BIASNESS BY THE COURT RESULTED IN THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
In an initial instance of Judicial bias, the Defendant Dr. Malachi Z. York was denied his presumption of innocence from the onset of the government's prosecution. At the Arraignment and Detention Hearing held on May 9, 2002, A.D. Magistrate Judge Claude Hicks stated:
Arraignment and Detention Hearing Transcript P.169, L. 22-3
I think to a great extent that's what's been presented to me in the courtroom today, and it's not unlike the situation which I imagined existed in courtrooms earlier in previous years with individuals like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, Jim Baker. They had quite a few loyal followers. They let their followers down. That may ultimately be what the outcome of this case is. It may not be. That's not for me to say."
The Defendant's presumption of innocence was repeatedly denied as demonstrated by the statements made by Judge Hicks such as the Defendant would likely continue the alleged crimes should he be released on bond (Arraignment and Detention Hearing Transcript -P169, l.7-15, Arraignment and Detention Hearing Transcript -P.171, l.8-14).
At this same hearing the court states (Arraignment and Detention Hearing Transcript -P.173, l. 1-13) "I find that the weight of evidence, primarily the testimony of Special Agent Jalaine Ward is strong." Yet while being cross examined by Edward T.M. Garland Jalaine Ward's admits that she has no witness that says that the purpose in travel was to have children have sex, the entire basis of this case. (Arraignment and Detention Hearing Transcript - P.79, L. 4-11) Judge Hicks completely ignored this admission by the lead investigator in the government's case against Dr. York and simply addressed the courtroom as if the Defendant had already been convicted of the crimes for which he was merely accused. The destruction of the Defendant's presumption of innocence which occurred in the Arraignment and Detention hearing presided over by Judge Claude W. Hicks has overshadowed this case to this very day. This outrageous judicial conduct by Judge Hicks caused a concerned citizen to write a letter to the the judge which states:
Hon., Claude W. Hicks, Jr.,
U.S. Magistrate Judge,
Post Office Box 48,
Macon, Georgia 31202
Open Letter to Hon. Claude W. Hicks Jr.
June 19, 2002
Dear, Judge Hicks;
On or about May 15, 2002, I read a news article in a local newspaper The Union-Recorder entitled: "York Denied Bond".(see attach news article) In that article comments were made by you concerning the defendants Dwight York and Kathy Johnson, in which not only shocks the conscience but rendered a "fix opinion" of the defendants guilt in my mind, and possibly in the minds of potential jurors who may be asked to come to both defendants trial and shed themselves of a preconceived and highly suggestive opinion that has been induced in them by the press, judge and law enforcement.
I strongly believe that the comments that you reportedly made while you were presiding at the defendants’ bond hearing, not only cast a shadow upon the defendants “Presumption of Innocence" and right to a fair trial and an impartial Jury, but was also an attack upon the defendants’ "due-process and equal protection" privileges of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Such comments attributed to you such as "It appears to me, despite the literature I've looked over, I believe actions speaks louder than words," "testimony against each defendant does have a basis in facts. There are numerous allegations over a long period of time. They are reprehensible acts and are likely to continue if released," places you in the "drivers seat" as being the defendant's judge, jury and executioner and places in the court of public opinion a "fix opinion" of a "presumption of guilt" as opposed to a "Presumption of Innocence”. In addition, it was reported that you compared the defendants to the likes of Reverends Jimmy Swaggert, Jimmy Bakker, (known "convicted" felons) and the now deceased Jim Jones. None of the reverends that were reportedly mentioned by you had similar charges as those of the defendants in this matter. Ironically no comparisons were made by you between the defendants and the alleged Catholic "child sex" Priests, who either evaded court process or are presently in the pretrial stages of that process; This misplaced inference was totally off base and an example of a personal bias and prejudice that you may have against the defendants. I submit Judge Hicks, that your comments have stripped the defendants of a “Presumption of Innocence."
The negative pretrial publicly which eroded the defendants "Presumption of Innocease" before the bond hearing in addition to the comments that you have made during that hearing produced what can only be describe as a "circus like" atmosphere. The intensity of this negative pretrial publicity has echoed further attacks on the defendants for example, in the same Union-Recorder, a day after your reported statements were made, the paper had conducted a press-conference with Sheriff Howard Sills of Putnam County, a sheriff who has a history of contention with the defendants organization and who along with over several hundred law enforcement officers invaded the defendants presumed domain. At the press conference Sheriff Sills was quoted calling the defendant Dwight York a "Serial Pedophile." (See attach news-article) This ongoing erosion of Mr. York's "Presumption of Innocence" by the Sheriff’s misconduct, places a heavy burden on the defendants innocence, in which this fundamental principle of law was suppose to prevent.
In the Supreme Court case Scott v. Ohio (480 U.S. 923) (1987), Judges Marshall and Brennan dissenting from a denial of certiorari, in which Judge Marshall stated that a juror had heard the trial judge in that case indicate based on newspaper accounts that he had read, he believed the defendant was involved in the crime. Judge Marshall felt that the trial Judge committed an "extraordinary error" because the judge's comments effectively made the judge a witness against the defendant, thereby influencing the jurors to convict him. This judicial error in Judge Marshall's view, overwhelmed the "Presumption of Innocence" of the defendant, and deprived him of a fair trial. The comparison to be made here is that in your comments and in the trial judge comments were the use of the words "I believe," these I feel, were the key words that placed you in a "witness mode" instead of "judicial mode." In Addition, though you were not in front of jurors when you made the above comments, it does not relief you of the fact that your comments had placed a "fix opinion" in the minds of the public who will eventually be called upon as potential jurors.
Therefore, it is my belief that you are in violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct:
Canon 1: Uphold integrity and Independence of the judiciary, (Public confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility.
Canon 2: A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance in all activities. (A judge must
expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny.)
Canon 3: A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently. (A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which the judges has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.....")
In closing, In light of the fact that "Sexual Child Abuse" is now a major issue in our society, and in light of the fact that our judicial system is being confronted with a large caseload of "sexually abusive" children, I have not read any commentary that were made by other Judges in the alleged Catholic "child sex" Priests pretrial proceedings that were equal in form and content to yours. The "Presumption of Innocence " of the Catholic Priests were preserved and respected by judges, news media, and law enforcement.
I strongly believe that the court have a responsibility to repair the damage that has been done in this matter; I also asked that the attorneys for the defense move expeditiously in protecting their clients' constitutional privileges. If the defendants "Presumption of Innocence" are not repaired, than this court may be in conflict with the reviewing courts of this nation.
This is a very intriguing case, and one of the greatest examples of betrayal, conspiracy, and corruption on the local, state and federal levels of law enforcement and the judiciary that has been going on for over 2 years, now. For more info...
www.unitednuwaubiannation.com
