You are on page 1of 2

Prologue

Constantly we hear the mantra from the legal beagles, politicos and judiciary that "America has the best legal system in the world." But is that true? We see the televised hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, with preening and primping senators from both major parties, telling us they are there upholding the Constitution and defending our rights. We see the nominees tell us how they will apply the law impartially and ensure equal justice. But is that true? On October 17, 1986 The Bennington [Vermont] Banner published an article "Police Advocate Runs for State's Attorney" about assistant prosecutor William D. Wright. That article prompted several prominent members of the State of Vermont's legal community to prepare and sign a joint Letter to Editor titled "State's attorney candidate called 'frighteningly ignorant'" - which the Bennington Banner published on October 31, 1986:
The public is indebted to the Banner for its revealing Oct. 17 article on William D. Wright's candidacy for State's Attorney. Your reporter painted a man who sees his job as a contest between good and evil, cops versus robbers, and us against them. A man who tags along after the police, on some occasions carrying a pistol in a black valise, and who has a rope noose hanging from his office window sill. The article gave a chilling portrait of a person frighteningly ignorant of the delicate balancing act of the very powerful office he will apparently assume by default. In our legal system the public prosecutor is held to a higher standard. Cannon 7-13 of the lawyers' Code of Professional Responsibility states: The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This special duty exists because: (1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; (2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all; and (3) in our system of criminal justice the accused is afforded the benefit of all reasonable doubt. With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice. The prosecutor has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, and act accordingly by dismissal, reduction of offense degree, or reduction of punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused. Jane A. Adams, Esq.; Patricia A Barr, Esq.; Edgar T. Campbell, Esq.; Gerald P. Cantini, Esq.; Charles E. Capriola, Jr., Esq., Bennington County Public Defender 1972-73; Harvey D. Carter, Esq., Bennington County Senator 1984-92, Representative District 32, 1969-70; Charles C. Chamberlain, Esq.; Eugene V. Clark, Esq., Bennington County Senator 1962-63, Bennington Municipal Judge 1959-1961; James J. Cormier, Esq.; Robert E. Cummings, Esq., Bennington County Senator 1975-77, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance 1963-65; Kevin P. Dailey, Esq.; Thomas J. Dailey, Esq.; Rhys Evans, Esq.; Stephen H. Gilman, Esq., Bennington County States Attorney 1951-53; Marilyn F. Hand, Esq.; John B. Harte, Esq., Bennington Municipal Judge 1951-58, Bennington Representative 1951-59, Bennington County State's Attorney 1949-1951; Katherine A. Hayes, Esq.; Peter V. Holden, Esq.; David A. Howard, Esq., Bennington County Public Defender 1980-86; Thomas H. Jacobs., Esq., Peter M. Lawrence, Esq.; K. James Malady, Esq., Bennington Deputy State's Attorney 1976-1983; John P. Morrissey, Esq., Vermont Superior Judge 1974-83, Vermont District Judge 1968-74; Neil S. Moss, Esq., Bennington County State's Attorney 1970-75; Bradley D. Myerson, Esq.; Michael W. Nawrath, Esq.; Joseph J. O'Dea, Esq.; James W. O'Neil, Esq.; David C. Pendelton, Esq.; Gerald B. Salkin, Esq.; Stephen L. Saltonstall, Esq.; Rolf M. Sternberg, Esq., Thomas P. Whalen, Esq.; R. Marshall Witten, Esq., Representative 3-3 1969-72, Bennington County State's Attorney 1962-67, Assistant District Attorney N.Y. City 1959-61; Robert E. Woolmington, Esq.

Mr. Wright, unopposed won that election. Well what happens when a citizen attempts to use those rights supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution? Justice Louis Brandeis stated: "The most important political office is that of private citizen." Justice Robert Jackson stated: "It is not the function of the Government to prevent the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to prevent the Government from falling into error." Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950). Chief Justice Warren Burger stated: "The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern." Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978). Following is the story of citizen Scott Huminski, who attempted to use his rights and expected the Constitution to be honored by those in government who took an oath to follow and uphold it. It is a story of when personalities, politics, power and privilege converge and collide with the Constitution. Where those in government with power, abused that power and in violation of the Constitution and law - retaliated against Scott Huminski. Most frighteningly - the judges.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

It is a story that is endlessly repeated across this county on hundreds of thousands of other Americans. Scott Huminski's case is different because he fought back, endlessly pursued justice and thoroughly documented everything that happened to him. The simple truth is that, too many government actors - are bad actors, yet they hide in plain sight and even when called before the bar of justice, almost always escape scot free. And unfortunately, as the saying goes, too often past is prologue.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

You might also like