The recent sentencing in Columbia County Court of Matthew
Sackett, who went on a crime spree and pled guilty to numerous felonies
including two acts of arson, is one of many court cases on which District
Attorney Czajka has not worked in the best interests of the people of the
county. The arson cases put lives in jeopardy and cost the victims $857,860.
The heading of every criminal indictment or Superior Court
Information is: “The People of The State of New York against John Doe”. The District
Attorney represents the People of the State in county criminal matters. Over
the tenure of Mr. Czajka’s term in office, he has not taken a position on several
serious criminal cases as to the proper disposition or sentencing of the
defendant, before or after a plea has been taken. Why?
In the Sackett prosecution, as reported by The Register
Star, the DA’s representative told the court: ”We ask, your honor, that you
issue a just sentence in this case, as we know you will.” The defense lawyer at
the sentencing is quoted as stating: “It doesn’t excuse or explain things he
did. He knows right from wrong”.
The Judge in this matter sentenced the defendant to time
served in the County Columbia Jail along with five years’ probation. The terms required
that Sackett receive mental health treatment and perform public service. In addition,
he was to pay restitution in the amount of more than $857,860. The Judge stated
he would personally monitor Sackett’s progress to make sure he follows through
on his probation.
There are number of points that should be made.
First, in a case that is pled and does not go to trial, the DA
is the only person who should know all the details. Neither the defense counsel nor the sentencing
judge typically knows the nuances involved in the disposition of the matter.
The judge reads the probation report, which is usually a limited document, and
listens to the defense and prosecution arguments at the sentencing. In the
Sackett case, oral arguments did not occur, and the DA left all decisions to
the judge’s discretion. He did not offer any insights on what sentence would be
in the interests of the people of the county, and he stood silent knowing the
victims would never get restitution in the amount dictated.
The DA must provide basic information to the court on
whether the defendant poses a risk to the safety of the county or not.
Reasonable minds may differ in this matter. Many people in the community may
view the defendant as a dangerous fire bug and thief, especially since his
lawyer stated he knows right from wrong.
If this is true, why didn't the DA argue for prison?
So, if Sackett isn’t a threat to the community, in such
situations the DA has the ethical obligation to help determine the defendant’s
rehabilitation process. Why didn't he broker a plan of service with the defense
counsel and community resources that would give the defendant the necessary intensive
supervision for both a day and residential setting? An informal plan of service
has a high risk for failure. The judge is
to be commended in his concern about the defendant. However, neither a judge
nor the Probation or Mental Health Departments have the time, resources, and
information to provide a plan for such intensive supervision.
How would you feel if you went to court and your attorney did
not address your interests to the judge? Would you feel secure with his
services to you? The people and the presiding
judge deserve an informed and educated opinion from Mr. Czajka as to the status
of cases. Furthermore, that opinion should be based on evidence from research,
not only conducted by his staff, but in collaboration with a team of
professionals and community resources. This process would improve public safety
and unbiased justice for the community.
ISN'T THIS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP?
Eugene Keeler
