YOUTHS ADVISE JUDGE ON FELONY DRUG CASES

INDIANAPOLIS (April 4, 1998) -- Attentive, eager listeners filled the jury
box, ready to vote on the fate of convicted criminals. Their decisions
would mean jail or freedom.

But these were not typical adult jurors drawn from the voting rolls and
carefully screened by lawyers and the judge.

They were IPS middle school students, garbed in purple and gold anti-drug
shirts and carrying pencils to point up (a vote for freedom) or down (for
incarceration).

Although their recent decisions were not binding, having seventh- and
eighth-graders advise Marion Superior Court Judge Z. Mae Jimison on felony
drug cases has drawn criticism.

"I love middle school kids. But I don't want them sentencing felony drug
dealers in this county," said Marion County Prosecutor Scott Newman. "In
fact, I don't even want them appearing to be sentencing felony drug dealers.

"It gives the appearance that justice is being handed out on a whim."

But Jimison, who launched the program in her courtroom 10 days ago, said
the kids don't have the final say.

"It's still my decision to make. But it's just another voice I hear,"
explained Jimison, who created her BAD (Be Against Drugs) Student Juror
program as a way of informing young people on how courtrooms operate.

The program is coordinated by Tony Perkins, Jimison's brother, who runs BAD
in conjunction with the Indy Parks system. The program receives no funding
from the court system.

Presiding Judge Patricia J. Gifford, who administers the court system, said
she has received complaints about the program and wonders whether it is too
great a burden to place on school children.

"I don't have any problem with community involvement or having kids in the
courtroom," Gifford said.

"I would have a problem with having basically children assuming adult
responsibility of determining what should be done with people in the
criminal justice system. That's a pretty weighty decision, in my opinion,"
Gifford added.

"That's what we have elected judges for," she said, noting she plans to
talk to Jimison about the new program soon.

Program is unique

Gifford and others say they have never heard of a program that solicited
input on incarceration from school children, although other judges have
brought youngsters in to observe and learn about court procedures.

Jimison said it educates youngsters about the criminal justice system and
allows them to have a voice -- but not the decision -- on drug cases.

"It's not putting any of my responsibility on them," Jimison said.

The students appeared in Criminal Court 20 on March 26 and heard cases
involving convicted drug defendants on probation who have been brought back
to court for misconduct.

The defendants faced possible revocation of their probation and prison
time; some lesser sentence; or a continuation of their current probation.

Thumbs-up from defense

Defense attorneys said they were pleased with the outcome of their clients'
cases -- and how the children had repeatedly voted for leniency.

"I was impressed they were compassionate enough to give these guys another
chance," said LuAnne Morrisey, a public defender who had two clients judged
by the students.

"In fact, I want these kids in all my trials," Morrisey added.

The teens voted after the lawyers had made their arguments but before
Jimison made a decision.

"She counted and they made the decision as to what would happen. ... She
went along with what they wanted in my cases," Morrisey said.

"But I never for a minute thought the judge would do something that she
wouldn't have done on her own."

Hilary Bowe Oakes, a private lawyer, said her client was "freaked out" when
faced with a group of school kids staring at him from the jury box.

"He was too scared to turn around and see how they kids voted," Oakes said.
"It looked to me like they all had their pencils up."

Jimison went along with the kids and kept the man on probation despite the
prosecutor's request that he be sent to prison.

Ruling shocks prosecution

The youngsters also voted for no prison sentence for a two-time convicted
cocaine dealer; Jimison then reversed an earlier ruling she had made and
cut 17 years from the man's prison term.

"I don't agree with it," Newman said of that decision, saying his staff was
shocked by the judge's ruling.

"It wasn't even on our radar screens," Newman said. "This is someone who
needs to be sent away for quite a while."

The case involved Victor Keeylen, 20, who was arrested for dealing cocaine
while he was on probation for a previous cocaine dealing conviction. The
new arrest violated the terms of his probation.

When his probation came back to Jimison for review late last year, she
revoked it and ordered him to serve the 17 years of prison time that
originally had been suspended.

Keeylen then pleaded guilty in the new case and was sentenced by a
different judge to another six years on top of his first prison

term.

But Keeylen and his attorney asked Jimison to reconsider her decision to
revoke his probation, and his case arrived in court the same day as the
student jurors.

"It was a different Mr. Keeylen," Jimison said. "He had changed in a lot of
ways. When he came out and sat down, I didn't recognize him."

She said the defendant seemed focused, determined to get off drugs and make
something positive out of his life so he could support his two young
children.

The students listened, but instead of making a snap decision with their
pencils, the judge sent them back to the jury room to pick a "foreman" and
talk over their recommendation.

"They absolutely felt he should be given an opportunity after his six years
(in prison) to return to society," the judge said.

"But I should tell you, even if they decided he should have gotten 17
years, I would've done what I did," she added.

What she did was to erase the prison term on the first sentence and simply
end his probation -- much to the dismay of the prosecutor's office.

"He's not going to be released to our society tomorrow. He's got six
years," Jimison said, noting he could be released in three years if he
follows prison rules.

That didn't mollify Newman, who wondered how much the kids' recommendation
affected the judge.

"I'm going to call her and express my concerns," the prosecutor said.

"It's one thing to involve kids and let them watch and learn. It's another
thing to abdicate authority to kids -- or appear to abdicate
responsibility," Newman said.

State law provides a list of factors for judges to consider when sentencing
defendants, Newman noted.

"What a bunch of eighth-graders think isn't in there," he said.

Question about ethics

An official for a state commission that monitors judges said it was unclear
whether ethics were violated by a judge asking children for a
recommendation before rendering a decision.

Meg Babcock, counsel for the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, said
the code governing judges requires that they act impartially and
independently.

Soliciting children's input before making a decision might raise concerns
under that section of the code, she said.

"This is a very, very unusual question," Babcock said. "I'd feel better
about it if she asked the students' opinions after she made her own
impartial decision."