Regarding the
case of The People v. Carmen Granata
On Nov. 5th, 2006 a 23 year-old Eastpointe
woman, Carmen Granata, was issues a ticket for violating a local
noise ordinance, a misdemeanor offense. There was a great
public outcry when sentence was pronounced by Hon. Norene S.
Redmond, 38th District Court Judge. Judge Redmond has a
history of several cases where the severity of the sentence handed
down met with public outrage.
The Court-appointed defense attorney advised
Ms. Granata to simply plead guilty in that the penalty will likely
be a nominal fine, which she did. At which point the judge did
not accept the plea, but went off on a tirade of personal moral
principle (the impropriety of the judge is grounds that a motion
will likely, if not already, be filed to call for a mistrial).
The judge then allowed neighbors of the defendant to enter a variety
of complaints and claims into the record that did not pertain to the
charged incident. Worse yet, she took those irrelevant claims
into consideration and handed down a sentence I feel is grossly
excessive for the infraction she pleaded guilty. Further, she
did NOT allow the defense attorney to enter into the record a signed
statement from other neighbors that they felt the sentence was
unduly harsh.
The Macomb Daily first broke the story and has
been inundated with public opinion ever since. On Dec. 13th,
even with no new information to report, it was the top story on page
1. Several other news sources have since covered the story,
including WXYZ-TV, Fox News, the Detroit News, the Detroit Free
Press, the Warren Weekly, and undoubtedly many others. Here
are links regarding the case as reported by the Macomb Daily.
Woman, 23, jailed for noisy parties.
Woman jailed for loud parties battles back.
On Dec. 14th, perhaps due to public outcry,
Judge Redmond rescinded a small portion of the sentence. To me
this carries the implication that the Judge has had time to reflect
and decided she had handed down an unfair sentence.
Judge eases up on party host's penalty.
Any good research would not rely solely on the
media presentation of a story. Indeed, the best data comes
from the
court transcripts themselves. If you only read one, read
the
Order Scheduling First Probation Review.
In fairness to contrary opinion, I admit not
all the feedback has been negative. I have seen a minority of
people express their opinion that they approve of the sentence
issued. However, I doubt these people understand that the
sentencing relating to a noise violation should not extend beyond
that specific charge. Where is our due process?
Indeed this issue rings so strongly with me in
regards to what I feel is our government regularly overstepping its
authority, that on Dec. 13th, 2006, I was moved to write a letter to
Judge Redmond. I present it here for your consideration:
Your Honor,
Never before have I been so moved by a legal case that I felt the
need to pen my feelings to a judge. I am referring, to the Carmen
Granata noise ordinance violation. I have reviewed the public
documents and am especially concerned with the most recent document,
the Order Scheduling First Probation Review. I have MANY issues with
this document that makes me question your ability to fairly judge
ANY case. Please allow me the courtesy due a concerned citizen in
that you completely read my objections, as I have read every
available document before forming my conclusions.
On page 2 you say "When faced with half-truths and innuendo, we are
not relieved from our individual responsibility to evaluate fully
and think independently." While this statement, on its own, is true,
I find that inclusion in regards to a legal case is a claim that
half-truths and innuendo exist regarding the case. Since you are the
one making the claim I ask that you be held responsible to present
the evidence and prove your case. No such evidence is presented. A
judge should never take action on unsubstantiated claims, whether
they BELIEVE them to be true or not.
Also on page 2 you say "Sometimes the uninformed, caustic, and
inflammatory noise becomes so insane that it reaches the point of
threats of all kind and unfounded ridicule." In regards to the
phrase "unfounded ridicule" I intend to show later that the ridicule
was indeed FOUNDED inasmuch as the sentence was not appropriate to
the violation.
On page 11 you say "When a court sentences a person, it must be done
on a case-by-case basis." I totally agree. I believe that evidence
presented against a defendant should pertain to that case only.
Because of that, I find it improper to consider the unsubstantiated
claims made in the written statement that the other residents of
Donald Ave. submitted. The statement is a list of claims, none of
which have any accompanying evidence, and neither are they relevant
to the case at hand. That is, Ms. Granata was cited for a noise
violation; is she guilty of that or not? Your job was to pronounce
sentence for a single noise violation, not try to solve ongoing
animosity between neighbors. I am outraged in that it seems to me
you tried to make up for months of claims with a sentence to one
incident. If indeed these other things did occur, surely you agree
they should be tried separately.
On page 5 you say "One of the neighbors informed the Court that she
was awakened at 2:00 A.M., on the morning in question, because
someone was vomiting outside." Ignoring the question of whether or
not it is legal to vomit outside, and ignoring the question of
whether Ms. Granata is responsible for the actions of others, I
contend that this is not relevant to the noise ordinance violation.
Also on page 5 you say "Another neighbor informed the Court that he
woke up at 3:00 A.M., looked out his kitchen window, and saw a guy
standing in his driveway urinating." I see no relevance to the case
here. Was the alleged person identified? Was it established that the
person in question contributed to the noise violation? Is there some
claim that this person was compelled by Ms. Granata to venture forth
and urinate loudly? While the Court records will rightly record all
testimony a witness bears, a judge should know better than to let
unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims influence sentencing.
Again on page 5 you say "...the Defendant made sure that, every
Saturday night, he got ‘zero sleep’." Again, of what relevance is
this unrelated and unsubstantiated claim?
Over and over claims are made as to the house being a "flop-house"
and parties occurring regularly. I contend that these are not
relevant to this specific infraction.
On pages 6 and 7 you say "The Court was also informed that, around
9:00 P.M., on a Sunday before the Defendant’s court date, someone
was seen leaving the Defendant’s house and hurled a rock through a
neighbor’s window while small children were present inside the
home." Again, these are CLAIMS of actions of a person OTHER than Ms.
Granata and have no bearing on her noise ordinance violation. I will
take this opportunity to remind you that she pleaded guilty to a
noise violation; she did not plead guilty to an acquaintance
initiating vandalism.
On page 7 you say "Even if half of the alleged conduct is true, and
this Court believes that most of it is true..." This shocks me to
the core. You admit here that you have taken into account
unsubstantiated allegations in your handling of the case. Is this a
case of a noise ordinance violation, or a summary punishment of an
alleged lifestyle? Shame on you; SHAME ON YOU.
Also on page 7 you say "If a person is going to have a party, the
neighbors should be informed of it..." I see no legal basis for this
claim. Perhaps you are applying your personal wishes that all people
behave as you would dictate. I desperately hope we are not in the
business of imposing on people’s lives to that degree.
On page 8 you say "Loud house parties should be the exception, not
the norm." That is a statement of personal values, not legal
standing. There is no law against loud house parties, save for
incidental infractions that may arise...like this noise violation.
It is the noise violation, not the party itself, which is wrong.
Also, as to the frequency of parties there is, nor should there be
any restrictive law. To restrict an action simply because an
infraction might occur is akin to taking your car away, because you
may exceed the speed limit. It is not driving every day that is the
infraction; it is the individual speeding incident.
Also on page 8 you cite many other things that should and should not
occur. How many people agree with those statements is irrelevant to
the case in question...did Ms. Granata violate a noise ordinance,
yes or no? Again, it is not your role to use this case as a vehicle
to solve ongoing animosity between neighbors.
Many items of the sentence disturb me deeply and seem to be in
direct contrast to civil liberties. I will list them and my
objections:
"...refrain from using any non-prescriptive drugs." By definition
this person could spend an additional 60 days in jail if they take
an aspirin for a headache. If your intent was to imply ILLEGAL drugs
then you should not have included it at all, since illegal drugs are
ALREADY ILLEGAL.
"...and to refrain from consuming alcohol." This seems to be an
arbitrary punishment. I do not see how it relates to a noise
violation. I am more likely to believe you have a personal dislike
of alcohol and use your station to impose your will on others. I did
not see any evidence or testimony from police officers that
excessive alcohol on the part of Ms. Granata played a part in
this...and even if it had, the violation is the noise, not the
consumption of alcohol. I (and apparently the ACLU) challenge your
authority to pronounce such a stipulation.
"...random non-prescriptive drug testing." Like with the alcohol, I
do not see how this relates to a noise violation. She was not
convicted of bootlegging or drug trafficking.
"...daily preliminary breath tests." This is an outrageous penalty
for a simple noise violation.
"...must maintain employment..." As far as I know it is not illegal
to be unemployed. Additionally, people lose their jobs through no
fault of their own with regularity. By strict interpretation of this
stipulation, if her employer were to suddenly go out of business,
she would serve 60 days of jail time. I am mortified at the
compounded harshness of your sentencing.
"...the defendant cannot host any parties at her house unless she
has been pre-approved by the neighbors who signed the statement..."
This is tyrannical! Hosting a party is not, in of itself illegal. I
agree that if she were to host a party and another incident
occurred, THOSE INCIDENTS should be addressed, but we in America do
not stop pick-pockets by cutting off their hands. Also, you are
placing executive power in the hands of her CIVILIAN neighbors of
which great animosity already exists. This is GROSSLY excessive and
assuredly an issue the ACLU will consider.
"...only the Defendant and her brother are to reside at the house."
Is this even legal for you to dictate? I strongly question whether
you have the authority to make that mandate. What could this
POSSIBLY have to do with a noise violation?
On page 15 you say "...her sincere willingness to improve." I
contend that it is not a legal requirement that she be willing to
improve. Each transgression is, and should be judged on its own
merits. You have let the angry mob influence your judgment and used
a single incident to punish a person for a long list of unproven and
contested allegations.
On page 16 you refer to comments made on the Internet by other
people. I fail to see how she is responsible for the actions of
others. Shame on you for increasing her punishment based on those
actions.
Finally, it is my opinion that serving any jail time or probation is
unwarranted in this case. This is a case of a simple noise
violation. I am outraged that you have expanded the violations of
which you have found her guilty, BASED SOLELY ON CLAIMS, and used
this case to carry the cumulative penalties thereof. I am ashamed we
allow this kind of justice in our country.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jim McWilliams
Warren, MI