Showing posts with label legally insane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legally insane. Show all posts

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Cynthia Brim, Cook County judge facing trial, expected to plead insanity

Editor’s note: Strange, but a Cook County Probate Court judge and GAL selected, a person with, "psychotic mental disorder, i.e. schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type " to be a guardian of Alice R. Gore, a 99 year old disabled ward of the Probate Court of Cook County. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

Cynthia Brim, Cook County judge facing trial, expected to plead insanity





0
0

Share
65
14
Judge CynthiBrim (R) her attorney walking Cook County Circuit Court for throwing set keys shoving Cook County Sheriff's deputy last
Judge Cynthia Brim (R) and her attorney walking to the Cook County Circuit Court for throwing a set of keys and shoving a Cook County Sheriff's deputy last month. Friday, April 13, 2012. | Brian Jackson~Sun-Times

storyidforme: 43990534
tmspicid: 10438194
fileheaderid: 4797436



Updated: February 3, 2013 2:43AM



When Cook County Judge Cynthia Brim goes to trial this week on a misdemeanor battery charge, her attorney is expected to argue she’s not guilty by reason of insanity, the Sun-Times has learned.
As the Sun-Times first reported, a psychiatric examination determined Brim was “legally insane” when she allegedly tossed her keys at a security checkpoint in the downtown Daley Center court complex on March 9 last year, shoved a sheriff’s deputy and struggled with officers as they arrested her.
 
“Ms. Cynthia Brim was suffering from symptoms of a psychotic mental disorder, i.e. schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, as a result of which she lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of her act,” according to Dr. Mathew S. Markos, a psychiatrist who heads the Cook County court system’s forensic clinical services.
In simplest terms, Chicago defense lawyer and law professor Richard Kling says the defense has to prove that “as a result of the mental disease or defect the defendant suffers from, he or she didn’t know the act was criminal.”
The prosecution, in turn, will need to argue successfully that she not only committed the crime but that she knew what she was doing. It may mean bringing forth another psychiatric evaluation, which helps prove their case.
Witnesses — namely the sheriff’s deputies who said they witnessed the incident and assisted in the arrest — describe the judge’s behavior as bizarre in arrest reports, noting she was “dazed, confused and incoherent” and at one point “catatonic.” Another sheriff’s office report details what happened after she’s handcuffed, hauled to a basement holding cell in the Daley Center and charged with battery for shoving the deputy: “Due to unresponsive and motionless behavior while in custody it was determined that it was in the best interest of [Brim] that she be evaluated by a physician before being released under her own recognition.”
 
The report also states a Chicago Fire Department ambulance transported Brim to Northwestern Memorial Hospital for observation, according to the sheriff’s office.
Brim, 54, has been on the bench since 1994 and won another six-year term in November despite low marks from the local bar associations over the years and her arrest. She did not return a call for comment. The psychiatric examination conducted after her arrest determined she is “presently mentally fit with medication.”
While attorneys on both sides of the case aren’t talking, Brim’s attorney, James D. Montgomery Sr., first tipped his hand about the insanity defense last year.
“At the time that this alleged offense occurred ... my client was simply not in a mental state that is sufficient for her to ever be found guilty, so we’re wasting valuable judicial time,” a feisty Montgomery told reporters after a court hearing for Brim in November.
He has called for the case to be dismissed.
The defense is also expected to ask for a bench trial — meaning the case will be heard by a judge rather than a jury. After two Cook County judges recused themselves from the case, DuPage County Judge Liam Brennan was tapped to preside at the trial in the Daley Center. That’s a good strategy when asserting an insanity defense, Kling said.
“Juries don’t like it,” he said of the insanity defense. “They think it’s a hook for guilty people to hang their hat on. In jury cases it’s not used, because very frequently it’s unsuccessful.”
Dr. Stephen Raffle, a California-based forensic psychiatrist adds that juries “just don’t want someone in society to be so out of control that they’re not responsible for their actions. We’re a society that wants its revenge. We want people to pay for doing something wrong.”
Over the years he’s been called to testify on behalf of the defense and prosecution in criminal trials, and he says it’s rare to see an insanity defense raised outside of a homicide case.
Still, he says, the insanity defense’s origins go back centuries — at least to English common law. In the 1500s it was referred to as the “wild beast theory.”
Under that defense, it was argued that a suspect “had no more knowledge than a wild beast about rightful and wrongful behavior” at the time a crime was committed, Raffle said.
When the defense and prosecution rest their cases, the judge can weigh up to four options in delivering a decision: guilty, guilty but mentally ill, not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, Kling said.
The maximum penalty for a Class A misdemeanor is 364 days in jail. If she’s found guilty but mentally ill she may face the same penalties, including probation, though that may include mental health treatment. If she’s found not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge must then decide whether she needs mental health services; he has the option of sending her to a state mental health facility.
Guilty or not guilty, the case won’t immediately determine Brim’s future on the bench. Days after her arrest, she was suspended indefinitely — while maintaining her $182,000-a-year salary — by a panel of supervising Cook County judges.
Montgomery said last year the state’s Judicial Inquiry Board had begun investigating his client in the wake of her arrest, and it’s expected her suspension will continue at least until that probe winds up.

http://www.suntimes.com/17956016-761/cynthia-brim-cook-county-judge-facing-trial-expected-to-plead-insanity.html

KawamotoDragon.com

Friday, December 28, 2012

How to Fix Cook County’s Judge Problem

How to Fix Cook County’s Judge Problem

OBJECTION!: In Illinois, it’s easy for bad judges to stick around for life. Time for a change.

By Whet Moser

A gavel
You’ve heard of Cynthia Brim, right? The 54-year-old Chicagoan made headlines last March when she was charged with misdemeanor battery for pushing one sheriff’s deputy and throwing her keys at another (a court-appointed psychiatrist declared her “legally insane” at the time). She has also racked up 18 years of near-universal negative ratings for performance at her job: judge for the Circuit Court of Cook County. Yet last November, nearly 64 percent of voters chose to retain her.
In fact, county residents voted to retain every single one of the 57 candidates on November’s circuit court ballot—including four judges deemed “not qualified” by most bar associations. This happens in nearly every judicial election around here: Since 1990, the retention rate has been 100 percent.
You already know part of the reason. Voting in judicial retention elections is like cramming for a test in a class you always skip: cribbing notes from someone who was there (in this case, the voting recommendations of the bar associations—all 11 of them) and trying to remember the answers when it comes time to pencil in all those arrows. “Staying informed is like a full-time job,” says Matthew Streb, a political science professor at Northern Illinois University.
But the bigger problem is that in Illinois, unlike in the majority of other states where judges get reelected, you don’t get to choose between the current judges—who have mostly been picked by the powerful ward and township committeemen in Cook County—and new candidates for the job. When jurists’ six-year terms are up, you simply get asked whether you want to retain them or fire them. Because most people don’t bother to vote in retention elections—or they just mark “yes” on a straight party line—even bad judges get electoral mulligans.
The irony of all this is that judicial retention elections—instituted by Illinois in 1964—were meant to combat the power of the political machine. Originally, they were the idea of Albert Kales, a law professor at Northwestern University, who observed how dominant parties controlled judicial appointments through partisan elections. Kales proposed that the governor select judges based on merit, using recommendations from a board of lawyers and nonlawyers, after which voters would decide whether to retain them. The process was meant to be a compromise, even though it was a sop to politics in its own way.
Isn’t there a better approach?
Yes—and it’s been happening in Colorado, says Elizabeth Monkus, a project director at the nonprofit Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County. In that state, an appointed committee (a mix of lawyers and nonlawyers) interviews judges, analyzes court data, and surveys everyone from litigants to social service workers. The result: detailed evaluations—published in a guide mailed to all Colorado voters—that compare judges not only to a universal standard but to other judges in the system. In the 11 election cycles since the program was created in 1988, ten judges have been voted out. “That system works really well,” says Monkus.
In Arizona, which adopted a similar procedure in 1992, the system has improved the judiciary by scaring bad judges away. “Rather than face the public humiliation of such a rating on the ballot and in the voter publicity pamphlet, these affected judges chose to retire,” a study of Arizona’s system found.
Could that happen here too? Chicagoans don’t scare easily. But it’s worth a try.

Photograph: DNY59/istockphoto


http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2013/How-to-Fix-Cook-Countys-Judge-Problem/

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Bad reviews, shaky mental health not expected to keep judge off bench

Editor's note: Poor judgement regarding insanity have never detered judges in the Probate Court of Cook County as illustrated in the Estate of Alice R. Gore.

Alice R. Gore Estate value about 1 million dollars: Alice R. Gore, deceased, a disabled 99 year old ward of the Probate Court of Cook County, Judge Kawamoto’s courtroom was hours away from ending up in the Cook County Morgue. Alice's estate was depleted by probate court parasites and there were reportedly no funds to bury her. Her loving family paid for the burial expenses so that Alice would not have to suffer the indignity of being stacked like an Auschwitz inmate in the Cook County morgue.

The judge allowed an easily manipulated, court documented, mentally disabled granddaughter to be appointed as Alice’s guardian and yet no sanctions were instituted against the judge or court officers for this blatant infraction of the law.


Strangely, 16 of Alice’s annuity checks, two of which show forged endorsements, disappeared. Alice’s daughter has a copy of a check with her signature possibly forged. The daughter’s attorney has been trying to obtain copies of the 16 other annuity checks for two years without success. Even more puzzling is a $150,000 life insurance policy owned by Alice and not inventoried into the estate by the court. The Probate Court of Cook of Cook County refuses to investigate these blatant infractions of the law. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
  Bad reviews, shaky mental health not expected to keep judge off bench






BY LISA DONOVAN



Cook County Reporter

ldonovan@suntimes.com



Last Modified: Oct 14, 2012 02:46AM

If history is any indication, a Cook County judge on indefinite suspension and deemed “legally insane” earlier this year will likely be re-elected next month.



Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Brim still collects her regular paycheck — $181,929 annually — seven months after her courthouse tussle with a sheriff’s deputy and her suspension from the bench for erratic behavior.



Despite the bad publicity and thumbs-down reviews of her work by fellow attorneys in many bar groups, voters will likely give her another six years on the bench.



That’s because it’s rare for a sitting circuit court judge to lose a re-election bid. It’s happened just once in 22 years.



After voters grab the ballot and weigh in on the premier races, just 65 percent of city and suburban voters move downballot to vote on the re-election or “retention” of sitting judges, according to Cook County Clerk David Orr’s office. This year, there are 57 Cook County Circuit Court judges, including Brim, up for retention.



“It’s virtually impossible for people — even lawyers practicing in court all the time — to know who’s worthy of being on the bench,” said David Morrison with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “And when you have people focused on the presidential race, you don’t have people checking on who should be wearing the black robes.”



He explained: “With the retention vote, you’re just seeing a name and ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [on the ballot]. And most people vote yes.”



The only way a judge can lose is by receiving less than 60 percent of the overall “yes” votes.



That hasn’t happened since 1990, when John P. Tully lost his bid for retention as a circuit court judge in Cook County, while simultaneously winning a seat as a justice on the state’s appellate court. The Democrat had been charged with unethical conduct by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board; he was later disciplined for using false information on campaign fliers.



Brim, now 54, is a graduate of Loyola University law school and was admitted to practice law in 1983, according to the state Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. From 1984 to 1991, she worked for the city law department — first under Mayor Harold Washington and later under Mayor Richard M. Daley.



Worked for Roland Burris



She went on to work for then-Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris. In 1994, she won election to the first judicial subcircuit, a geographical area including the far South Side, according to county voting data.



A South Sider, Brim has long lived in the 8th Ward, where powerful committeeman and Cook County Board President John H. Stroger reigned until his death a few years ago.



But bar associations have consistently criticized her work on the bench. This month the Chicago Bar Association issued its judicial evaluations for the 50-plus judges running for retention, putting her and seven other judges under the “not recommended” category, as the association did in 2006 when she was up for re-election.



‘Not qualified’



The Chicago Council of Lawyers also recently found her “not qualified” — as the council did six years earlier.



“Most respondents indicated a lack of confidence in her legal abilities,” the evaluation reads. It went on to state that even though her legal cases are “generally non-complex . . . her rulings are often described as unpredictable and delayed. . . . The consistently negative reports about Judge Brim’s judicial performance and her arrest at the courthouse at the Daley Center in downtown Chicago raise serious questions about whether she can remain effective on the bench.”



On March 9, Brim turned up at the downtown Chicago Daley Center courthouse — miles from the south suburban courthouse where she worked. She allegedly threw a set of keys and shoved a sheriff’s deputy before officers handcuffed her and took her to a basement holding cell.



She was charged with misdemeanor battery before being released. The next week, a panel of Cook County supervising judges suspended her indefinitely.



Court records obtained by the Sun-Times reveal she was examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist who believes she’s “presently mentally fit with medication” but opined she was “legally insane” at the time of the reported skirmish with the sheriff’s officer.



Brim has declined to talk with the Sun-Times on the record about the charges she’s facing or comment about reports that she had been behaving erratically the day before her arrest while ruling on traffic cases in the Markham courthouse.



‘Racial’ comments



Sources told the Sun-Times that Brim made comments during her call that were “racial in nature,” accusing South Holland police officers of ticketing only black and Hispanic drivers. She also accused south suburban police officers of conspiring to get her fired, a source said.



Another source said she recited her parents’ names, the address of her church and her license plate number and walked around the courtroom, complaining she had been run out of her last assignment.



Despite her past, Brim will nevertheless receive the full support of the Democratic Party in the upcoming election.



“The Democratic Party supports all Democratic judges running for retention and our literature will say ‘support’ and ‘vote yes’ for retention judges,” said Cook County party head Joe Berrios.



Asked whether Democrats had any reservations about her candidacy, Berrios said: “In the history of the Democratic Party, I can’t recall

us not supporting a Democratic judge for retention. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty — at least that’s the American way I was taught.”



The next hearing in her case is Nov. 7 — the day after the election.



http://www.suntimes.com/15692142-761/bad-reviews-shaky-mental-health-not-expected-to-keep-judge-off-bench.html

KawamotoDragon.com