War Within a War

In 1972, violent confrontations between shipmates on the U. S. aircraft carriers Kitty Hawk and Constellation gave rise to an investigation by the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (see link below).  The violence on the Kitty Hawk occurred during war operations off the coast of Vietnam.  The incidents had their genesis in the perceived unequal treatment of black sailors, including unfair treatment under the military code of justice.  There are enough facets to the events (described by some as "race riots" or a "mutiny") to validate a multitude of sociological studies.  I find the most fascinating aspect to be how the politicians in Washington viewed the incidents.  The Armed Services Committee focused its concerns on the discipline in the Navy and the qualifications of recruits.  The concerns of the black sailors seem to have been only superficially examined.  The Committee's recommendation that "more effort is needed to screen out the agitators and troublemakers at the recruit level" is fanciful in view of the fact that the armed forces were desperate for personnel to fill the enlisted ranks.  Many of the sailors who were concerned about their treatment were probably not serving by choice, but rather by chance.  Their only choice was to enlist in the Navy to avoid becoming a foot soldier in the Army.  In 1972, a young man who was a "lottery pick" did not immediately earn millions of dollars.  He earned $144.10 per month.  (The authority to draft "lottery picks" expired June 30, 1973).

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/racial_incidents.htm

Hotdog Liberal Judge Is Conservative

He was active in founding the ACLU.  He was a New Deal progressive, and was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  His name is Felix Frankfurter and (as you can imagine) his name gave rise to political comedic comment (i.e., his followers were sometimes called "Felix's Happy Hot Dogs").  Now comes the amazing fact!  This progressive-liberal attorney was a strong and committed advocate of "Judicial Restraint."  He did not believe that the United States Supreme Court should become involved in resolving political issues by creative interpretation of the plain language of the United States Constitution.  He was reluctant to apply the federal Constitution to executive, legislative and judicial decisions of the individual states.  He was a frequent dissenter from the Supreme Court's "liberal" decisions of the late 50's and early 60's.  What every litigant wants is a judge who will decide his or her case on the law and the facts, rather than political views or personal beliefs.  Justice Frankfurter decided cases without needless relish!   John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

Can We All Get Along

The Academy Award nominated film 12 Angry Men is a dramatic portrayal of a jury trying to reach a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial.  It begins with eleven jurors voting "guilty" and one "holdout" juror.  During the deliberation process, the eleven jurors voting "guilty" are persuaded to change to "not guilty."  The storyline is good drama, but fiction.  During my 21 years as a trial court judge, I never had the experience of one juror persuading the others to change their opinions.  The fact, not the fiction, is that it is common in the American legal system for one juror to doggedly refuse to join with his or her fellow jurors to deliver a unanimous verdict and the trial ends where it began, without a verdict.  If a jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge must declare a mistrial and the case will start all over again with a new jury.  Frequently, when the case is presented to a subsequent jury, the jurors quickly come to a unanimous verdict.  Jurors who participate in a "hung jury" resulting from a "holdout" juror, are frustrated by the legal process.  They have given their time (perhaps reluctantly) to participate in a public service and feel that the public is not being well served by a judicial system that allows a single juror to control the outcome. Surprisingly, the judicial process in some states allows a verdict by a non-unanimous jury, and the United States Supreme Court has approved such convictions despite the lack of jury unanimity.  For a comprehensive examination of the legal and practical aspects of unanimous v. non-unanimous verdicts, read the well researched and concise law review article at the link below, written by Michael Glasser.    John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/243/glasfram.html

Marine Corps Major General Says War Is A Racket

He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor for war valor.  He was a Major General of the Marine Corps.  Consequently, his opinions regarding war, economics, politics and morality are worthy of solemn consideration.  In 1935, retired Major General Smedley Butler published a booklet setting forth his view that the real beneficiaries of war are economic profiteers, and their profits are purchased with the blood of soldiers, sailors and Marines. It is not a unique point of view, but it is certainly unusual for a career military officer to launch a campaign to discredit the role of warfare in society.  The booklet is written like a drill sergeant's address to new trainees, which makes it very refreshing.  The link below will take you to the booklet.  John Greanias, Copyright 2013.
http://www.warisaracket.com/

Hey Dude, Where Is My Jury?

     When George Zimmerman was on trial, charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, there were only 6 jurors.  What happened to the other 6?  Nothing really.  Florida, and some other states, allow criminal trials with a jury of fewer than the traditional 12 members. Is that constitutional?  The answer was NO before it was YES.  In 1898 the U. S. Supreme Court required 12, no more, no less.  In 1970 the Court reviewed legal history and viewed the traditional jury of 12 to be a "historical accident."  The Court repaired the accident damage and allowed for a jury of 6 in state court criminal trials.  John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

Yo Dude, You Can't Say That! (The "Not-So-Perfect" Trial)

A jury trial can be a messy thing.  It is not uncommon for attorneys to inadvertently violate rules in the heat of litigation, or for witnesses to act inappropriately, or for jurors to engage in improper conduct. Even judges make mistakes!  Fortunately, American jurisprudence recognizes that a fair trial does not always mean a perfect trial.  As a judge, I was frequently in the position of trying to "keep the wheels on" a trial after it hit a few bumps. On a cold winter day a few years ago, I was presiding at a trial in which the defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder of a police officer.  The trial was proceeding comfortably along when, unexpectedly, a police officer decided to supplement her answer to an attorney's question by telling the jury that the defendant refused to take a lie detector test.  BIG PROBLEM for two reasons.  First, testimony regarding lie detector tests is not admissible in a criminal trial because such tests do not have sufficient scientific reliability. Second, testimony of refusal to take a lie detector test is a serious violation of a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent.  Of course, the defendant demanded a mistrial.  Could this trial be saved? The trial was already a "do over" because, three weeks earlier, another jury was unable to agree on a verdict. I was not certain that the appellate court would agree with me, but I decided that the jury could overlook the serious mistake and still render a fair verdict.  Consequently, I fully explained the problem to the jury, and then instructed them to disregard the officer's testimony regarding a lie detector test. The trial proceeded, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.  Two years later, the appellate court affirmed the conviction (link below).  It was another case saved by the principle that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to a perfect trial, only the right to a fair trial.  The evolution of this fundamental principle is well examined in the 2009 scholarly work of Roger A. Fairfax Jr,. published in the Marquette Law Review (link below).  John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-fourth-appellate-district/2000/4980350.html

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4944&context=mulr

Aaron Sorkin gets an A+ for "The Newsroom" and Fourth Estate critics get an F- for journalism.

Aaron Sorkin is an oscar-winning screenwriter with a long list of successful and entertaining creations.  As a former Navy JAG attorney assigned to duty with the Marine Corps, I thoroughly enjoyed his early masterpiece, "A Few Good Men."  (Kudos to his sister who joined the JAG Corps after graduating from law school, and was the inspiration for the story.)  So why have some members of the Fourth Estate been so harsh in their reviews of "The Newsroom"?  It is alarming to think that journalists, who consider themselves to be authoritative, cannot discern entertainment from reality.  Are there journalists who really think that the practice of law is accurately portrayed in television programs like "The Good Wife" or "Suits"?  Story lines in legal dramas would, in many cases, result in disbarment in the real world instead of courtroom victory.   Television dramas are not Reality TV!  They are entertainment, and Sorkin's news media drama is indeed refreshing entertainment.  If you want to experience exceptional writing and outstanding acting, tune into "The Newsroom" (and tune out the misguided critics from the Fourth Estate who seem to be unable to leave work at the office and have a good time).  John Greanias, Copyright 2013.

Judge John Greanias Retirement Ends Family's 62 Year Run in Judiciary

Gus Greanias, Basil Greanias and John Greanias.  Beginning in 1946 and ending in 2008, a family of attorneys elected to serve the community in Macon County, Illinois.
http://herald-review.com/news/local/judge-greanias-retirement-ends-family-s--year-run-in/article_9bd5fec9-8078-53c9-8253-1d8fea215f01.html

A Real CSI Drama

Most criminal trials are routine.  However, sometimes a trial involves all of the forensic science displayed in fictional television dramas. The murder of  Karyn Slover is one of those cases.  The investigation and trial are the subject of two television docudramas.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/mbb204_karyn_slover/11.html

"Judge" Dick Smothers and John Greanias

Singer, actor, comedian Dick Smothers put on a judicial robe and took the bench in the courtroom of John Greanias for the filming of The Informant!.

Judge John Greanias and Matt Damon

Does this courtroom look familiar?  The Informant! starring Matt Damon was filmed in the courtroom of Judge John Greanias in 2008.  Matt Damon was nominated for a Best Actor award by the Screen Actors Guild for his performance in the film.

Greanias Proposes Full Time Public Defender Office

I am pleased to report that Macon County, Illinois now has a full time public defender office.  It is located in the courthouse for the convenience of public defender attorneys, staff, and clients.  This is a significant enhancement of service for indigent litigants.  The link below discusses the original proposal by Judge John Greanias.
http://herald-review.com/news/local/greanias-proposes-full-time-public-defenders-office/article_55e8a931-5786-52db-a77f-a264a8d4793b.html

Equal Justice For Self-Represented Persons In Court

Appearing in court without an attorney is now a common occurrence.  The reasons for the increase in self-representation include: high cost of attorney fees, expanded laws for protection of personal rights (orders of protection, child support, child custody), and a society more prone to litigation.  Courts are playing catch-up to make courtrooms friendly to self-represented litigants.  The link below discusses Judge John Greanias and the equal access opportunities developed for Macon County, Illinois.
http://www.equaljusticeillinois.org/docs/nl/newsletter_spring07.pdf