Do You Feel Safe?

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