TRENTON — Richard Clarke was not going to win employee of the month. For a year-and-a-half, he would log fake merchandise returns at Staples and take cash from the safe to support his $200 a day crack habit. A judge said he was ineligible for drug court — a path that would have meant rehab — because he quit...
Clik here to view.
A 2007 photo of the Justices of the NJ Supreme Court hearing arguments in Trenton. TRENTON — Richard Clarke was not going to win employee of the month.
For a year-and-a-half, he would log fake merchandise returns at Staples and take cash from the safe to support his $200 a day crack habit. A judge said he was ineligible for drug court — a path that would have meant rehab — because he quit cold turkey, without help.
The problem, though, is that the judge should have considered Clarke’s dependency at the time of the offense, the state Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision issued last week.
Instead, the court said, Clarke and another defendant in a separate case should be entitled to an informal hearing in drug court, where a judge can hear from various "interested persons" — but without taking formal testimony — to determine whether drug court is appropriate. The opinion, written by former Supreme Court Justice John Wallace and released today, did not say whether the cases should eventually result in drug court supervision.
The ruling was both a victory for the public defender’s office and the Somerset County prosecutor, who had argued successfully that a more formal hearing was not necessary. That means courts can skip the time-consuming process involving witness testimony and cross-examination.
"It would just cause these cases to bog down the system," said Peter DeMarco, the acting Somerset County prosecutor.
The case is important because it is one of the few drug court-related cases the state Supreme Court has heard since the alternative track was established in 1996 and implemented statewide in 2004, Public Defender Yvonne Smith Segars said.
The goal of drug court is to provide strict treatment for addictions, said Stephen Hunter, assistant deputy public defender. "What all the studies have shown is that prison — just throwing people in jail for drug-related crimes — doesn’t work," he said.
Drug court is only for defendants who are non-violent addicts, Segars said. A substance abuse evaluator said the second defendant considered by the Supreme Court, William Dolan, had committed burglaries to support his own drug habit. The evaluator recommended in-patient treatment for Dolan, who used cocaine and heroin every day for 30 days before being jailed, according to the opinion.
But the Supreme Court said it was unclear whether the judge was "aware" of the recommendation.
Segars said the opinion shows drug court judges need to give "full and fair consideration" to defendants.
