TOUGH JUDGE'S SENTENCES OVER TOP, PANELS SAY

If you thought the way Judge Jacqueline Schellinger treated jurors and
lawyers was a little odd, check out what she does to drug-dealing defendants.

Judges from two appellate court panels did recently, and they didn't
like what they saw. The judges flagged Schellinger for piling on,
saying she ordered unreasonable probation conditions against two
felons. The court ordered that sentences for both men be changed.

Schellinger's name, by the way, may sound familiar to you. She's the
short-fused judge who fined a juror $500 for contempt in October and
who, during the summer, apologized to a public defender for lashing
out at him during an obscenity-laced tirade.

"You gotta wonder," cracked one political wag, "is she auditioning for
the 'Judge Jackie Show' ? "

When it comes to doling out sentences to drug dealers, it's not her
temper that causes problems. Rather, several courthouse sources said,
she just lays the rules on way too thick.

"She means well," said one defense lawyer. "But, even the people in
the probation department roll their eyes when they get these things."

Schellinger defended her sentencing style, noting that defense lawyers
plead for probation to keep their clients out of prison. The judge
said she imposes tough rules to help the convicts straighten out their
lives.

"So they have the opportunity to understand what structure is," she
explained Friday.

That makes some sense, and judges do enjoy broad authority in ordering
probation. But, the appellate court basically told Schellinger "C'mon,
Judge, you have to be reasonable."

For example, ordering a childless convict to take a parenting class is
over the top, one panel ruled. (Schellinger said the drug dealer may
become a dad someday.)

And, in a separate case, another panel said a judge can't order so
many probation conditions that a criminal doesn't stand a chance of
following all of them.

"We conclude that these conditions are unreasonable in combination
because the sheer number of hours they require will make compliance
virtually impossible," the judges wrote in overturning the sentence
Schellinger imposed last year on Richard Young, who pleaded guilty to
selling a small amount of heroin.

Here's what set off the appellate court.

Young was sentenced to 20 years in prison, though Schellinger stayed
that term and ordered him to serve 15 years' probation, with the first
12 months behind bars.

Once out of jail, Schellinger said, Young must attend meetings of
Narcotics Anonymous or a similar group six times a week for five years.

All that's pretty routine, but Schellinger kept going.

She demanded that Young get a job and be the perfect employee. "Young
must never be late for work, never leave work early, never take longer
breaks than those that are prescribed and never be absent from work
unless he is 'so sick that a doctor has written an excuse that says
(he) could not possibly go to work.' "

Finally, Schellinger mandated that Young, who had custody of five
young children, complete a parenting class, improve his reading skills
or get a GED, complete a two-year course in vocational training and
perform 1,000 hours of community service within five years.

Conditions that tough even make staunch law & order types shake their
heads in disbelief, said one prosecutor who had argued before
Schellinger.

"There has to be a line somewhere," he said, though he admitted that
Schellinger's zealousness may score points with the public. "You have
to pose conditions they could meet so you don't set them up for failure."

And, those conditions must withstand an appeal, which those put on
Young did not.

"We question whether any person, much less a person struggling to
overcome a drug addiction, could maintain the range of activities
imposed by the court," wrote the three-judge panel, which includes
Judge Pat Roggensack, a conservative running for the Supreme Court.

"Even if Young were able to arrange a schedule that would successfully
accommodate all of the activities, which seems doubtful, Young would
be left with little or no time for family responsibilities, which the
circuit court noted should be a priority for Young."

So much for his parenting class.