Editorial: The battle of agendas in Zappala vs. Raiford
Share this post:
A courtroom is an adversarial forum.
The process is set up that way, to help find truth and justice by performing a legal dance to a set of rules. The adversaries in this system are not enemies, but opposing forces like magnets that pull and push in different directions.
It is not supposed to be about enmity. The law is no place for spite or pettiness.
Which is what makes the recent directive from Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. disappointing.
On Wednesday, Tribune-Review reporter Paula Reed Ward broke a story about a May 18 email from the DA to his deputy prosecutors, forbidding plea deals with defense attorney Milton Raiford, a prominent Black lawyer. On May 13, Raiford faced two assistant district attorneys in front of Judge Anthony Mariani, in which the case of Alexander Hammond turned into a statement by Raiford about racism in the justice system.
Five days later, Zappala declared that cases involving Raiford could only proceed by defendants entering a plea of their own accord or by trial. The “front office” would have to approve any dismissal of charges for Raiford clients.
Asked for comment, Raiford called the move vindictive. When Zappala finally released a statement Thursday, including transcripts of the Hammond case that prompted the move, he said it was “in order to ensure that this office makes consistent, evidence-based decisions and avoid false claims of racism.”
As with most accounts that wind up in courtrooms, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
What is undeniable, however, is that every defendant who comes into court needs to be treated with the same respect and opportunity, regardless of who is prosecuting or defending. There should not be harsher or lighter charges because of relationships between two lawyers. There definitely should not be a policy of difference paid to clients of one particular attorney.
Zappala said Raiford made misrepresentations in court. That may be true. Raiford said plea deals for Black defendants are not fair. That might be true, too.
There also is what Mariani said in court May 13.
“Here’s my concern: Mr. Hammond is sitting here listening to all this, and he would legitimately be wondering, ‘How does this relate to my case, if it does?’ ” the judge said in the transcript.
That is the root of the problem. No matter what Raiford said in court or how Zappala felt about it, there are still defendants like Hammond sitting by with court cases that need to be addressed. They should not be caught in a battle of agendas. Neither should victims who deserve to have cases resolved.
The problem is spreading. Judge David R. Cashman rejected three plea agreements Wednesday. He said he was offended by the DA’s policy, calling it “fundamentally wrong.”
The point is supposed to be about justice and truth. Those are the only sides that matter.