Dean Loven is playing fast and loose with the law. And the truth.
There is in fact no legal bar to Court Watch volunteers attempting to make judges aware — judges who do not want to be aware in many cases — of defendants’ criminal records at sentencing. Loven is running around Charlotte acting like Court Watch is disrupting the trial phase of criminal proceedings, to wit:
“The Constitution affords rights to someone accused of a crime,” Loven said.
“A judge or jury is only supposed to decide a case based upon properly admitted evidence in a court. That does not include statements from the gallery.”
What arrogance, what crap. As if Dean Loven alone seeks to defend the Constitution, as if Court Watch volunteers do not know that the accused have rights — or seek to deny them those rights. And then the all-too typical mendacity from Charlotte’s ruling class. Court Watch is not attempting to influence how a judge or jury lands on guilt or innocence — and Loven knows that.
Via their community impact letters, Court Watch is forcing judges to take note of the official criminal histories of those convicts and felons who stand before them for sentencing. Make them aware in a very public way that the public knows, for example, that the guy standing in court was wearing an ankle bracelet while going on his most recent crime spree, so maybe — just maybe — sentencing him to another ankle bracelet is not exactly a functional way to stop him causing further harm to the community.
Is that so very objectionable?
To Mecklenburg County’s broken and dysfunctional criminal justice system, you bet your ass. Judges do not want to even be seen rejecting Court Watch’s participation at sentencing — except Superior Court basketcase Linwood Foust — so out trots the public defender’s office to help keep justice not just blind, but deaf and dumb as well.
Bonus Mendacity: WBTV has already documented that Loven has been in court trying to stop Court Watch on cases in which he was not the attorney of the defendant. Today’s UPoR dispatch:
Loven’s strategy for limiting Court Watch’s participation applies to cases in which he represents a defendant whom Court Watch is targeting. If invited by other public defenders, he said he might also work with them to limit Court Watch’s participation.
Uh-huh.
