In response to the editorial on Oct. 24, regarding shedding current duties of scheduling criminal cases within the State's Attorney's Office, the author claims "prosecutors can pick the judges to preside over their cases." I am curious as to where this false information was obtained.
Being the assignment clerk in the state's attorney's office, one of many duties includes the scheduling of the Circuit Court criminal cases. I can tell you first-hand that I do not at any time know which judges are sitting in order to accommodate anyone in scheduling his/her case.
There have been many times, which can be confirmed by employees in the Circuit Court, that I have had to call their office to determine which judge is sitting at a particular time, due to the need of not setting a case before him as he may have recused himself from a particular case or to re-set a case back in before the same judge at that judge's request. So that this very allegation would never occur, the judges of the Circuit Court have directed that such information not be provided to this office or defense attorneys, so as to avoid any appearance of "judge shopping."
I am sure if you would speak with members of the clerk's office and the Circuit Court judges, they would tell you that judge shopping does not occur in the state's attorney's office.
Scheduling cases within our office is beneficial for everyone involved. First and foremost, it alleviates cases from being postponed in that I am contacting defense attorneys and coordinating their schedules with the court calendar before giving it a motion/trial date.
There are factors such as Hicks' dates, victims/witnesses and officers' schedules, etc. that must be taken into consideration before setting a case. I can't tell you how many times I have been thanked for calling and scheduling a case with a defense attorney. Many defense attorneys are grateful as they know that it will not be overlapping a day that he/she already has cases set in another court/county. This process results in less postponements, and thus, a swifter and more efficient way of scheduling cases for trial.
In many other counties where the clerk's office schedules criminal cases, they do not take into consideration the same factors mentioned above as we do. If you check with other counties, you will find they have a backlog of cases awaiting scheduling. You will not find that in Carroll County.
Carroll County citizens should be proud to have an office run as efficiently and productively as the Carroll County state's attorney's office.
Jo Lynn Delp
Finksburg
In response to your endorsement for state's attorney (Oct. 24), I am enclosing a copy of all 11 active cases in which Linda Holmes is currently counsel and co-counsel in Carroll County.
I can't imagine that she portrayed her qualifications accurately, keeping in mind she's currently only involved in 11 cases and that one is a criminal case. Should we put crime on hold while we train Ms. Holmes?
It's good to see that The Sun has not lost its sense of humor, although I find your lack of political objectiveness appalling with your failure to endorse Jerry Barnes. If your endorsement is based merely upon the fact that Ms. Holmes is a woman, you do a disservice to every intelligent woman voter to imply that Ms. Holmes is qualified to be the state's attorney for Carroll County. Jerry Barnes has talent, commitment and experience.
Barbara A. Davis
Manchester
Whether by design or by accident, the seating arrangements at a recent forum, where the candidates for state's attorney appeared, told a lot about the race and the runners themselves.
The incumbent sat alone like a bird of prey at one end of the long table, while his quarries sat less conspicuously at the opposite end sharing the same microphone.
I'm sure that Tom Hickman found that to his liking, trying as he constantly is to distant himself as far as possible from those who want the office that he apparently regards as his alone, albeit that the voters served him with his "walking papers" in September.
Had I been the stage manager, it would, by all rights, have been Linda Holmes sitting by herself with the other two coupled together and forced to share one chair, since the differences between them were almost indistinguishable: talking alike, reasoning alike and taking turns seeing who could out-posture who. (Even their physical size and the size of their egos bore a close resemblance.) In short, they could have easily exchanged scripts at the forum and I doubt if anyone there would have been the wiser, except perhaps for their ardent supporters.
To Tom's credit, he didn't once glower at his rivals or direct any venomous barbs their way, and he was fairly successful in concealing his well-known contempt for the man who was previously his understudy and who once again dares to lay claim to his job. He showed less scorn for the lady in the field, simply dismissing her out-of-hand for what he calls her lack of experience in prosecuting criminal cases.
That, of course, is a bogus reason for questioning her credentials, since, as he well knows, there are any number of renown jurists, including many past U.S. attorneys general, who never tried a criminal case, either.
The half-hour presentation ended as it began, with the two men engaged in one-upmanship, boasting of what they perceive to be their flawless careers and their endless lists of accomplishments. It reminded me of those lines from that popular song: "I can do anything better than you . . . No, you can't . . . Yes, I can."
By way of comparison, Linda Holmes was, to say the least, refreshing. She gave concise answers to the questions, was unflinching in her positions, didn't ramble, wasn't braggadocio, and stated her reasons for wanting to be the next state's attorney in a very straightforward manner. She also exhibited that quality which is rarely found in politicians: humility.
Alia Tendanda via est. (Another way must be tried.) And, I would add, that the other way is clearly Linda Holmes.
David A. Grand
Westminster
Four years ago, Tom Hickman and Jerry Barnes ran one of the meanest campaigns for political office that I have ever witnessed. The race was so ugly that I could not bring myself to vote for either one of them. Now, four years later, Tom and Jerry are back asking for our vote. Well, Tom still thinks that the state's attorney's office is his personal possession and the only thing that has changed about Jerry is his party affiliation.
Thank goodness that in this election someone else had the courage to run. Linda Holmes will be an excellent state's attorney. She is smart, hard-working and not afraid of a fight. If integrity, commitment and character are important qualities to have in a state's attorney, then the voters of Carroll County have only one choice and that is to vote for Linda Holmes on Nov. 8.
Dianna Johnson
Westminster
Since our law office has for years contended that the Carroll County Narcotics Task Force is an illegal entity, it was with particular gratification that I read your Oct. 21 editorial criticizing the Carroll County state's attorney's office for spending its energy in directing the task force rather than in prosecuting criminals. Nevertheless, the narcotics task force is here to stay until a definitive judicial ruling to the contrary.
One of the reasons I support Jerry Barnes for state's attorney is that he has the expertise necessary to control the task force, whereas Linda Holmes does not.
I have heard Ms. Holmes speak and have read her campaign literature, and I have a great deal of respect for her as a politician. A politician, however, is not what we need in the state's attorney's office. Effective management cannot be achieved without prior experience with the criminal justice system.
There is a real and present danger that if Ms. Holmes were elected, the task force would control her, rather than the other way around. Since neither candidate has suggested that the task force be abolished, the answer to the present system of abuse cannot be that it should simply be left alone.
Judith S. Stainbrook
Westminster
Although I have never condoned letter-writing to the editor, I can no longer remain silent while reading the letters bestowing so-called accolades on a candidate who was defeated in the primary election on Sept. 13.
I would think it fair to say that had the incumbent Republican state's attorney served the public interest for 20 years with distinction,he would have been able to garner a vote of confidence of at least 50 percent of the dedicated Republican voters in the primary election. Instead, Tom Hickman's defeat is history and his write-in effort that is being attempted reminds me of elections in some foreign countries. . . .
This write-in fiasco is an insult to the Republican Party in Maryland and Republican voters in Carroll County when the loser of the primary opposes the Republican Party's nominee in a general election. As a faithful supporter of the Republican Party, I know that I and the Republican leadership in Carroll County do not support this write-in campaign. I think more Republicans should be outraged by this arrogant attempt to ignore the voters' will in a democracy.
Francis X. Walsh
Westminster
I am writing to inform your readers about a candidate for the office of county commissioner, Sam Sensabaugh. During the 1988 elections, Mr. Sensabaugh came out publicly in support of the so-called "Saturday Night Special" gun ban, even though this proposed ban was very unpopular in Carroll County and has obviously not accomplished a thing to stem the crime rate. . . .
If Carroll County voters want more Governor Schaefer-style politics, more of "I know better regardless of how the electorate feels," this is your man. I urge the citizens of the county to reject this man.
William J. Meyer
Finksburg