Court Administration 65 Newspaper References 118 Periodical References Neighborhood Justice

New York Law Journal, March 17, 2005 pNA

Mark Innovative Brooklyn Court seen as successful model. Tom Perrotta.

Byline: Tom Perrotta

THE RED HOOK Community Justice Center holds court in an old school building on Visitation Place in Brooklyn, a short walk from the worn- down docks that jut into the Eerie Basin.

Once a week, the court's regulars gather for an unusual meeting: The judge, prosecutor, defense attorney and a handful of social workers sit around a table and discuss cases, talking more like associates at a not-for- profit agency than attorneys squabbling over litigation. Defendant "A" has been drug-free for three months, defendant "B" had a relapse, defendant "C" violated the conduct code of his treatment agency. The participants move through the list of cases quickly, all before court begins.

Those who work at the court say the tone of the weekly meeting should not be misinterpreted. In Red Hook, they say, advocacy is alive and well and disputes are the norm.

"The first thing that any problem-solving court has to remember is that the Constitution comes first and problem-solving comes second," said Judge Alex M. Calabrese, who has presided over the court since its inception five years ago. "I've seen other courts in the country that get roll-over defense lawyers. In Red Hook, our defense lawyers are not part of the team. What I love about Red Hook is that it is a healthy court. The lawyers still go at it in court."

Of all the problem-solving courts in New York, Red Hook's is held in the highest overall regard by both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The community response has been positive, too: according to a 2001 survey by the Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership that studies and develops problem-solving courts, 69 percent of the neighborhood's residents had a favorable view of the court just a year after it had opened.

As problem-solving courts go, Red Hook is unique in many respects. Like its predecessor, the Manhattan's Midtown Community Court, the Red Hook court hears only misdemeanor cases. In terms of variety, though, it is unmatched among other problem-solving courts in New York, handling drug cases, domestic violence cases, landlord-tenant disputes, and family court matters.

It also is far more ambitious in terms of ancillary services. Its Youth Court puts on mock trials for local youths. The court runs a GED program, a Housing Resource Center, job training, and mental health services. In 2001 it started Operation Toolkit, which pulls together residents and representatives of government agencies to identify and solve community problems (abandoned cars, for example, were often cause for concern). The court assigns more than 79,000 hours of community service a year, according to the Center for Court Innovation. It also provides rooms for community groups to use for meetings.

Once a working-class neighborhood along a bustling waterfront, Red Hook saw its population fall from more than 22,000 in the 1950s to 11,000 in the 1990s. It now hovers around 12,000. About 6,500 of those residents live in the Red Hook Houses, Brooklyn's largest and oldest public housing project. Red Hook was hit hard by the crack epidemic and gang wars of the 1980s and 1990s. In 1988, Life magazine described it as one of the country's most crack-infested neighborhoods.

Inspiration for the court came when a popular elementary school principal, Patrick Daly, was caught in gang crossfire and shot to death in 1992. After canvassing the community and meeting with attorneys and court officials, the Center for Court Innovation designed the Red Hook court to hear misdemeanors from three police precincts that also encompass nearby neighborhoods, including Sunset Park, Windsor Terrace, Park Slope and Prospect Heights. Though drug cases fill most of its docket, those affiliated with the court say great strides have been made elsewhere, especially in its housing part.

Judge Calabrese said that residents of the projects had complained persistently that the New York City Housing Authority would not heed their repair requests. The judge personally visited the houses to get a first- hand look at what residents needed. Since then, the court's housing part has established a strong enough relationship with the housing authority that most resident requests can be made via e-mail through the court. The repairs, Judge Calabrese said, are now handled swiftly.

Crime statistics from the neighborhood suggest success, too, though Judge Calabrese is reluctant to say that the court is solely -- or even largely -- responsible for those changes. Still, Red Hook had no homicides in 2003. That had not happened in more than 30 years.

A Day in Court Anyone who spends a day in the Red Hook court will find it difficult to remain unaffected by its warmth. Judge Calabrese, a 51-year-old former Legal Aid Society attorney and law clerk, speaks in a calm, friendly tone. He is well versed in defendants' names, personal histories, professions and attempts at employment, as well as their clashes with the law. When defendants graduate from drug treatment or successfully complete a stage of it, they are congratulated. The audience, mostly family members and other defendants, applauds.

The court can even make defendants fond of prosecutors. On a visit to the court last year with District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, one defendant, whom the Law Journal will identify as "Ms. M.," received praise for sticking with the first half of her 18-month treatment program. She was trained as a cook, she said, but had been wallowing in drug use for years. At one point, she posed as a representative of the police department and collected donations to pay for her habit.

As Ms. M. walked back toward the audience, she spotted Mr. Hynes in the front row. She waived and smiled and called him by name. Mr. Hynes stood up and gave her a bear hug. It was a moving and at the same time odd moment, one that would have been unthinkable in a New York City courtroom 10 years ago.

"Clearly Red Hook is a very different place today," said Greg Berman, the Center for Court Innovation's director. "There are a lot of reasons for that: New York is better, there has been economic development. But the court has been part of it."

Defense Perspective

The defense bar has any number of complaints about problem-solving courts: They undermine a defense attorney's role as a strong advocate, they pressure defendants into pleas in exchange for treatment and they can be patronizing toward defendants, who are watched closely and not trusted to take command of their own lives.

Brett Taylor, a Legal Aid Society attorney who has worked full time at the Red Hook court for all but a year of its existence, says some of those concerns are relevant in Red Hook, but less so, especially when it comes to advocacy.

"I have an audience behind me every day and if they don't see me fighting they are going to think I am a sellout," Mr. Taylor said. "They don't care that this is a great treatment option, they want to see someone fighting for them."

Unlike New York's other drug courts, Mr. Taylor said, the Red Hook court sometimes offers a defendant treatment without requiring a guilty plea. This only happens in about 5 percent of the cases, he said, but at least he can fight for it. He credits Judge Calabrese for keeping an open mind.

"That's a function of the judge not being afraid to undercut the district attorney," Mr. Taylor said.

This is not to say that Mr. Taylor is completely at ease with the court. He said he repeatedly fights with prosecutors over information gathered by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. The agency is contracted by the city to interview every defendant arrested. Its reports, which compile information about a defendant's place of residence and occupation, among other details, are given to judges to help them determine proper bail.

When defendants are sent to Red Hook, justice agency representatives ask additional questions, including whether defendants are interested in drug treatment or social services. Defendants are not given a Miranda warning during this questioning, and Mr. Taylor said he cannot shake concerns that the details -- which are made available to the judge and prosecutors -- figure into the prosecution's decision to push for treatment.

"My point is, are they explaining that this can be used against you in the courtroom?" he said.

Anne J. Swern, the counsel to District Attorney Hynes, said the justice agency gathers information to help the court, prosecutors and defense attorneys home in on defendants' problems. This, she said, ensures that defendants will receive the proper treatment, if they need it.

"Comments about drug treatment or the need for drug treatment have never been used against a defendant," she said. "What I believe this does is create a great climate to focus the proceedings on what brought the defendant into court and what will keep the defendant out of court in the future."

Adam Mansky, the Center for Court Innovation's director of operations and the former project director of the Red Hook court, said the information is discarded if a defendant decides against a plea and treatment.

"That information is only for purposes of bail," he said. "It is not used for factual determination of guilt or innocence."

Mr. Taylor levied his strongest criticisms at the court's misdemeanor domestic violence docket. Domestic violence courts were explicitly designed to aid victims, whose abuses were in years past under- prosecuted, if not ignored. Mr. Taylor does not deny the need for victim advocacy, but his fear is that it fosters a presumption of guilt.

"I tell my guys in interviews, 'You are screwed,'" Mr. Taylor said. "Even when you have a complaining witness out here and she says, 'We both need counseling; we both go off on each other,' and I bring this up, prosecutors say that I'm victimizing the victim."

Ms. Swern said complaints about presumption of guilt in a specialized domestic violence court are misplaced, and have more to do with the crime in question.

"That's probably a function of the type of crime it is, and not a function of specialized courts," she said. "Domestic violence is a type of crime that has a specific focus on the victims. Most other crimes that are adjudicated in Red Hook do not focus on victims."

Fear of Complacency

What Mr. Taylor and other legal observers worry about most when asked about problem-solving courts is complacency.

"I don't want this to become a formulaic drug court where you can just fit anybody into the rules," he said.

Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law and public health at Columbia University Law School, has seen some signs of complacency in Red Hook, which he detailed in "Theorizing Community Justice Through Community Courts," written with Victoria Malkin and published in the Fordham Urban Law Journal in December 2003.

After studying the Red Hook court from 2000 to 2001, Mr. Fagan found that its character had been overwhelmed by the number of drug cases it received. The makeup of the docket, he said, turned attention and resources away from many of the court's more innovative plans, which were designed to engage residents about their problems and develop solutions. Instead, community service sentences were often served by cleaning the courthouse. Rather than fostering community action and pride, the court was seen as just another court, he wrote. Conversations between the court and the community, he said, were often a one-way street.

"Implicit in the RHCJC's vision were a large number of voluntary users of the Court's services," Mr. Fagan wrote. "Some residents have walked in asking for help such as mediation services or sports programs and they have benefited from those services. Most residents, while acknowledging the presence of the RHCJC in the annual AmeriCorps survey, still have not branded the RHCJC as anything more than a court, and their lives remain untouched by its presence."

In an interview, Mr. Fagan also expressed doubt about the ability of the court to reduce recidivism. The same could be said of any problem- solving court modeled on the "broken windows" theory of policing small crimes to prevent larger ones, he said.

"Among criminologists, very few think that broken windows has anything to do with reduction in crime," Mr. Fagan said. "I have not seen anyone publish data saying Red Hook reduces recidivism better than regular courts."

Mr. Berman of the Center for Court Innovation said that Mr. Fagan's report simply suggests that more work needs to be done in Red Hook and elsewhere.

"What's most valuable about his piece is it underlines how ambitious the community justice project is and how difficult it is to achieve those goals," Mr. Berman said. "Creating a valuable relationship between community and government is hard."

He added: "I think that since he wrote the piece we have gotten better."

Judge Calabrese agrees that there is always room for improvement, and he expects the court to remain busy, even as gentrification and skyrocketing real estate prices extend further into Red Hook from the more affluent communities surrounding it.

"I don't foresee wanting to do anything else," he said of his career. "It's just a great project. You feel so much more judicial satisfaction."

Tom Perrotta can be reached at [email protected].

This is the second article in an occasional series on problem-solving courts. Today: Inside the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn.

Yesterday: The criminal justice community's perceptions of the courts.

Article A130766953

View other articles linked to these subjects:

Court Administration 65 Newspaper references 118 Periodical references Neighborhood Justice Centers 2 Newspaper references 10 Periodical references