A story in the La Crosse Tribune describes Judge Ramona Gonzalez's role in getting a defendant's car back to his house after telling him in court, apparently during a bond hearing, that he "will have to figure out someplace else to keep his vehicle other than his house". This, according to the case notes on CCAP. Apparently, these remarks made their way into the bond as a condition, because the police thought Rose was ordered not to have the vehicle at his home. Sometime later, the Judge personally spoke with Mr. Rose, and she arranged for her own husband to drive Rose's vehicle--the same vehicle Rose reportedly illegally drove to court and had been using to "terrorize" his neighbors and endanger the community--back to Rose's residence.
La Crosse Chief of Police, Rob Abraham is apparently not pleased. He was quoted in the article--which quote appears three times, twice blown up (not that the La Crosse Tribune is ever guilty of ginning up controversy between the judges and police). The Chief saw this as a reason to "question the impartiality of the judicial system".
To begin, if the Judge's courtroom comments are correctly reported on CCAP, then her statement about "figur[ing] out someplace else to keep his vehicle" does not appear to be an order, but more advisory in nature. The fact that she later amended the bond for clarification does not change that. Second, in my opinion, the Chief's comments, the article as a whole--and the typical uniformed, silly comments that accompany it--unfairly portray the Judge as chummy with criminals, and against the police. I think this misses the "big picture."
Mr. Rose is 18 years old. The article alludes to the fact that he has been involved with the courts as a juvenile. Judge Gonzalez pointed out that he has "no family support". My bet is that Judge Gonzalez has some experience with Mr. Rose, and that she knows him better than most. My experience is that Judge Gonzalez is the kind of Judge that tries to reach people and change their behavior. She understands that simply locking people up and taking their property is a formula proven not to work. By her other comments, it is clear that Mr. Rose's behavior troubled the Judge. But helping Mr. Rose save his car from the police impound does not make her an aider and abettor. She ordered Mr. Rose not to drive the vehicle. The article also explains that Judge Gonzalez not only helped Rose with his car, she later checked back in on him to be sure he was okay and had food at his house.
What kind of judge do we want for La Crosse County?: One who locks people up and then waits for their return on another crime (and looks good in the press), or a judge who makes sure that one out of hundreds that come before her has something to eat? Give her a break!
La Crosse Chief of Police, Rob Abraham is apparently not pleased. He was quoted in the article--which quote appears three times, twice blown up (not that the La Crosse Tribune is ever guilty of ginning up controversy between the judges and police). The Chief saw this as a reason to "question the impartiality of the judicial system".
To begin, if the Judge's courtroom comments are correctly reported on CCAP, then her statement about "figur[ing] out someplace else to keep his vehicle" does not appear to be an order, but more advisory in nature. The fact that she later amended the bond for clarification does not change that. Second, in my opinion, the Chief's comments, the article as a whole--and the typical uniformed, silly comments that accompany it--unfairly portray the Judge as chummy with criminals, and against the police. I think this misses the "big picture."
Mr. Rose is 18 years old. The article alludes to the fact that he has been involved with the courts as a juvenile. Judge Gonzalez pointed out that he has "no family support". My bet is that Judge Gonzalez has some experience with Mr. Rose, and that she knows him better than most. My experience is that Judge Gonzalez is the kind of Judge that tries to reach people and change their behavior. She understands that simply locking people up and taking their property is a formula proven not to work. By her other comments, it is clear that Mr. Rose's behavior troubled the Judge. But helping Mr. Rose save his car from the police impound does not make her an aider and abettor. She ordered Mr. Rose not to drive the vehicle. The article also explains that Judge Gonzalez not only helped Rose with his car, she later checked back in on him to be sure he was okay and had food at his house.
What kind of judge do we want for La Crosse County?: One who locks people up and then waits for their return on another crime (and looks good in the press), or a judge who makes sure that one out of hundreds that come before her has something to eat? Give her a break!
RSS Feed
