Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 13, 2006 9:10:00 GMT -5
04/13/2006 - DETROIT -- On Thursday, William Schramm of West Bloomfield reported to the Detroit federal courthouse, sat all day on a hallway bench and stared at the wall.
It's the same way the 31-year-old retirement planner has spent his Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays every other week since the end of January.
Schramm is charged with no crime but is serving an unusual and indefinite sentence for allegedly lying to a federal judge.
When Schramm, who is self-employed, balked at sitting on a grand jury, Chief U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman told him he wouldn't have to serve. He would, however, have to sit on the first-floor bench every day the jury sits. He wouldn't be allowed to read. And he wouldn't receive the $40-a-day pay or the mileage reimbursement jurors get for trips to the Detroit courthouse.
Legal experts say Friedman's order -- which was not put in writing and did not result from finding Schramm in contempt of court -- is highly unusual and of questionable legality.
"My initial impression is this is an incredible abuse on the part of the judge," said Ralph Lindeman, a lawyer and justice reporter with legal publisher BNA Inc. in Washington, D.C., who spent 15 years as a Department of Justice trial attorney. Schramm "is effectively being imprisoned and there has been no process to determine whether the judge has made the right kind of call."
Friedman said he has inherent authority to administer justice that is not spelled out in any specific statute.
The chief judge conducts a question-and-answer session with prospective grand jurors and said Schramm responded to a question or questions in an inappropriate and apparently untruthful manner. As a result, "he had to contemplate his behavior and his interference with the administration of justice."
"The message is that when you are summoned to jury duty you must tell the truth," he said.
Friedman would not specify what Schramm said that was objectionable and acknowledged Schramm also sent him a letter stating why he did not want to sit on the grand jury. He said he was surprised Schramm had obeyed his direction for the last eight weeks without complaining.
The grand jury -- which meets in secret and issues indictments in federal criminal felony cases -- is scheduled to sit until July and could be extended another six months. Friedman said his order to Schramm was for an indefinite time period, but "all he has to do is come in and talk about it."
"I expected him to come in and I still do," Friedman said. "Every time I know he's out there it goes through my mind. He knows how to send me a letter and he knows how to contact me."
Schramm said he spoke to lawyer friends who told him Friedman has the power to issue the order, which requires him to stay at the courthouse from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day the grand jury sits.
Though the penalty has significantly hampered his ability to work, Schramm said he has not complained because he is afraid of further upsetting the judge and being found in contempt, which he said could put his license to sell securities at risk.
After being noticed by court visitors and agreeing to an interview, Schramm later changed his mind and asked that the story not be printed, saying he was too afraid of further repercussions from Friedman. But The News had already contacted Friedman's office, and he confirmed the story.
"I've lost respect for the court system," Schramm said as he passed the time at the courthouse Thursday. "It's a joke. If you're going to punish me, have me do something productive … let me work with cancer patients instead of sitting here staring at the wall."
Schramm, who offers retirement planning for teachers, said he "freaked out" when he learned of the time commitment serving on the grand jury would entail and he wrote Friedman a letter Jan. 17 saying he did not respect law enforcement or believe in the court system.
Friedman summoned him to a meeting about two weeks later and said "your letter is all bs-- I don't believe it," according to Schramm. That's when Friedman made his verbal order.
Legal experts contacted by The News said the lawfulness of the order is questionable at best.
Paul Zwier, a law professor at Emory University School of Law in Atlantasaid he's heard of cases in which federal judges believed a prospective juror told a lie to get out of jury duty and the judges responded by requiring the prospective jurors to continue to report and listen, but not serve.
Schramm's case appears unique due to the requirement he sit in the corridor and the sanction of having his juror pay withheld, Zwier said.
"I don't know of any rule that expressly provides that kind of authority or any kind of sanction if the guy would not show up," he said. Judges often will excuse prospective jurors if serving will create a hardship.
People who are self-employed and say that serving on a jury would create severe economic hardships also are frequently excused, Zwier said.
Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan group that promotes judicial accountability, said Schramm's punishment is inappropriate.
"If the chief judge is going to mete out punishment, he ought to do it through the court process," Fitton said. Lindeman, of BNA, said since Friedman's order was not a formal or written one, it does not appear Schramm has to abide by it. "This is a pretty incredible story," he said.
Lawrence Dubin, a law professor at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, also said it is questionable whether Schramm is bound to comply.
"Since the judge's reputation is as a fair jurist, it seems reasonable for this individual to approach the judge and request clarification … and possible release from having to maintain his presence at the courthouse during the grand jury sessions," Dubin said.
It's the same way the 31-year-old retirement planner has spent his Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays every other week since the end of January.
Schramm is charged with no crime but is serving an unusual and indefinite sentence for allegedly lying to a federal judge.
When Schramm, who is self-employed, balked at sitting on a grand jury, Chief U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman told him he wouldn't have to serve. He would, however, have to sit on the first-floor bench every day the jury sits. He wouldn't be allowed to read. And he wouldn't receive the $40-a-day pay or the mileage reimbursement jurors get for trips to the Detroit courthouse.
Legal experts say Friedman's order -- which was not put in writing and did not result from finding Schramm in contempt of court -- is highly unusual and of questionable legality.
"My initial impression is this is an incredible abuse on the part of the judge," said Ralph Lindeman, a lawyer and justice reporter with legal publisher BNA Inc. in Washington, D.C., who spent 15 years as a Department of Justice trial attorney. Schramm "is effectively being imprisoned and there has been no process to determine whether the judge has made the right kind of call."
Friedman said he has inherent authority to administer justice that is not spelled out in any specific statute.
The chief judge conducts a question-and-answer session with prospective grand jurors and said Schramm responded to a question or questions in an inappropriate and apparently untruthful manner. As a result, "he had to contemplate his behavior and his interference with the administration of justice."
"The message is that when you are summoned to jury duty you must tell the truth," he said.
Friedman would not specify what Schramm said that was objectionable and acknowledged Schramm also sent him a letter stating why he did not want to sit on the grand jury. He said he was surprised Schramm had obeyed his direction for the last eight weeks without complaining.
The grand jury -- which meets in secret and issues indictments in federal criminal felony cases -- is scheduled to sit until July and could be extended another six months. Friedman said his order to Schramm was for an indefinite time period, but "all he has to do is come in and talk about it."
"I expected him to come in and I still do," Friedman said. "Every time I know he's out there it goes through my mind. He knows how to send me a letter and he knows how to contact me."
Schramm said he spoke to lawyer friends who told him Friedman has the power to issue the order, which requires him to stay at the courthouse from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day the grand jury sits.
Though the penalty has significantly hampered his ability to work, Schramm said he has not complained because he is afraid of further upsetting the judge and being found in contempt, which he said could put his license to sell securities at risk.
After being noticed by court visitors and agreeing to an interview, Schramm later changed his mind and asked that the story not be printed, saying he was too afraid of further repercussions from Friedman. But The News had already contacted Friedman's office, and he confirmed the story.
"I've lost respect for the court system," Schramm said as he passed the time at the courthouse Thursday. "It's a joke. If you're going to punish me, have me do something productive … let me work with cancer patients instead of sitting here staring at the wall."
Schramm, who offers retirement planning for teachers, said he "freaked out" when he learned of the time commitment serving on the grand jury would entail and he wrote Friedman a letter Jan. 17 saying he did not respect law enforcement or believe in the court system.
Friedman summoned him to a meeting about two weeks later and said "your letter is all bs-- I don't believe it," according to Schramm. That's when Friedman made his verbal order.
Legal experts contacted by The News said the lawfulness of the order is questionable at best.
Paul Zwier, a law professor at Emory University School of Law in Atlantasaid he's heard of cases in which federal judges believed a prospective juror told a lie to get out of jury duty and the judges responded by requiring the prospective jurors to continue to report and listen, but not serve.
Schramm's case appears unique due to the requirement he sit in the corridor and the sanction of having his juror pay withheld, Zwier said.
"I don't know of any rule that expressly provides that kind of authority or any kind of sanction if the guy would not show up," he said. Judges often will excuse prospective jurors if serving will create a hardship.
People who are self-employed and say that serving on a jury would create severe economic hardships also are frequently excused, Zwier said.
Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan group that promotes judicial accountability, said Schramm's punishment is inappropriate.
"If the chief judge is going to mete out punishment, he ought to do it through the court process," Fitton said. Lindeman, of BNA, said since Friedman's order was not a formal or written one, it does not appear Schramm has to abide by it. "This is a pretty incredible story," he said.
Lawrence Dubin, a law professor at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, also said it is questionable whether Schramm is bound to comply.
"Since the judge's reputation is as a fair jurist, it seems reasonable for this individual to approach the judge and request clarification … and possible release from having to maintain his presence at the courthouse during the grand jury sessions," Dubin said.