Boy's life sacrificed on the altar of politics?

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

This Thursday, at 9:30 a.m., Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal will call the South Carolina Supreme Court to order. The larger than usual gallery of spectators will include a 10-ton elephant that will take center stage when the State vs. Christopher Frank Pittman is called for oral arguments.

Indeed, the fate of the boy who was 12 years old and weighed a mere 100 pounds on a fateful evening in November, 2001 may well depend on whether the judges notice the gigantic pachyderm standing right smack in front of him.

Christopher's mother abandoned the boy shortly after he was born, consigning the child and his sister to an unstable home life populated by an overbearing father and a succession of disappearing stepmothers. The boy did, however, have an especially close bond with his paternal grandparents, Joe and Joy Pittman, who lived near the family's home in Florida.

In the summer of 2001, Christopher's mother suddenly reappeared in his young life. Being just a little boy, Christopher didn't understand that a mother who summarily discards her child isn't a good candidate for spontaneous redemption. So, he naively chose to believe that a new life awaited the family, a child-like profession of faith for which she promptly rewarded him by taking off once again.

His dreams of normalcy shattered, the devastated boy was overtaken by a deep depression. After threatening to kill himself, Christopher was committed to a psychiatric facility.

Upon being released to the custody of his grandparents, Christopher was prescribed Zoloft, an antidepressant not recommended for use by children. From the outset, the youngster suffered severe negative reactions to the powerful drug, culminating in the tragic events of Nov. 28, 2001 when he shot and killed both of his beloved grandparents while they were sleeping in their home.

SUSPECT CONFESSION

When Lucinda Mckeller of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division eventually took Christopher into custody, she told the isolated, distraught and thoroughly defenseless child to call her "Lucy" and then proceeded to extract a "confession" out of him -- written by her own hand and featuring lofty adult language -- wherein he purported to admit to having killed because his grandfather had been physically abusive to him.

Incredibly, Mckeller not only assumed that this child fully understood his Miranda rights but voluntarily waived them. In fact, she didn't even accord the boy the safeguard of recording the interrogation.

Prosecutors seized upon the confession to indulge in the popular, albeit counterintuitive notion, that little children leapfrog into adulthood by doing particularly bad things. Thus, Christopher was tried in the Charleston Circuit Court and convicted of two counts of murder by a South Carolina jury in February of last year.

This, despite compelling testimony from highly credentialed expert witnesses that Christopher was under the profound influence of Zoloft's alarming effects at the time of the incident and unable to resist the drug's command hallucination to kill.

Thereafter, Judge Daniel Pieper, brushing aside evidence of serious jury misconduct and a compelling argument that the prescribed mandatory sentence was unconstitutional, sentenced Christopher to an adult prison for a minimum term of 30 years. These are among the several issues that the Supreme Court will consider this Thursday.

MENTAL CAPACITY

Most intriguing, however, is an argument posited on a provision of South Carolina law that a child between the ages of 7 and 14 is presumed to be incapable of having the mental capacity to commit a crime. The prosecution can, however, rebut the presumption by presenting appropriate evidence that a particular child between those ages does possess the capacity to commit a crime.

The prosecution produced no expert testimony as to Christopher's criminal capacity on its direct case. After the state rested, however, the defense made only a general motion for dismissal without specifically citing the prosecution's failure to establish Christopher's mental capacity to commit a crime.

The prosecution now argues that the defense thereby waived the argument on appeal. The defense counters that its general motion to dismiss was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. While this critical issue should have been specifically raised by the defense after the state rested its case, the defense's general motion was probably sufficient to raise the matter on appeal given the enormous stakes involved.

That brings us back to the 10-ton elephant stalking the halls of justice down in Charleston. Christopher was 12 when he killed his grandparents. If this young child is an adult, the 16-year-old page to whom a Florida congressman sent suggestive e-mails must be a senior citizen. Why such concern for his well-being?

Why can't Christopher and others like him vote, sit on juries, smoke cigarettes, drink beer, enlist in the military, skip school, hold public office or drive automobiles? Why is society so committed to preventing child abuse on the one hand while fostering it by sending little children to be beaten, brutalized and sexually accosted by hardened adult prisoners?

When Christopher Pittman killed his grandparents, he was a child and not an adult. No prosecution however persuasive, no legal fiction however indulged, no rationale however twisted, and no political agenda, however morally bankrupt, can change that -- ever.

That is the 10- ton elephant that will position itself before the judges of the South Carolina Supreme Court this Thursday. If they see the prodigious creature, their decision will write itself and Christopher Pittman's agonizing five year ordeal will be over.

Daniel Leddy's On The Law column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Op-Ed Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.

http://www.silive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1159881336218220.xml&coll=1

A VENDETTA AGAINST A VERY VULNERABLE BOY
Judge Daniel Leddy, NY Family Court

Monday, June 06, 2005

Trial jurors are routinely given explicit instructions by the court which they are required by law to obey. Those who fail to do so subvert justice by denying the respective litigants their right to a fair trial. Nevertheless, jurors who misbehave are too often treated with kid gloves, receiving little more than tepid expressions of displeasure from the court. This is unfortunate because the integrity of our judicial system demands that they be held fully accountable for breaching their oaths as jurors.

Charged as an adult with murder by South Carolina for killing his grandparents when he was 12 years old, the last thing Christopher Pittman needed was a trial jury that didn't play by the rules. That, however, is exactly what he got.

Despite the testimony of two highly qualified psychiatrists that Christopher was "involuntarily intoxicated" on Zoloft on the night in question, the jury implausibly found him guilty. Soon thereafter, evidence of serious jury misconduct surfaced.

One juror admitted to having discussed the case with a bartender during a break in deliberations. The bartender recalled that the juror had expressed his belief that Christopher was guilty. The same juror also admitted to having spoken with his wife about the case.

Jurors are repeatedly warned by the court not to discuss the case with anybody except fellow jurors, and only then during deliberations.

They are also advised not to form any opinion about the guilt or innocence of a defendant until they hear all the evidence and receive the judge's instructions on the law.

Jurors are further instructed that, during deliberations, they should keep an open mind, and carefully evaluate the opinions and arguments of their fellow jurors.

By discussing the case with his wife and a bartender, and expressing his belief that Christopher was guilty, this juror flagrantly disregarded the court's instructions, violated his oath, and sabotaged the child's right to a fair trial.

COERCION AND CONFUSION

But there was more. Two other jurors testified that they didn't really believe that Christopher was guilty, and that they were coerced into voting for conviction by other jurors. This, they maintained, came about because they were led to believe that a majority vote was sufficient for conviction. Since the majority of the jurors wanted to convict, they mistakenly thought that they had to acquiesce in the guilty verdict.

Regardless of whether this serious misunderstanding of the law came about from inadequate instructions by the court, or undue coercion by the other jurors, it is clear that the two dissenting jurors did not render true verdicts according to their conscience.

Despite this, Judge Daniel Pieper last month denied a defense motion for a new trial, concluding that the revelations were not sufficiently serious to even warrant further review. Though poorly reasoned, the decision was typical of Pieper who has marched in lockstep with prosecutors throughout their mindless vendetta against a very vulnerable little boy.

Consider that while Pieper decided that no remedial relief should be accorded Christopher, he specifically ordered that the identity of the juror who discussed the case with his wife and the bartender be protected. In other words, he gave the blabbing juror a pass and the little boy 30 years in an adult prison.

As another case over which he presided well illustrates, Pieper embraces double standards with as much gusto as he emboldens prosecutors who seek to make a name for themselves by ruthlessly ruining the life of a mere child.

Last year, a South Carolina man, Frederick Ravenell, 42, was charged with murder in the shooting death of his younger brother. Prosecutors from the same county that handled Christopher's case consented to have the charges reduced to involuntary manslaughter at the urging of family members. When the matter appeared before Pieper for sentencing, he placed Ravenell on probation for two years.

At Christopher's sentencing, his aunt, Melinda Pittman Rector, whose parents were the deceased victims, begged Pieper for leniency, declaring that her parents would most assuredly be asking for mercy for their grandson.

Although South Carolina does have a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years for murder, the defense gave Pieper a solid legal rationale for refusing to apply it. Pieper, however, sided with prosecutors and sent Christopher to an adult penitentiary for the full 30 years.

As Christopher's case now moves to South Carolina's appellate courts, this sorry miscarriage of justice should be indelibly affixed to Pieper's reputation for as long as the children of his state are unfortunate enough to have him on the bench.

top of page

A  TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE DOWN IN SOUTH CAROLINA
By: Judge Daniel Leddy (Family Court Judge NY)

Monday, February 21, 2005

After deliberating less than seven hours, a jury in Charleston, S.C., last week convicted Christopher Pittman of murdering his grandparents three years ago when he was 12 years of age.

Although there were none of his peers on the jury because the law deems them too young to serve, the empanelled jurors proved conclusively that adulthood doesn't necessarily herald the advent of intelligence or even common sense. Thus, they rejected the testimony of two highly credentialed psychiatrists that Christopher's actions were the result of his being involuntarily intoxicated on Zoloft, an anti-depressant medication prescribed after he had attempted suicide.

As it turned out, justice would have been better served with a jury of kids because these 12 adults couldn't recognize reasonable doubt if it hit them in the head with a two-by-four.

At the sentencing, lead defense attorney Andy Vickery asked Judge Daniel Pieper to declare South Carolina's mandatory minimum 30-year-jail term unconstitutional insofar as it applied to children. Also urging leniency for Christopher was his aunt, Melinda Pittman Rector, whose parents were the deceased victims.

She told the court that both her mother and father would be begging for mercy for Christopher if they were alive. Referring to the boy's state of mind at the time of the incident, she declared, "That was not my nephew that night. He's a good kid."

Pieper initially sounded sympathetic, labeling the case "tragic" for the entire family, and even adding that it "called attention to the very core values of this society about the treatment of juveniles and punishment."

Then, however, establishing that black robes do not bestow courage in the face of an angry society, Pieper claimed that he was bound by the law as written, and summarily sentenced Christopher to 30 years in jail.

If the law is unconstitutional, however, he certainly wasn't bound to follow it.

In fact, he was affirmatively bound not to follow it, a fact that Pieper knows full well. After sandbagging Christopher with an act of rank judicial cowardice, Pieper could manage nothing better than a mindless "Good luck to you."

The irony is that Christopher's already bad luck as a mentally ill child escalated the moment his case arrived in Pieper's courtroom.

A CASE FOR FAMILY COURT

If Pieper had really wanted to do justice in this case, he would have granted the defense's request that it be handled in the Family Court. In that forum, far from the glare of intense media scrutiny, Christopher and his family could have gotten the help they so desperately need without compromising the community's legitimate right to protection.

The proposition that juvenile courts are incapable of adequately protecting the public in cases of serious wrongdoing is an oft-repeated lie spread by politicians willing to sacrifice a kid's entire life for a fleeting bump in public opinion polls.

You may be surprised to know that, in many cases, kids appearing in juvenile courts can be confined for substantially longer periods of time than similarly charged adults in criminal courts. The trade-off is that kids found by juvenile courts to have broken the law are placed in facilities designed to rehabilitate rather than punish them

Generally, the initial term for which a child is placed by a juvenile court can be extended upon a showing that he needs additional treatment. Extensive reports from case workers, mental health officials and probation departments aid the court in reaching an appropriate decision.

Yes, juvenile courts can make mistakes, but so can adult courts.

In Christopher Pittman's case, they made a whopper, solidifying the boy's place right next to his grandparents as the third victim.

Children who break the law are treated more harshly today than at any other time in American history, including the Colonial era. That's a cold, hard fact. It's also a pretty lousy commentary on our character as a people.

The most depressing aspect, however, is the absence of any significant movement to reform the laws. Neither of the major political parties seem the least bit interested.

For the most part, Republicans were in the forefront of the campaign to try children as adults, and aren't about to undo what they've callously crafted into political capital. And for all their boasts about being the champions of the downtrodden, none of this could have happened without the acquiescence of the Democrats.

Christopher Pittman's eminently redeemable life has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. What a damning indictment of our time on earth.

top of page

PROSECUTING CHILDREN AS ADULTS IS MADNESS
By: Judge Daniel Leddy (Family Court Judge NY)

Monday, May 09, 2005

Justice for Juveniles is a grass-roots organization that is campaigning to change the barbaric manner in which this country treats children accused of serious crimes.

The group properly characterizes the prosecution of these youngsters in adult criminal courts and the imposition of lengthy prison terms in adult penitentiaries as state sanctioned child abuse.

It has taken up the cause of several children victimized by this grotesque handiwork of unprincipled politicians, cowardly judges, ambitious prosecutors and an apathetic public unwilling to demand an end to the insanity.

Justice for Juveniles has currently posted a petition to the South Carolina legislature on its website in support of "Christopher's Bill," a measure that would significantly reform the way in which accused children are treated in that state and serve as a prototype for similar reforms in other jurisdictions.

It is named for Christopher Pittman, who was convicted by a South Carolina jury in February of murdering his grandparents when he was 12 years of age and intoxicated on Zoloft, an anti-depressant prescribed for him after he had attempted suicide.

Judge Daniel Pieper, who had previously denied a defense motion to have the case heard in Family Court, where it clearly belonged, sentenced the young boy to 30 years in an adult jail.

Thereafter, Christopher's attorneys asked Pieper to reduce the sentence to a term that would expire when the boy becomes 21 years of age. In support of the motion, they cited language from Roper v. Simmons, the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court striking down the death penalty for those under the age of 18 when they commit their crimes.

In deciding that executing juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court noted that juveniles lack the maturity of adults while offering a far better prospect for rehabilitation.

Christopher's attorneys argued persuasively that the same rationale militates against decimating children's lives by sentencing them to long terms in adult jails. Pieper, however, refused to stick his judicial neck out to blaze a new legal frontier on Christopher's behalf. Instead, he opted to preside over the ruination of a child's life with nary a whimper.

The case for using the language of the Roper decision to reduce Christopher's sentence is bolstered by the fact that society recognizes the practical impact of children's immaturity in numerous ways.

Among other restrictions, they can't vote, sit on juries, hold public office, consent to sexual relationships, or purchase alcohol or tobacco.

At the same time, they can be prosecuted for non-criminal conduct such as refusing to attend school, and disobeying their parents. Against these realities, the practice of prosecuting children as adults is blisteringly hypocritical.

NAKED MEANNESS

It's a point I've made in previous columns and in discussions with people at seminars, public gatherings, and private meetings. Yet, I've never met a single person who has even attempted to reconcile the age-appropriate manner in which kids are treated generally with the naked meanness that has hijacked the juvenile justice system.

To me, this can only be explained by a general recognition among thinking people that this bizarre disparity in treatment is absolutely indefensible. Unfortunately, this doesn't translate into the public pressure necessary to get politicians to turn a deaf ear to the beer-belching yahoos and their simplistic law and order blabber.

"Christopher's Bill" contains a number of sensible reforms that would restore the integrity of the juvenile justice system without compromising the safety of the community. One of its key provisions would exempt any person under 14 years of age from mandatory sentencing laws and require that they be at least eligible for parole or release when they become 21 years old.

The proposal would also require law enforcement officials to advise children under the age of 14 of their constitutional rights in the presence of an attorney or guardian and permit questioning only when such adults are present. This provision recognizes the obvious -- yet routinely ignored -- reality that a child is no match for veteran police interrogators.

To provide relief for Christopher and others similarly situated, the bill would be retroactive for 10 years.

Getting South Carolina or any other state to reform its juvenile justice system is going to be extraordinarily difficult. While it is comforting that Justice for Juveniles and other like-minded organizations are waging the good fight, they could definitely use the help of some powerful politicians.

As of now, at least, the silence is both deafening and disgusting.

top of page

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT'S YOUR KID ARRESTED?
Judge Daniel Leddy/Family Court Judge NY

Monday, June 13, 2005

Most parents are certain that it won't happen to their child. They figure that police, prosecutors and courts are for other people's kids, the ones from bad homes who were never taught right from wrong. It's a dangerous naiveté that carries a very high price tag. For while responsible parents strive diligently to prepare their children for every contingency, they leave them woefully unprepared for the seemingly unthinkable possibility of being arrested.

Countless unsuspecting children find themselves in precisely that traumatic situation every day. When stunned parents are notified by the police, they have absolutely no idea how bad things could really get even where the charge is of a minor nature and will be handled in Family Court. They don't anticipate finding themselves in a desperate, agonizing struggle to salvage their child's future. And they certainly can't be expected to know that the worst place in the state to be prosecuted in the Family Court is right here in New York City.

When the New York State Family Court came into existence in 1962, it handled every type of charge filed against youngsters under the age of 16, including murder. Through the years, however, the power of the Family Court has been whittled away by political blowhards in Albany trying to portray themselves as tough-as-nails on juvenile crime. As a result of a succession of mean-spirited, knee-jerk legislative initiatives, children are now tried in adult courts for several kinds of crimes.

Even though the Family Court generally handles only lesser offenses today, juvenile delinquency proceedings in the five boroughs often generate an intensity approximating the trial of major felonies in the adult system. A far cry from what the Family Court was supposed to be, this is a very unsettling reality.

THE PROSECUTORS

The case against accused juveniles in the Family Court is handled by attorneys from the New York City Corporation Counsel's Office. They are not elected officials nor are they even technically prosecutors, although their function is similar and they clearly relish the label.

When drawing up charges against a child, these attorneys don't hold anything back. If a simple offense could theoretically support 10 different charges, you can bet the ranch that the child is going to get hit with all ten. They persist in this hard-nosed attitude throughout the entire proceeding, from arraignment to disposition. However much they try to justify this approach as furthering the interests of the community at large, it remains fundamentally inconsistent with the historic mandate of the Family Court to rehabilitate wayward kids in the least restrictive manner. Besides, when a child is successfully rehabilitated, the community profits.

One argument that attorneys from the Corporation Counsel's office make in defense of their handling of juvenile delinquency cases does have some merit. They point out that the great majority of children charged in Family Court are represented very aggressively by the Juvenile Rights Division of the Legal Aid Society. Unless they are equally aggressive in prosecuting cases, they argue, the defense will run roughshod over them, and potentially dangerous children might be cut loose without regard for the public safety.

It's true that Legal Aid attorneys provide tenacious representation for their young clients. Their goal is to get the delinquency charges dismissed, however much the accused child might actually need treatment or confinement. Nobody is suggesting, however, that the attorneys from the Corporation Counsel's office should roll over for them.

On the contrary, they have an important role to fulfill and they should fulfill it well. That does not translate, however, into a license to denigrate the needs of the child as a matter of course.

Children accused of wrongdoing in the Family Court in New York City have only one real hope of escaping the consequences of what juvenile delinquency proceedings have become. Judges have to take the initiative to try to resolve these cases in their earliest stages. Those who passively sit back and hope that the opposing attorneys will work out a deal on their own are missing a golden opportunity to shield a child from unnecessary anguish. In other words, they are not doing their job.

Finally, parents should disabuse themselves of the notion that none of this has any relevance to them. They must understand that juvenile delinquency proceedings are extremely serious and could result in their child's being taken away from them for several years. Moreover, there are attorneys at the courthouse who might well be pushing for exactly that to happen.

top of page