The fix is definitely in

I've had just about enough nonsense and game-playing from some Minnesota court officials, and I've grown quite tired of being given misleading and downright incorrect information by those same people, people to whom my taxes go to pay the salaries of, in order that they might provide me with "service".

I hope that many other people will begin to get upset and demand answers as well when they learn of the circumstances that are chronicled in the following paragraphs:

As regular readers of this blog know, I've been closely following the case of Officer Jeffrey Gort of the Woodbury, Minnesota Police Department. For those that are recent to the party, the short version is that Officer Gort allegedly experienced a negligent discharge of a handgun in a St. Cloud, Minnesota hotel room on August 2, 2006, narrowly avoiding injuring an innocent bystander, and apparently neither went to check if his bullet had in fact hurt anyone, nor called 911 to alert the local police of his mistake. Instead, he allegedly sat on his hotel bed for quite some time, ruminating on who knows what, until the St. Cloud Police Department showed up at his hotel room door. At the time, Gort was not arrested, nor was his name or picture released to the news media, things which would almost certainly have happened to a private citizen with a handgun carry permit, along with the emergency suspension of said permit.

After investigating the incident, the St. Cloud City Attorney's office charged Gort with two misdemeanors:

1. Weapons Ordinance/Unlawful discharge of weapon

2. Dangerous Weapons-Recklessly Handle or Use

I decided shortly after learning of the incident to keep track of Officer Gort's journey through the legal system. My rationale for doing so was that a civilian handgun carry permit holder experiencing the same set of circumstances as Officer Gort would indeed have had his or her name and picture publicized, would have had to answer for their actions publicly in a court of law, and would have been held up as an example of something like "See, we told you it was a bad idea to issue carry permits to people" by police administrators, anti-gun legislators and others opposed to the idea of lawful civilian carry of firearms, none of which happened to Officer Gort. In fact, I wrote the following on Thursday, September 14, 2006:

"I want to make it very clear that I bear no animosity towards the officer involved. I have no reason to believe that he is anything but a dedicated professional who had a bad day. Just as with any other tool, however, a handgun can be the subject of a mistake by the user. My only point involves fairness. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the same thing happened to me, I would have been arrested immediately, my carry permit would have been pulled, and my name and picture would have been splashed all over the media. Since the officer was not on duty [or in his jurisdiction, for that matter - ed.] at the time, he should be treated the same way I would have been."

It has been difficult to cover this case, to say the least. I have repeatedly been given incomplete, confusing or erroneous information by court personnel, but have managed to piece together something of a snapshot of how Gort's case has evolved over time.

On Friday, October 12, 2007, I attended what was purported to be a "settlement conference" in Stearns County Court. From what I was able to ascertain, the prosecution and defense had come to a plea agreement, and Officer Gort was supposed to make his plea on this date. The case was never called. When all of the other cases had been heard except Gort's, the bailiff came over to me to see why I was still in the courtroom. From my account of that day:

"I responded that I was there to observe a specific case, and gave her the printout I had made of the case number and name. She took it up to the clerk, they had a brief discussion, and she came back with a sheepish look on her face. She apologized to me and said (paraphrased), "Oh, that case was continued in the judge's chambers. It looks like they're going to reschedule it for another time. This sometimes happens when there's a conflict of interest, or if the judge knows the defendant, or something like that." She then apologized again for my waiting around for nothing, and went back to her desk."

That seemed sort of odd to me, since all of the other cases continued or rescheduled that day had been handled in open court, but I was (and still am) a neophyte to legal procedures, and for all I knew the case had been properly postponed.

On Tuesday, November 27, 2007, I attended a new pretrial hearing for Officer Gort, again in Stearns County Court. From what I observed as well as gleaned from speaking informally with the prosecutor in the case, Officer Gort had turned down an offered plea bargain and requested a jury trial, which was scheduled for February 6, 2008. I apologized to the judicial and court staff of Stearns County at that time, because I was led to believe that they were in fact being impartial and fair in the case, and that Officer Gort was being treated in a manner similar to any other person charged with comparable offenses.

That apology may have been premature.

Officer Gort was indeed scheduled for a jury trial today at 9:00 a.m. Because I have experienced so much "difficulty" in keeping up with the scheduling changes in the case, I checked the Minnesota Public Trial Access website yesterday to make sure that everything was still going to go forward as planned.

Well, it wasn't.

Here's the latest information that was available on the case:

01/31/2008 Publicly Viewable Note to File
02/06/2008 CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM)

Officer Gort seems to have previously come to a plea agreement with the St. Cloud City Attorney, then decided to decline it and ask for a jury trial, which has now been cancelled. Just what in the Sam Hill is going on here? I decided to attempt to find out.

I contacted the Stearns County Court Administration Office, and the pleasant and helpful lady on the phone told me that Officer Gort had agreed to sign a guilty petition by mail, with no trial or guilty plea, one or the other being something that any other private citizen charged with the same crimes would apparently have to do. I don't think that this sort of resolution or lack of sanction is appropriate, given my previous assertion that a handgun carry permit holder in a similar situation would not get anywhere near this level of consideration, so I have decided to take further action in order to attempt to halt this attempted application of what I consider to be "backroom justice".

I have sent a fax to the presiding judge in the case, informing him that I respectfully object to the case being adjudicated by mail, and requesting that all proceedings be handled in open court, as I believe that the disposition of this matter should be freely available, so that the next person who recklessly discharges a handgun and doesn't happen to be a "highly trained, professional law-enforcement officer" can take advantage of the considerate case management, to say the least, and probable light to nonexistent penalties that Officer Gort seems to be facing. Every one of the more than 40,000 handgun permit holders in Minnesota should be outraged and angry at this blatant evasion of responsibility on the part of Officer Gort, and the court system that seems to be enabling him to do so. As one person who is very knowledgeable in the Minnesota legal system and its criminal penalties puts it,

"It's being handled like a speeding ticket."

Which is okay, I guess, as long as any other private citizen in Minnesota gets treated in the same manner.