After Court, Frazier requested a docket from Magistrate (Clerk) Hamilton. She displayed a negative attitude, with equally unacceptable body language, and quipped, “I’ll have to contact my boss to see if he wants me to give it to you.” She was talking about a public document that was supposedly in her possession and under her care. Therefore, he found her comments were uncalled for and unacceptable. She called Judge Bulls on her telephone and subsequently gave him the docket. The docket he received had six (6) names that had been blackened out. When he asked why, Ms. Hamilton stated that the defendants were juveniles or youthful defenders. He advised Ms. Hamilton that her behavior was unacceptable and that he would be notifying all government officials of my concerns. Frazier, further attempted to inquire about an appeal that was filed by Attorney Blevins in reference to a domestic violence case that had been heard by Judge Bulls. She stated that she did not know anything about it and that he would have to contact the prosecutor and/or the judge for further information. Ms. Hamilton then walked away from the window, began assisting another citizen, and refused to talk to him any more. Frazier asked her why was she being so rude to him, but she never responded.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Frazier arrived at the Municipal Court at approximately 10:05 a. m. and was denied entry into the courtroom by Tuskegee Police Officer Nelms. When asked him why he could not enter the courtroom, Officer Nelms said that it was the rule. When he asked for a copy of the rule, the only response he gave was that he could not get into the courtroom. Frazier observed court related activities from the lobby outside of the courtroom. To do this gave him the chance to monitor public opinions about the Court and its officials. He observed the following:
• an apparent make-shift policy and/or practice of denying the public entry into the courtroom after 9:00 a. m.;
• inconsistent enforcement of the policy, depending on who the persons were who sought entry. I observed at least six persons who entered the courtroom after I was denied entry;
• inconsistent method of identifying defendants, who were scattered throughout the Gomillion Building lobby. Approximately five (5) officers called the names of the defendants in five different ways. Some called names loud enough to be heard, others simply announced the name and closed the door. One officer told the defendants that they would be allowed into the courtroom as soon as it was cleared. When another officer was asked why he was not announcing defendant’s names loud enough for all defendants to hear, the officer responded “that is on them, they are suppose to be over here by the door.” No officer of the court announced such an expectation. Notably, a problem with such an insensitive attitude occurs if the defendant does not hear his or her name called. Invariably, the person is to be charged with failing to appear in Court and an arrest warrant is issued for the person’s arrest. This is another burden that most of our citizens do not need.
Following the Court session, Frazier went to the Clerk’s Office. He requested and received a court docket from Ms. Carla Hoffman, again with blackened out names.
Continued next column
|
Friday, September 1, 2006
Since Frazier had experienced such poor conduct from Magistrate (Clerk) Angela Hamilton during previous encounters, he decided to not engage her in any further dialogue. Rather, he decided to communicate with her in writing, hoping to avoid any further problems. Therefore, Frazier wrote and hand-delivered a letter, dated September 1, 2006, requesting of her 1) a court docket for the prior week; 2) a court docket for all future court sessions; and, 3) a copy of the court order that prohibits public ingress into courtroom after 9:00 a. m. on Thursdays.
Ms. Hamilton read the letter, left it on the counter and went to call Judge Bulls. They conversed for about 8-10 minutes and she returned to the window and told him that she was not going to provide him with the docket, and that there was no court order restricting people from entering the courtroom at 9:00 a. m. She continued to tell Frazier that Judge Bulls said that anything else that he wanted from the Court would have to come through him. She concluded that he could see him at his office on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, and gave him the judge’s address after he requested it. All attempts to reach Judge Bulls on September 5 were to no avail. Moreover, he did not return the Revealer’s my telephone calls. The September 1, 2006, letter that was presented to Ms. Hamilton was mailed to Judge Bull’s office on Althea Street, on or about September 6, 2006.
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Frazier attended Court and the following are some of his observations:
• Courtroom decorum improved. Defendants were addressed more humanly, courtroom was orderly, and the Judge was courteous to the Prosecutor.
Following the Court session, he approached Judge Bulls’ bench and requested clarification on the court docket issue. The Judge indicated that the dockets were public information and he had no problem with him getting them. He further requested Frazier’s address and advised that the dockets could be mailed to him. Ms. Hamilton was packed up and ready to leave the courtroom when Judge Bulls asked her to wait for the address. Ms. Hamilton ignored the Judge’s two requests for her to remain in the courtroom, and proceeded toward the door. Judge Bulls emphatically stated to Ms. Hamilton that she was to wait for the address before she departed the courtroom. Ms. Hamilton waited for the address, but told Judge Bulls that Frazier would have to speak with the City Manager in order to get the court dockets. Frazier advised Ms. Hamilton that his business was not with the City Manager, but rather with her office. Consequently, we departed the courtroom with Frazier thinking that the matter was resolved, especially since Ms. Hamilton had boastfully declared on August 17, that Judge Bulls was her “boss.”
Continued next page
|
