Gerster Courtwatch: The People are not a Party.

Just got this minute entry today from the Maricopa County Superior Court clerk's office, acknowledging my letter to Judge Verdin (et al) about the prosecution of Kevin Gerster. It was kind of them to at least mail notice to me that our opinions on this matter are really irrelevant. I guess the People aren't a party to the violation of our trust by law enforcement officers, according to the courts - the state is representing its own interests, then, not ours. Tell me how this is a system of "justice" again?

Mentally ill prisoner abuse: Keesee walks.

CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATION HERE

Looks like the Maricopa County Attorney's Office doesn't think it can make a case stick against former MCSO detention officer Alan Keesee, despite the Youtube video we all saw of him assaulting William Franklin Hughes in the psychiatric wing of the Lower Buckeye Jail while the kid was fully-restrained. They must just not care how brutalized we are - I should have seen this coming after they sent the Game Boy kid in to handle Gerster's prosecution.














This is really pathetic. Talk about being soft on violent crime.

This means that Keesee will probably be reinstated at the jail, of course - with seven months back pay. No labor in this state has rights unless it's a cop of some kind, it seems. All the guards who helped kill Marcia Powell got their jobs back, too...and the MCAO didn't have the guts to prosecute them, either - that was on Rick Romley's watch. What does it take in this place to get justice for the poor when we get beaten up or killed by law enforcement officers?

Meanwhile, the county attorney's office prosecuted William - despite his mental illness, the benign nature of the charges against him, and the beating he took in the jail by both Gerster and Keesee. I'm pretty confused about the direction of the MCAO now - I thought Bill Montgomery was against such abusive prosecutions of people who - but for the symptoms of a psychiatric disability - would not be in the criminal justice system. I was so sure he was I wished him a hug.

William was so impaired when he was arrested for indecent exposure that the judge who arriagned him ordered a rule 11 hearing and refused to release him - which is when he was beaten, disturbingly. You'd think if no one else was outraged about Keesee being let off, that judge who put him in their care would be. I sure am.

Guess victims in custody really don't have any rights in Maricopa County, pre-trial or otherwise - especially the most vulnerable and seriously mentally ill.

You all know who to complain to about this.
Don't just leave it as a conversation between him and me.

Bill Montgomery
Maricopa County Attorney
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-3411



Original Court Minutes

POLICE BRUTALITY: This is also what resistance looks like.

Montgomery's Follow-up Response HERE

(SEPTEMBER 2011)

MCSO Brutality update: Kevin Gerster and William Hughes

UPDATE (10/21/11):

Gerster's Sentencing

-----------------

NEXT HEARING:

Comprehensive Trial Management Conference
June 9, 2011 - 8:45am
Maricopa County Central Court Building
(W. Jefferson St.)
Judge Verdin.


Maricopa County Courthouse
May 18, 2011

The Comprehensive Trial Management Conference was to be held today (May 18, 2011), but it was pushed back and everything that occurred was done up at the bench, where the public couldn't witness it or determine what was said in the transcripts...I suspect because I had been protesting loudly outside before the hearing, confronting Gerster when he arrived (my taxes paid his salary, after all - and he hurt people in violation of my trust). All I was able to catch Judge Verdin saying to his attorney, who requested that they approach to discuss the case, was that "this is a delicate situation."

Damn straight it is. There are a lot of us mad as hell about what Gerster and fellow officer Alan Keesee did. Gerster and Keesee have more rights as perpetrators of assault than William Hughes has as their victims do now. As some of you may recall, if we, as citizens, are victimized while in custody, we're excluded from the constitutional protections and rights we have when crimes are perpetrated against us in the community, effectively silencing our voice in court proceedings, rights to restitution, etc. if a cop is the perpetrator.

I believe they are buying time for people to forget what Gerster did to us, the rest of his "victims"; chances seem very good that the Maricopa County Attorney is about to offer him a deal. The upcoming trial was cancelled in anticipation of a deal being reached beforehand.

Please contact Bill Montgomery's office and urge that this officer's entire prosecution be made visible and transparent to the public, as he violated us all with the abuse of his office and the assaults on his prisoners.

Remind him that Gerster assaulted at least two "VULNERABLE adults" in custody (making him a repeat, violent offender), and could have been charged with class 2 (not the lower class 6) felonies for that, and must not be allowed to walk with anything less than felony charges and prison time if they give him a deal.

Put your concerns in writing ASAP to:

Mr. Bill Montgomery
Maricopa County Attorney
301 W. Jefferson St. PHX 85003

I'd appreciate copies of your letters to post publicly. Send them to:

Peggy Plews / PO Box 20494 /PHX, AZ 85036

Please also express your continued outrage over the conduct of MCSO officers, and your desire to see justice served, to:

Editor, Arizona Republic / P.O. Box 1950 /Phoenix, AZ 85001

Finally, I looked up the status of William Franklin Hughes III's case. The MCAO still appears to be prosecuting him for the petty offenses (like criminal damage and indecent exposure - most likely secondary to the symptoms of his mental illness) that landed him in Gerster's and Keesee's pre-trial "care" in the psychiatric wing of the county jail in the first place...he was even ordered to undergo competency exams by the judge before they would proceed any further. I don't understand why he's going on trial, given what Montgomery had to say recently about the need to divert these folks from prosecution in the first place. I just discovered that his trial was supposed to begin this am, which I missed.

You would think the MCAO would recognize the beatings he received in jail as punishment enough - and poor William was out of his mind when he got pounded on by those guys. So, folks, please also ask Mr. Montgomery what the deal is with William's prosecution. Those are our tax dollars he's eating up in this unnecessary and cruel endeavor to punish a young man who was already terribly traumatized in custody over "crimes" that really hurt no one else...




Maricopa County Courthouse
(3rd St/W. Jefferson, PHX)
March 11, 2011

AZ Victims of State Crimes: Constitutionally Denied Justice.

"Defend Human Rights"

Phoenix Committee of Homeless Campers.
Artwalk (March 4, 2011).

The international community recognized the need to protect victims of state violence a long time ago. Why does the Arizona Constitution exclude us when we're assaulted or killed in custody - it doesn't even protect the state from liability? It just means that the victims of police brutality have no rights in criminal court. As citizens who have been abused by the state, we aren't invited to comment on plea deals or the sentencing of our perpetrators, guaranteed services from the multitude of Victims' Rights agencies, appointed a victim/witness advocate, or assured that a restitution agreement will cover or medical expenses.

Excluding victims who "are in custody for an offense" from constitutional protections not only relegates prisoners to sub-human status in the hands of the state, it does the same to the family members who survive the violence or gross indifference to human life that takes their loved ones. The prisoners who get most abused are very often the ones who are least able to defend themselves or seek redress afterwards: the seriously mentally ill who shouldn't even be in the criminal justice system to begin with.

The legislature is empowered to extend victims rights to everyone - it doesn't have to go to referendum. Tell your legislator that victims of state crimes matter, too. He or she can be reached at:

Arizona State Legislature
1700 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007


cc your letter to the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ron Gould, and someone there who might really care: Mesa Representative and Chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee, Cecil Ash.

-------------From the Arizona State Constitution, Article 2--------

2.1. Victims' bill of rights

Section 2.1. (A) To preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process, a victim of crime has a right:

1. To be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

2. To be informed, upon request, when the accused or convicted person is released from custody or has escaped.

3. To be present at and, upon request, to be informed of all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.

4. To be heard at any proceeding involving a post-arrest release decision, a negotiated plea, and sentencing.

5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or other person acting on behalf of the defendant.

6. To confer with the prosecution, after the crime against the victim has been charged, before trial or before any disposition of the case and to be informed of the disposition.

7. To read pre-sentence reports relating to the crime against the victim when they are available to the defendant.

8. To receive prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim's loss or injury.

9. To be heard at any proceeding when any post-conviction release from confinement is being considered.

10. To a speedy trial or disposition and prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction and sentence.

11. To have all rules governing criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence in all criminal proceedings protect victims' rights and to have these rules be subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature to ensure the protection of these rights.

12. To be informed of victims' constitutional rights.

(B) A victim's exercise of any right granted by this section shall not be grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence.

(C) "Victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed or, if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative, except if the person is in custody for an offense or is the accused.

(D) The legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, have the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section, including the authority to extend any of these rights to juvenile proceedings.

(E) The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage others granted by the legislature or retained by victims.

---------------

from the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power

Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985

A. Victims of crime

1. "Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power.

2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term "victim" also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

3. The provisions contained herein shall be applicable to all, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, nationality, political or other opinion, cultural beliefs or practices, property, birth or family status, ethnic or social origin, and disability.

Access to justice and fair treatment

4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.

5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.

6. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by:

( a ) Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information;

( b ) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system;

( c ) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;

( d ) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation;

( e ) Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees granting awards to victims.

7. Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, including mediation, arbitration and customary justice or indigenous practices, should be utilized where appropriate to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims.

Restitution

8. Offenders or third parties responsible for their behaviour should, where appropriate, make fair restitution to victims, their families or dependants. Such restitution should include the return of property or payment for the harm or loss suffered, reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the victimization, the provision of services and the restoration of rights.

9. Governments should review their practices, regulations and laws to consider restitution as an available sentencing option in criminal cases, in addition to other criminal sanctions.

10. In cases of substantial harm to the environment, restitution, if ordered, should include, as far as possible, restoration of the environment, reconstruction of the infrastructure, replacement of community facilities and reimbursement of the expenses of relocation, whenever such harm results in the dislocation of a community.

11. Where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-official capacity have violated national criminal laws, the victims should receive restitution from the State whose officials or agents were responsible for the harm inflicted. In cases where the Government under whose authority the victimizing act or omission occurred is no longer in existence, the State or Government successor in title should provide restitution to the victims.

Compensation

12. When compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources, States should endeavour to provide financial compensation to:

( a ) Victims who have sustained significant bodily injury or impairment of physical or mental health as a result of serious crimes;

( b ) The family, in particular dependants of persons who have died or become physically or mentally incapacitated as a result of such victimization.

13. The establishment, strengthening and expansion of national funds for compensation to victims should be encouraged. Where appropriate, other funds may also be established for this purpose, including in those cases where the State of which the victim is a national is not in a position to compensate the victim for the harm.

Assistance

14. Victims should receive the necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance through governmental, voluntary, community-based and indigenous means.

15. Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant assistance and be readily afforded access to them.

16. Police, justice, health, social service and other personnel concerned should receive training to sensitize them to the needs of victims, and guidelines to ensure proper and prompt aid.

17. In providing services and assistance to victims, attention should be given to those who have special needs because of the nature of the harm inflicted or because of factors such as those mentioned in paragraph 3 above.

B. Victims of abuse of power

18. "Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that do not yet constitute violations of national criminal laws but of internationally recognized norms relating to human rights.

19. States should consider incorporating into the national law norms proscribing abuses of power and providing remedies to victims of such abuses. In particular, such remedies should include restitution and/or compensation, and necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance and support.

20. States should consider negotiating multilateral international treaties relating to victims, as defined in paragraph 18.

21. States should periodically review existing legislation and practices to ensure their responsiveness to changing circumstances, should enact and enforce, if necessary, legislation proscribing acts that constitute serious abuses of political or economic power, as well as promoting policies and mechanisms for the prevention of such acts, and should develop and make readily available appropriate rights and remedies for victims of such acts.