The iconic American symbol of justice is that of a robed woman, blindfolded, holding up a scale on which justice is measured. The image portrays the fundamental belief that justice is blind to bias.
But in a rarely used judicial rebuke, trial Judge Jean Leonard was just served papers by attorneys representing Joseph Hall – who, at age 10, killed his father – accusing the Riverside County Superior Court judge of bias against the boy and seeking to remove her from sentencing him.
While the legal motion is a critical development in Joseph’s case, it also raises significant issues as to how children with special-education and mental health needs – like Joseph, now 12 – fare in California’s juvenile justice system. Indeed, the challenge to the judge has the potential to focus attention on questionable court proceedings too frequently used with “throwaway kids” locked up without much public scrutiny, treatment more often associated with Charles Dickens stories.
Joseph’s case garnered national attention largely because of the victim’s politics: his father, Jeff Hall, was Western U.S. regional leader of a neo-Nazi organization. But resolution of Joseph’s case may become the spark that is needed to mobilize and unite special-education and mental health advocacy groups, alongside juvenile justice advocates, in ensuring that California and federal laws be truly understood and respected in children’s court proceedings.
Joseph’s culpability turns on issues pertaining to his mental state at the time of the April 2011 killing, and whether the child – who had a long history of being abused – had the capacity to understand his actions. After a whirlwind 10-day nonjury trial, Judge Leonard convicted Joseph of an “intentional” act and of second-degree murder. The conviction was met with critical questioning, given Joseph’s age and previous determination that he was subject to the federal Individuals with Disability in Education Act.
His conviction in January will, certainly, be appealed, but no appeal can commence until Joseph is sentenced – either to our state juvenile prison system, or to a county or private secured treatment facility.
What’s particularly disturbing in the court proceedings, and partial grounds for the bias allegation filed by the defense, are the efforts to negate any responsibility of the Riverside County Office of Education of any obligation to provide for the child’s needs. Indeed, records show that recommendations by the prosecution and probation department for Joseph’s expedited placement in the state juvenile justice system lack reputable evidence from federally recognized mental health and special-education needs specialists. Mandated diagnostics or assessments, as required under the federal law, have yet to be made.
After Joseph had spent almost two years in custody without appropriate treatment, events began to change when the Marc Grossman law firm and attorney Punam Grewal, along with special-education activist Steve Figueroa joined Joseph’s public defender, Matt Hardy. Armed with a strong command and understanding of the decades-old federal law championed by President John F. Kennedy, Joseph’s advocates realize they are blazing a new trail in the legal system, to force California courts to address and determine children’s general, mental and special-education needs when conducting hearings on guilt, sentencing and appropriate placement. Despite the law, this, shamefully, has been ignored.
Rather than accept being shut down during hearings by the trial judge, Joseph’s team audaciously filed the bias motion. By doing so, a public discussion of the neglectful treatment of California’s most vulnerable children, who wind up in the juvenile justice system, becomes inevitable. Indeed, it is our blindfolds – not those of Lady Justice – that need to be lifted, once and for all.