On September 12th, the class had the opportunity to listen to an Iowa District Associate Judge and also a magistrate. The discussion shed more light onto chapter one of our books, deepening my understand of how a courtroom works and how other factors work inside the courtroom.
Magistrate, Karen Thalacker, holds the lowest level of a courtroom judge, but her job deals with a multitude of cases that can send people to jail for up to 30 days, including: small claims, weddings, bonds, speeding tickets, etc. Because there are only two magistrates in Bremer county, she usually works every other week and has to make sure that she can be reached at anytime. District Associate Judge, Peter Newell, is the next step up from a magistrate. He deals with cases involving drunk driving, thefts, and drug possessions and has the authority to sentence people to one year in county jail and up to five years in prison.
With a little bit of background knowledge on what exactly they do, it was easy to see that the main part of a judges’ job is to simply sentence whoever walks into the courtroom. However, when Newell and Thalacker were talking to the class, I noticed how much passion they had for their jobs, and it was clear that these judges didn’t just focus on merely sentencing someone, but rather making sure that the courtroom maintained a certain level of respect and trust. This respect and trust plays a huge part when dealing with the media and also giving a fair trial.
Hearing Newell and Thalacker talk about how they deal with the media was definitely the topic that intrigued me the most. Newell started this discussion with saying, “everything I do can show up in the paper,” meaning that judges have to be careful about what they say and do both inside and outside the courtroom. Judges (and the public for that matter) need to remember that everything they say is “on the record” unless otherwise noted. Journalists and judges have to work together to get information out to the public that is fair and correctly informed. A high level of professionalism needs to be in place for both to work together smoothly to please communities. Extended media coverages have been a new obstacle for journalists that some judges fret about. Newell said that he often panics when getting a call from the media to do an extended media coverage just because so many things could happen, and people could take what is being said on social media in different context that what it really is. “It holds everyone accountable,” added Thalacker. Tension then arises between judges and journalists when information is withheld from being published or when the media publishes a statement that shows bias to a particular side in the case. Withholding information would be an example of a cop sealing a search warrant, so a reporters cannot have access to background information before any evidence is in place. Judges also have the authority to not let reporters do extended media coverage in their courtroom; this is especially necessary on some high profile cases to protect everyone involved. On the other hand, when journalists shows bias on a case, this can cause an uproar with the public that the judge then has to settle in court; if the biased statement was released before the trial, the judge can run into some conflicts of interest and the journalist could even be sued. I think when judges and the media work together with the benefit of the public in mind, problems won’t arise.
Newell and Thalacker then went on to explain how important it is to give a fair trial even if the people involved with the case have a bad reputation or if the media has exploited the case to an extreme. “Our whole system is based on confidence and trust; it is a system of honesty, integrity, and respect,” Newell stated. Courtrooms are a place where disputes need to be handled in a civil and peaceful way. Because of this, the jury can make or break a case by being a conflict of interest or stating opinions that sway other votes. No matter what a suspect has done in the past, they should not be judged until after sentencing and all other factors that don’t directly involve the case should be overlooked. An example of a case like this, was the case that Thalacker brother was apart of that involved the arresting of an intoxicated lady on her own property; however, the lady was pregnant at the time. Most jurors would have no sympathy for her knowing that she was pregnant, so that case went on without a jury. Judges, however, can’t let those other factors sway their sentencing decision. Thalacker and Newell both said that they cannot be angry when sentencing someone and Newell went on to say that “it is kind of like parenting.”
As judges, these two come across hard cases each and every day that requires difficult sentencing. Newell and Thalacker talked about their jobs in way that was more focused on the importance of positively engaging with the media and providing a fair trial.
Journalism & Law 