Something New in Court...

Something new has been added to the introduction made by at least one judge in McHenry County Courts. I was visiting in Judge Robert Beaderstadt's courtroom this morning, and he has added information that if a person in his court is not a U.S. citizen, he might be subject to deportation.

No one ran out the door today.

Judge Beaderstadt spoke loudly and clearly when he gave his general instructions to all in the courtroom before he began calling cases. His explanation of levels of charges and possible fines probably went over the heads of many in court, but at least he explained it all.

It was too bad that, after court started, the proceedings at the bench could not be heard as clearly as his instructions.

The bailiff did nothing to quiet the several attorneys who milled around the courtroom and held informal, stand-up discussions with their clients, caring not one wit whether they interfered with the hearing by others of what was being said to or by Judge Beaderstadt.

Judge Beaderstadt did announce that everything in the courtroom would be recorded, but why doesn't he insist that the courtroom be still and that attorneys and "customers" of the court speak up so that their voices can be heard throughout the courtroom? I suspect that he may just not be aware that at least some of us in his courtroom want to hear what is being said at the bench.

It would certainly be easy and inexpensive to amplify the sound gathered by the microphones at the bench. Then we could all hear.

A word to the attorneys milling around. Take your conversations outside. If you are worried about missing a call of your case, then meet with your clients before court starts.

And to the bailiff (oops, courtroom security officer): Please be more aware of the disturbance caused by the attorneys and quiet them down. Thanks!

Cell Phone Rings in Court

"TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES"

This notice is posted on the door to Judge Caldwell's courtroom. What part of that is hard to understand? One would think that each person entering would then check his cell phone and turn it off. Right? Wrong!

Midway through this morning's call, a lawyer's cell phone began to ring. And not just "Ring-ring"; it has one of those obnoxious ringtones. You should have seen him scrambling to find it. Naturally, it was in the bottom of his briefcase on the floor. By the time he found and silenced it, the bailiff (now the politically-correct term is Court Security Officer) was approaching.

What did the bailiff do? Nothing!

If the cell phone of an ordinary Joe had rung, what would have happened? My guess is that his phone might have been confiscated and returned later; possibly a lot later. (In Carpentersville the court duty cop officiously announces that your phone WILL be confiscated and you can pick it up after 4:00PM in Elgin.)

Coincidentally, this lawyer was with three others who thought it permissible to talk in hushed tones through much of today's court time. Finally, I asked the one talking the most if he would step outside to finish his conversation. Why didn't the bailiff quiet them? I'll add that the lawyer with the ringing cell phone was not among the three who talked.

When court opened and Judge Caldwell entered, all in the courtroom rose and stopped talking - except for two (how should I call them - "mature"? "experienced"? "older"?) lawyers. They didn't miss a word in their conversation.

In Judge Caldwell's courtroom it was impossible to hear what was being said at the bench. The judge spoke in low tones, and the lawyers speaking to the judge spoke in low tones while their backs were to the "audience." I finally approached the bailiff to ask if we in the courtroom were entitled to hear what was being said at the bench.

His answer was that the arguments were recorded. He also let me know that I could take a seaet in the jury box, where I would be closer to the bench.

Big deal! So now, do I have to find where to go in the courthouse to hear the recordings? And what kind of foolishness will I encounter if I ask to hear a tape?

My viewpoint is that the public is ENTITLED to hear what is said. How else are we assured of a free country and to know what is asked of, and granted by, the judge?

On April 25th I wrote to Presiding Judge Sullivan to ask if the public was entitled to hear what was being said at the bench. I know he must be busy, because I haven't received his reply yet.

We voters should remember before the next time that judges are elected to ask those candidates for office where they stand on making sure that the public can hear what is being said in the courtroom!

By the way, I surely hope Judge Caldwell has more exciting days than today. The matters today were b-o-r-i-n-g. But that's the stuff that lawyers get paid the big bucks for. If they did their jobs expeditiously, thoroughly, promptly, completely, correctly - respecting the client's checkbook as if it were their own, the dockets wouldn't be clogged and plaintiff's and defendants would not have to wait years for decisions.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT