent until proven guilty has become impossible for the majority of Americans when the court presumes guilt and disallows a true introduction of evidence to the contrary.    Institution of the aforementioned solutions to these deficiencies.  Reminds the court that its primary obligation is not to proving guilt - but to promoting justice.  As our system of justice operates now, promoting these deficiencies as necessary to ensure the safety of American streets.  The courts operate not as a hallowed hall of justice for all.  But as nothing more than a legitimized lynch mob.