“When I relapsed five years ago, I was a general contractor, huge business, two boats. Brand new trucks. Been sober five years, sponsoring a guy,” Sheehan said.

“I was at a meeting in Brockton with my group, and decided I was going to go to Brockton for one night. Just one night. And it was all gone. A year and a half later, everything was gone. All my business, my tools, my marriage. I left my 12-year old son, waiting to get picked up for guitar lessons. Just didn’t show up.”

Above: Click to listen to a story about Sheehan’s long road from addiction to graduation.

Convicted of larceny in 2010, Sheehan was headed back to prison. But the court offered him an alternative. “Drug court,” a strict rehabilitation program, usually 18 months long, that would require living in a halfway house with a curfew, as well as submitting to regular drug testing and counseling. And appearing weekly before Quincy District Court Judge Diane Moriarty.

“Usually as judges we only see all the bad stuff happening. We never see the good stuff happening,” Judge Moriarty said. “The drug court is different because I see them every week and I see them getting better, and getting healthier, and reconnecting with their family, and getting a job, and feeling better. And not have that urge to do the drugs and then have to commit crimes to support themselves while they’re doing the drugs.”

A native of Somerville and an altar boy growing up, Sheehan got hooked on cocaine as a teen and had his first run in with the law at 21. Now 49, he’s been in and out of prison more times than he can remember. He decided to take a chance on drug court. On this day, he graduates.

“Fifteen months ago when I came to Drug Court I was desperate. I wanted to get sober, and I was wiling to do whatever it took. That’s really what it comes down to.

“But I was definitely scared. I mean, look at my pattern. It would be like a fireman. The bell would go off, and I had to answer it. I’d be right in the middle of a family get-together, there’d be 60 people in the house, everything’s going great, I’m talking to my brother. And my mind’s thinking, you know what? I want to go get high. So I say, ‘I’ll be right back.’ Very convincing, ‘I’ll be right back,’ and I would just go. They wouldn’t see me for a week. I’d be off and running.”

Instant consequences

Drug court demanded of Sheehan the one thing he was the worst at: honesty. Lying and breaking the rules had instant consequences. Getting locked up for a couple of days, or, if he made too many missteps, serving out his full prison sentence.

“If you pick up in Drug Court, you’re doomed. You can’t fake those urines all the time and show up for your appointments when you’re active. Sit there and be honest with somebody in a Probation meeting. These people have been in business for a while, they know what they’re doing, you know?” Sheehan said.

“I really am, I’m grateful it exists. If it didn’t exist, do you know what would have happened to me? I would have done my time and I would have got out and I would have the same problems.”

Sheehan says recovery could not have happened for him in jail.

“In order to get recovery, you’ve got to be living in the environment you’re going to live in. When you’re in jail, there’s a whole nother environment. It’s a different set of rules. How are you supposed to go to somebody and be honest about what you’re feeling? Because all you’re really feeling in jail is fear, anger, mistrust, you don’t trust anybody, you’re a fool if you do.

“How do you bring out that inner child, how to do you find out that person that God wants you to be? How do you get in touch with that God?”

Above: Click to listen to Sheehan talking about how drugs damaged his relationship with his family

Does it work?

The Quincy drug court program is one of 16 state drug courts currently operating in Massachusetts.

In the past 10 years, 450 people have started the Quincy program, and more than a third have graduated. Even those who don’t make it all the way through, learn skills to stay clean.

Most go through the twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and begin to take a hard look at their lives.

A recent study of drug courts funded by the U.S. Department of Justice found that they significantly reduce both crime and drug use.

The study also found that while drug courts require an investment of money, the reduction in crime saves money and keeps the streets safer.

Judge Moriarty came to believe in drug court through her work as a defense attorney.

“When I was a defense attorney, I found that 85% of my clients were involved at some level with drugs or alcohol when they committed the crime or were drug seeking, and that’s what most of the kind of crime was that I saw, so I said there’s got to be something else that we can do besides this roller coaster,” she said.

Sheehan believes he is now off the roller coaster. He shares custody of his two children with his ex-wife and is starting a new construction business. He says the urge to use never completely disappears, but this time, he’s ready for it.

“I have a defense against using tonight,” he said. “It’s just because I did the right thing this morning and I did the right thing yesterday, and I’ve got a plan of action.”

Everyone who completes the drug court reads a letter on graduation day. In his, Sheehan said, “I have a disease of addiction but today I don’t suffer from it. Thank you to Judge Moriarty and Judge Coven for giving me the 20^th something chance.”

Sheehan also thanks his halfway house and his sponsor for helping him in his daily struggle to transform lifelong beliefs and behaviors. If you don’t feel this sense of gratitude, he tells his fellow members, then change what you’re doing. Because a grateful heart doesn’t drink.

Above: Watch Sheehan’s drug court graduation. His graduation letter begins at 3:42.

Firstly (get your Kleenexes ready), I will be leaving OpenCourt soon to work on a new project for which I won a Localore public radio grant. While I’m excited about my new direction, it is with sadness that I leave the court and this important project which still has so much space to continue blooming.

As my transition dovetails with Joe’s plans to be away the second half of February, we’ll be taking our own recess from streaming for the remainder of the month. When OpenCourt returns in early March, emphasis may gradually shift away from streaming the First Session, which has been our focus for the past nine months.

Since the outset, Quincy District Court was always meant to be a test-bed to discover new ways to cover the court system, and we’re taking steps towards the next phase of expansion. We have an opportunity to install a multi-camera, auto-switching video system into a second courtroom at QDC, and are exploring that option having broached the topic with our advisory board, at the most recent media judiciary committee meeting, and plan to discuss the topic in early march with the Quincy Court working group.

The new setup could provide a more dynamic view of the courtroom than our stationary camera and allow you to follow hearings beyond arraignments. To witness pre-trial conferences and trials would give a much fuller sense of the business of the court, which we and many of our viewers have wanted for some time.

Having maintained a daily live-stream for this duration is something we are proud of, and we are glad that so many of you out there have watched along with us and learned about the court. But livestreaming also takes a lot of resources, both of overhead and time, so it makes sense to pull back for the time being as we adjust to staffing changes and explore new options to expand the project.

We’ve also gathered so much video footage over the course of a year and are working towards using that data in a more compelling way, specifically through software and civic education. We are planning to integrate new tools on the site as well as partnering with a local non-profit to weave OpenCourt footage into local middle school curriculums.

We – or Joe at least – will still be blogging and active on Twitter and Facebook as we transition, so keep an eye peeled there at the beginning of March to see what’s next, or just wait for an email from us if you’re already signed up for the newsletter. Don’t use any of those things? Got a suggestion? Call or email us.

Thank you so much for contributing your attention and ideas and being a part of this project. It’s been great to know you’ve been out there watching and communicating with us. We couldn’t have done what we have without you, and OpenCourt will need you again as it works to serve the public in a new capacity. See you soon.

To see the daily workings of a busy district court has taught some about the U.S. judicial system and shown them a side of society normally hidden from view, while it has helped others to bolster their political views, to witness how the mountains of paperwork gum up the system, to learn tips on how to get out of traffic tickets, and even to find a new direction in life.

Here’s what we heard from them.

Why do you watch?

Dan from New Hampshire

I watch because I’m interested in seeing a fairly local court in operation. I don’t have time to go down to my town courthouse, so this is as close as I’m going to get. In addition, I feel like I’ve gotten to know a cast ranging from the judges to the DA and public defender team. I have my favorites, and I have my not so favorites.

For stushef, OpenCourt is better – or at least more realistic – than all the cops and court shows on TV.

I have watched CourtTV on cable — their coverage and methods are great, but they tend to follow extreme cases.

Police TV shows rarely show the Judicial results of crimes — LA Law the exception.

Open Court shows the daily grind of the court system and court administration — something NEVER shown anywhere else.

Several people cited their own nosiness or voyeurism for why they watch, the same reason that people read the crime pages in the newspaper. Jason from Indianapolis, Indiana called watching a “guilty pleasure” and Charlie from Marshfield, Massachusetts said, “I watch Open Court because I am interested in the system and I guess you could say a voyuer.”

Local listener Michele of Green Harbor, Massachusetts, who listens in the background as she works, likes to know what her neighbors are up to.

OpenCourt is also a resource for people who work for the court system. Gerda of Massachusetts is a certified court interpreter. She says OpenCourt is “a great tool to practice techniques and acquire vocabulary for us.”

Denis also works for a court, in Moscow, Russia. He uses OpenCourt to educate himself about the U.S. justice system.

I work as judge assistant in Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, so i found OpenCourt livestream very helpful for me as a person of legal profession to understand some specificity of common law system.

What have you learned watching OpenCourt?

Jason from Indianapolis, Indiana is an A+ student as far as OpenCourt goes.

While high school and college offer the foundation for an understanding of the Bill of Rights and the justice system, most people never see the court system in action. I am constantly amazed by the number of cases the Court hears on any given day. Through the OpenCourt project, I have been able to garner a better understanding of arraignments and the inner-workings of a district court. By offering this via the internet, it allows people from all socioeconomic backgrounds to learn about the criminal justice system right from their homes and at their convenience.

Dan from New Hampshire has also been picking out patterns from the huge bulk of proceedings.

I learned a lot about bail, arraignments, and sentencing. I learned about probation triggers, and I got to recognize a pattern among all of the perpetrators. The vast majority of every criminal case that goes through those doors has had some substance abuse impact.

I have a higher view of the justice system than I did before. I really think the judges in that court room are on the forefront of their fields, are extremely fair, and have done an incredible job with the issues presented. Locally anyways.

Michele of Green Harbor, Massachusetts was also impressed with the judges, and moved by the weekly drug court.

Charlie from Marshfield, Massachusetts sees the opposite side of the coin as far as the role of the court. He believes law-breakers have to take responsibility for their actions.

I have felt by reading the court news in the newspapers that the punishment is not strict enough. How many times must a person be arrested for the same thing, i.e. DUI, Driving uninsured, driving with a suspended license, before they get it? The fines/punishment need to be increased. I feel my opinions have been strengthened. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. As a general statement I think the court looks on them as victims and asks how can we help these poor souls who haven’t had a chance.

Stacy of Coral Gables, Florida likes seeing the DA’s and the defense attorneys arguing each side, often on short notice.

What would you change about the judicial system?

One word: paperwork.

Dan from New Hampshire

I think that decreasing the paperwork would be very helpful. It seems like a lot of the day is spent trying to find papers and waiting for papers to be sent. The court doesn’t seem as modern as it could be.

Michele of Green Harbor, Massachusetts

What more would you like to see from OpenCourt?

Jason from Indianapolis, Indiana would love to follow along as cases move upstairs into the pre-trial conferences and trials.

Also, it would be very interesting to see some of the trials that go on every day. Most people have seen high publicity criminal trials televised, but I am unaware of anyone who regularly shows district court trials. This additional coverage would further assist individuals who know relatively little about local civil or criminal trials.

Stacy of Coral Gables, Florida agrees.

She also has the most surprising answer for how OpenCourt has affected her.

We’d love to be able to expand out of the First Session, which is mostly arraignments, and be able to livestream the entire judicial process, from arraignments to pre-trial conferences to trials. Stay tuned!

In 2001, Jose Padilla, a Honduran native who had lived in the U.S. for 40 years, pled guilty to a charge of marijuana distribution. However, when he found out that he would be deported after serving prison time, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The Kentucky Supreme Court didn’t agree, but the U.S. Supreme Court did.

Last March they ruled that immigrants must be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to deportation.

Asking for a new trial

In the case at Quincy District Court, 39-year old Dung Minh Trinh had received in July 2010 a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) for one count of selling marijuana.

The CWOF is a confusing legal plea. The defendant offers to plead guilty, and then specifically requests: (1) that a guilty finding not be entered; and (2) that the case be continued to a specific date, at which time the judge will dismiss the case if they meet all the conditions set by the judge.

For U.S. citizens, the CWOF is a lighter plea than guilty, leaving only a “continuance” on their record, not a guilty plea. But for an immigrant, even a legal one, it can have dire consequences, as Trinh soon found out.

In March 2011, he was arrested and held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and told that his crime was considered an “aggravated felony” and that he was subject to deportation without bail.

Trinh is being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Through a new attorney Robert Carmel-Montes, he was asking Judge Moriarty to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and grant a new trial.

He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, saying that his previous attorney Keith James Nicholson told him that if he received the CWOF, he would not face deportation.

Trinh has been living legally in the States with a Green Card for the last 20 years and is the sole caretaker of his mother and daughter. His lawyer argued that he was a political refugee, who if deported, would be sent to Communist re-education camps in Vietnam, where he would be forced to “hoe fields and learn about Communist doctrine.”

Another factor in his argument is that Trinh would face discrimination as an Amerasian, a child of a U.S. GI from the Vietnam War and a Vietnamese woman.

He argued that if a new trial was granted, Trinh could offer to cooperate with the police in the drug investigation, in exchange for dismissing the charges.

Above: Watch Trinh’s attorney (start: 1:09 / 25:40) and the DA (start: 16:00) argue before Judge Moriarty about whether Trinh should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and be given a new trial.

The Assistant District Attorney argued that Trinh’s only proof that that he wasn’t told about the potential deportation consequences was his own word. Trinh wrote an affidavit stating that Attorney Nicholson told him that by accepting the CWOF, he could “avoid serious immigration consequences.”

Trinh’s attempts to reach Attorney Nicholson to confirm this statement were unsuccessful.

In Judge Moriarty’s written decision, she denied his motion for a new trial, saying that the only proof that the plea attorney failed to advise Trinh of the possibility of deportation was his own word. There was neither an affidavit from Attorney Nicholson nor a subpoena to get the plea attorney to appear and testify in the case.

On November 15, Judge Stephen Day at the Immigration Court in Boston denied Trinh’s claim that he shouldn’t be deported because he will face torture back in Vietnam. His lawyer Carmel-Montes said the five pounds of marijuana Trinh was caught with constituted too serious a crime to warrant protection. He is appealing that decision now, and plans to appeal Judge Moriarty’s decision as well.

Trinh is being held in federal immigration detention in the Suffolk County House of Corrections in Boston until his case is resolved.

Literally. Call (617) 249-4941 with your ideas and your message could appear on this site, with your permission.

We want to know what draws you back to OpenCourt regularly, what you’ve learned, and what more you’d like to see.

1. Why do you watch?
2. How is the livestream helpful to you?
3. What did you know about the court system before you began watching?
4. What have you learned?
5. How has it affected how you think about how justice is administered both locally and more broadly?
6. What questions do you have about what you see every day that we can help find the answers to?
7. What is unclear to you about the judicial process?
8. What more would you like to see on the site?

We’d love to hear from you with answers to any of the above questions. Please get in touch:

• Tweet @OpenCourtUS, either publicly or privately
• Write us through the contact form, through the public comment section below or by email at jspurr@opencourt.us or valwang@opencourt.us
• Leave a message at (617) 249-4941 with answers or to let us know you want to talk further

We’ll write what we learn, but we won’t use your name or your voice without permission.

We need your help to build on what we’ve started and to truly make OpenCourt your eyes and ears into the justice system. Thank you!

Please retweet this post:

What did you know of the courts before watching? What have you learned? What’s missing? Tell us more: opencourt.us/2011/12/your-v… or (617) 249-4941

— OpenCourt (@OpenCourtUS) December 15, 2011

On Friday, December 2, they were arraigned in Quincy District Court. The arraignments were spread out over the course of the day. Three of the defendants were in custody: Michael Browne, Joshua Brown, and Joshua Desmond. Two, David Barron and Matthew Earner, were in the gallery.

In the video above, the clerk assigns different attorneys to each defendant. David Barron was arraigned on possession of heroin and conspiracy to violate drug laws. (Heroin is a Class A substance.) Below, the DA asked for $1,000 bail because of his probation history. In 2010, he was convicted of the same charge and was put on probation, which he violated, leading to 90 days spent in prison.

Above, Barron’s defense attorney asks for a lower bail, saying that he is living with and taking care of his grandmother who just had triple bypass surgery, and has a steady job as a mechanic for a taxi company.

Above, see Michael Browne arraigned on possession of heroin and conspiracy to violate drug laws. There was no request for bail. At 2:13 in the clip, they continue talking about one of the co-defendants who is going to be committed for heroin abuse. At 4:22, they talk about the remaining co-defendants.

Above, Matthew Earner is seen arraigned on possession of heroin and conspiracy to violate drug laws. Earner was also “sectioned,” i.e. his brother filed for a Section 35 commitment for substance abuse for him, based on his continued use of heroin, cocaine and benzos.

Above, Earner does not contest the petition, acknowledging a drug history including accidental overdoses. The judge approved the petition.

The alleged dealer Joshua Desmond was charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin, two counts of distributing heroin, possession of both Class A and C drugs, selling drugs near a school, and shoplifting (of three eggs).

The DA asked for $10,000 bail because police witnessed him having five short hand-to-hand interactions in local parking lots and when searching his apartment, found drug-selling paraphernalia such as scales and plastic bags. He was found with $600 in cash on him.

His defense attorney argued that no drugs were found on him or on any of the defendants brought forth today. He said he has so much cash on him because he is homeless.

Joshua Brown was charged with possession of heroin and conspiracy to violate drug laws. He has another open case set for a jury trial in December. The DA asked for $1,500 bail and for bail to be revoked for his open case. His attorney argued that the police did not clearly see him buying drugs and there were no drugs found on him, only on someone else in the car he was riding in.

Above: watch the DA and the defense attorneys make bail arguments before the judge’s final bail ruling.

The next date in court for all five defendants is December 19.

We found archive footage for his 13-minute September 8 arraignment. (Other hearings were unavailable for various reasons: an April hearing occurred before our project started, a June 30 hearing was unavailable because of technical problems, and a September 14 hearing was held in a different courtroom than our camera’s placement in First Session.)

On Monday, November 14th, we posted the September arraignment in order to help flesh out the history of Donald Rudolph in the court, both for the sake of the public as well as the use of journalists.

On Tuesday, November 15th, the local FOX affiliate used OpenCourt video footage in an evening broadcast.

WGBH also used the footage in a November 16th segment for “Greater Boston,” about the teen’s troubling history of mental illness and whether the tragedy was a failure of the complex web of social services designed to mitigate society’s ills and administer justice, of which the court is a node.

Quincy District Court’s own Judge Mark Coven referenced this complexity in our interview with him last spring, as does Kevin Cullen of The Boston Globe in his November 15 column, “Paying in Tears.”

The potential uses of OpenCourt

Despite the fact that the the FOX 25 News report erroneously stated that we had granted them permission to use the footage (they had never asked) and that their coverage inaccurately stated that Judge Moriarty ordered Rudolph “released” on bail (she actually detained him on $1,000 cash bail until his next court date six days later), this incident has taught us about how OpenCourt can be used to deepen coverage of the courts.

Had our camera not been there, Donald Rudolph’s September 8 arraignment would not have have been readily available to shed light on his court history. A camera in every courtroom and well-archived footage – showing all cases, not just the extraordinary – would offer the public a less fragmented, more complete understanding of the workings of justice in our society.

View the arraignment in its entirety below, which includes a bail argument from Assistant District Attorney Craig Kowalski detailing the police report. Rudolph’s defense attorney, John Darrell, also said that when he and Rudolph met, Rudolph did not understand why he was in jail and when shown a newspaper photograph of his house, did not understand why there was yellow police tape around it. A court forensic psychologist who questioned him also said she believes Rudolph is not aware of his situation and suggested postponing the arraignment until further examination could be done.

Rudolph is now being held without bail at Bridgewater State Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency.

For more information, please read articles from the Patriot-Ledger, WBUR and the Boston Globe.

I asked one high school social studies teacher we got in touch with, Jack Buckley at nearby Cohasset High School, in Cohasset, Mass., how he would use OpenCourt in his classes. He teaches an elective called “Intro to Law” that he says is like a traditional civics class — save for the fact that he brings police officers and legislators into the classroom and takes his students out on field trips to the local prison and court.

In the past, he’s brought his students down to Quincy District Court to observe. With the livestream, the court can come straight into his classroom.

After looking through our website, he also said that First Justice Mark Coven’s interview was a “gold mine” for a public policy assignment he does during the second half of the course, after students have a basic grasp of the branches of government. He asks students to select a public policy issue and to research the government’s response.

From his email (edited for clarity):

Students find the assignment to be difficult; I think I can now make it a heck of lot easier to understand by listening to Judge Coven’s explanation of a district court as a place where needed human services can be accessed in balance with dictates of the law and the needs or considerations of victims. For students, he makes it pretty clear that the bulk of legal problems are rooted in social ills – drugs, alcohol, violence, and financial problems. That’s pretty easy for all students to understand, and sadly, for too many students, their personal lives are touched by these issues.

So, in short, my assignment on public policy and government response will be to listen to Judge Coven’s interview, select an issue he mentions (or a related issue such as possession of a handgun) and research the problem as it manifests itself in our county, i.e., Quincy District Court! Then I ask students to begin to piece together local instances, MGL [Massachusetts General Laws] statutes, Federal laws, acts of Congress, etc.

This is just what we want to hear. We’ll be very happy if OpenCourt can make the abstract ideas of justice, public policy, and social services more real to local high school students. We are also working with the organization Discovering Justice, whose educational programs have reached almost 100,000 students.
If you have any ideas or feedback for our site on how we can be more of a resource for schools, please drop us a line.

You can also read this exact post on the PBS MediaShift Idea Lab blog.

The hearing will both be live-streamed by the SJC (click “View Webcast”) at 9 a.m. and archived, though the archive will not be immediately available.

Both cases hinge on the status of the archives, and on restrictions to that archive that we believe to be unlawful prior restraints under the First Amendment.

In the first case, Commonwealth vs. Barnes, the defense attorney accidentally “blurted” the name of the alleged victim of sexual assault, a minor. We are arguing that under the First Amendment, the court does not have right to order us to redact the name, though as a responsible news organization, we would do so voluntarily, as well as redacting any other identifying information. The District Attorney’s office is arguing that the court should have the authority to order us to redact the entire hearing.

In the second case, Diorio vs. First Justice of the Quincy District Court, Diorio is arguing that by streaming and archiving his arraignment, OpenCourt is violating his right to a fair trial. We argue that to impose a restriction on the archiving of the video is an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Both the filings and the reply briefs are public and available for perusal.