Response to Judge Trent story

AS the attorney for Common Pleas Judge Earl Trent, I'm writing to set the record straight and to contradict the statements and inferences in a May 2, 2007,

Philadelphia Daily News

article.

That article referred to the fact that the court crier in Judge Trent's courtroom had been arrested for drug-related charges. The actual arresting officer appeared in Judge Trent's courtroom the next day to testify on another unrelated drug case.

First, the article incorrectly suggested that Judge Trent was aware of the court crier's arrest.

In fact, Judge Trent had no such knowledge. In Philadelphia County, judges do not hire court criers. Further, criers are assigned by the court administration to a courtroom and judges have no control over placement. This probationary employee was temporarily assigned to Judge Trent's room on that particular day.

Second, there was a suggestion in the article that Judge Trent unfairly denied the request that he should not hear the pending drug case.

The district attorney's office made a recusal, or disqualification, motion. But the article did not point out that the judge did not know the basis for the recusal motion or the fact that the court crier had just been recently arrested. (I understand that the district attorney's office says the crier was advised of the reason for the motion and was asked to tell the judge, but the crier never did that.) No reason was given in court and the motion was summarily denied and the crier had no involvement in the decision.

Third, the article failed to note that Judge Trent, after hearing the evidence in the case, convicted the criminal defendant. There is no mention of the verdict in the article. This omission left the reader incorrectly believing that there had been a not-guilty verdict. In fact, the evidence demonstrated and Judge Trent so found that the individual had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he then found the person guilty.

Finally, the article unfairly suggested or implied that Judge Trent's decisions were not always acceptable to the district attorney's office. The inference being that he was not deciding cases in an appropriate fashion.

That is emphatically denied and is just wrong. The suggestion shows a misunderstanding of the "waiver program."

Philadelphia County has a program where judges hear the cases non-jury. Criminal defendants have to agree to waive their right to a jury trial. The underlying premise is that in return the judge will use a strong reasonable-doubt standard and/or show leniency at sentencing.

The reason for this program is because Philadelphia has such a massive criminal caseload. If the judges in the waiver program are not going to use broad reasonable doubt and/or sentence harshly, then no one is going to agree to waive their right to a jury trial. If that happened, the Philadelphia court system would come to a screeching halt.

Philadelphia County probably has between 18,000 and 25,000 new felony cases a year. If everyone requested a jury trial, only a tenth of the cases would be decided in any given year, with a backlog that would reach hundreds of thousands over a period of a number of years.

Therefore, the district attorney's office is well aware that any judge who is assigned to participate in the waiver program does so with the understanding that there is more leniency involved in the sentencing process and a broader reasonable doubt than perhaps would normally occur. That is the quid pro quo that is needed to ensure that lawyers and their clients will agree to waive the right to a jury trial.

None of this was explained in the Daily News article. Any suggestions or inferences that Judge Trent does not decide cases properly or is favoring the defense is just absolutely false and contrary to the whole concept of the jury waiver program. *