home

New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 07:28:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Judith Clark, a Weather Underground member charged with acting as a getaway driver in the 1981 robbery of an armored car that resulted in three deaths, asked to represent herself at her trial. When that request was granted, Clark refused to participate in the trial, sitting in her cell while the prosecution presented its case.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled yesterday that Clark is entitled to a new trial. It's one thing for a court to allow a defendant to represent herself, but quite another to allow a trial to go forward when the defendant's interests are completely unrepresented. Defendants are allowed to represent themselves only if they're capable of abiding by court rules, and Clark showed herself unable to follow the primary rule: show up for the trial.

Clark was sentenced in 1983 to 75 years in prison.

< This is Your Ass on Drugs | Revisiting Rumsfeld >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    Unfortunately, i don't have a great deal of sympathy for someone who demanded to represent themselves, and then didn't present any defense at trial. I think a guilty verdict is on her own head in that case. If ideologues insist on convicting themselves out of their own folly, why should the law compensate? How is this different than if Clark had made an ill-advised plea of guilty, which would be most unlikely to get anyone a new trial?

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:31:50 AM EST
    We don't necessarily need sympathy. We need to know if she's guilty, if so then of what, and what the proper sentence is. Having no defense makes it impossible to be confident that we got all that right, regardless of who's fault it is.

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#4)
    by JSN on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    My question is why did the Judge allow the trial to proceed under those circumstances?

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    btw, if I'm arrested and jailed for a crime, represent myself, and then not show up for trial, how is this ever resolved?

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Colossal waste of time and money. How many innocent people are sitting in jail, while we waste time because this woman decided her own trial wasn't worth the bother. This would be a fantastic way to circumvent a prosecution, especially if the state's witnesses are really old. This is a sad joke and stuff like this makes the whole system look bad. I am assuming her mental state is not in question.

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#2)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    She was accessory to killing three of the pigs. So she gets a break. It's not like it was murder or anything.

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    It's one thing for a court to allow a defendant to represent herself, but quite another to allow a trial to go forward when the defendant's interests are completely unrepresented.
    Uh, she gave that up. How do we get these people as "judges?"

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    No person shall be held to answer for a[n] infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment. CHECK. Nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. CHECK. Nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. CHECK. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial [CHECK], by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, [CHECK], which district shall have been previously ascertained by law [CHECK], and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation [CHECK]; To be confronted with the witnesses against him. [CHECK] To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. [CHECK] And to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [CHECK - WAIVED] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. [CHECK] Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any constitutional problem with what happened here. All of these rights were availed, but she clearly chose to decline those concerning the trial itself. She should have the personal integrity to live with the consequences of her actions and choices. The Court should not indulge any notions to the contrary. If the judge hasn't enough work to do, she should consider resigning rather than crafting such patently ridiculous rulings.

    Re: New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    What has been denied is due process since, in the absence of a guilty plea or any defense presentation, there is no way of being sure that she is guilty. When she did not put on any defense appearance the judge should have appointed an attorney to represent her. What should surprise us that it took so long to overturn this clear impropriety.

    New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark | 9 comments (9 topical)