At a hearing held recently in Washington, D.C., a federal judge told the prosecutor, in no uncertain terms, that if he did not have all the evidence turned over to the defendants by a certain date, he was going to send them all back to Colombia.
This was probably the defendants’ most gratifying moment since their arrest and extradition. For the first time they saw a judge who acted as they imagined, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Royce Lamberth, a judge known for his no-nonsense ways and his fairness to both sides. Each of these qualities was on display at the hearing.
The defendants did not think that the judge was being pro-defendant. Defendants do not expect that. But they do expect judges to be fair. Drug dealing for the most part is engaged in by decent people who get caught up making easy money. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, drug dealing defendants would most likely return to their former jobs, selling cars, working as mechanics, waiting on tables, just making a living. They would not be stealing cars or robbing banks.
Third-world defendants have always had enormous admiration for the United States and its criminal justice system. They arrive as believers, but become dismayed, especially in Washington, D.C., as the system moves so slowly. They think they will reach a plea bargain or go to trial quickly, and be rid of the nightmare, no matter what. Defendants reasonably believe this because by the time they get to the United States the case is at least a year old and the U.S. has had enough time to review the evidence. But in the District of Columbia, for reasons that are a mystery, the prosecutors never seem to have the evidence by the time the defendants are extradited. So defendants who have been incarcerated in their home countries for more than a year, find themselves in U.S. custody for another two years while prosecutors desperately seek adjournments to obtain evidence they should have had a long time ago, or otherwise claiming that the case is so “complex” that it should be continued indefinitely. Believe me, there is nothing complex about a narcotics case.
Then Judge Lamberth appeared. What a surprise! These hapless defendants, resigned to yet another delay, found themselves in a courtroom where the judge had had enough, and let the prosecutor know it. What a cathartic feeling for both lawyers and defendants. Finally, a judge who told it like it was.
In fairness, this is not a problem in all jurisdictions. Judges in New York will not tolerate these delays. They will tell prosecutors in the most civilized of terms to “fish or cut bait,” and the prosecutors do not need much prodding. The evidence is turned over promptly and the criminal process moves forward deliberately. These prosecutors know the high standard they are held to by the judges themselves. If left unchecked, prosecutors will always get away with as much as a judge lets them.
So when a judge does not let the prosecutor off the hook, it is an enormous reaffirmation to defendants who have always believed in the excellence of the U.S. criminal justice system. Judge Lamberth did not free anybody, and he did not dismiss the case, but he let the prosecutor know in no uncertain terms the he better “fish or cut bait.”
The defendants were elated. I, as an attorney, was immensely proud.