Justice not colorblind in Cuyahoga County
Unequal sentences prove it
by Mansfield Frazier

Robbie Moore, a 30-year-old Black woman, and James Skolsky, a 32-year-old White man, both from the Greater Cleveland area, did something reprehensible for which they should be severely punished: They drank themselves insensible, got behind the wheel of their vehicles, drove the wrong way down one-way Cleveland streets ... and both caused accidents that killed two innocent people. Accidents they both walked away from virtually unscratched. However, the similarities of their respective cases — and particularly the sentences they received for their crimes — stops there.

Moore, who had no previous felony record, was originally sentenced to 20 years by Judge Kathleen Ann Sutula for her crime, while Skolsky, who had a previous DUI, was sentenced one day before by Judge Timothy McGinty to only six years behind bars. Both cases were handled by Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Carol Skutnik, who acquiesced in the six year sentence for Skolsky and the 20 year sentence for Moore. We are left to wonder how can two very similar cases produce such a huge disparity between the sentences?

James Hardiman (a former president of the Cleveland branch of the NAACP and one of the ablest attorneys in the state) is Moore’s lawyer and he appealed the sentence Sutula gave his client, calling it “grossly unfair.” The Court of Appeals concurred, ruling that the sentence was “unreasonably harsh and inconsistent with similar sentences imposed for similar crimes,” and ordered Sutula to re-sentence Moore — which she did in late March, shaving a scant four years off the original sentence. So now Moore will only have to serve 16 years, or only two-and-a-half times as long as Skolsky ... for the exact same crime. This comes down to more than just the length of Moore’s sentence — it’s about fairness, parity and equal justice under the law.

Were there differences in the cases? Yes, of course there were since no two cases are exactly the same. Skolsky was a bit drunker, with a blood alcohol level of 2.3 while Moore’s was 2.0, and he did have that previously mentioned DUI conviction. But, according to Prosecutor Skutnik, Moore deserved a longer sentence because she was driving while her license was under suspension ... a statement which the prosecutor knew to be technically inaccurate at the time she made it. While Moore’s license had previously been under suspension for failing to pay her auto insurance, she had paid her insurance premium, was once again an insured driver, and her license was in the process of being restored; there is usually a lag time of three or four days at Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles in processing such information. But even if that had been the case, and Moore actually was driving under suspension, should it have been enough of a factor to warrant such a stiffer sentence? And what about Skolsky’s previous DUI, wouldn’t that balance out the differences?

The only conclusion we are left with is the one Hardiman posited in his appeal: “In these two cases, the similarities are striking. . . . The only distinction between the two is their sex and race. Imposing a sentence that is more than three times [NOTE: This figure was based on the original sentence) more severe for an African-American female as compared to a Caucasian male for identical crimes suggests an ‘institutional’ issue that is inconsistent with . . . the sentencing statute.” The law clearly states that all sentences must be “fair and consistent,” but Judge Sutula bristled when Hardiman raised the question of fairness and took umbrage at the mere suggestion that race might have played a role in her sentence.

Researcher Tushar Kansal, in a 2005 paper entitled “Racial Disparity in Sentencing: A Review of the Literature,” published by The Sentencing Project of Washington, DC states: “Black defendants convicted of harming White victims suffer harsher penalties than Blacks who commit crimes against other Blacks or White defendants who harm Whites; the most recent generation of evidence suggests that while racial dynamics have changed over time, race still exerts an undeniable presence in the sentencing process.” All four of the victims involved in both of the accidents were White.

It literally boggles the mind. How can a system of justice that is supposedly blind and offers equal protection under the law to all citizens take such similar cases and produce such wildly divergent sentences? And, more importantly, how can we as a society continue to allow it? Anyone who professes to love justice, fair play and American values has to be outraged. The disparity in this case is so egregious, so flawed, so far beyond the pale that it should precipitate a crisis — at least a crisis of conscience — in the county court system and state legislature. However, because this miscarriage of justice was carried out against a person of color (and a female to boot) there has to be a sneaking suspicion that absolutely nothing will be done, except that Attorney Hardiman will again appeal.

Protesting this sentence should not be a matter of race or gender — of Black or White, male or female. All fair-minded people should be standing shoulder to shoulder in regards to this case, but so far the silence from the legal community — and, indeed, the community at large — has been deafening.

When cases like this make the news (as it eventually will) it further reinforces to the rest of the world what Black American have known for years: In far too many cases the legal deck is stacked, the justice game is rigged, and the courtroom dice are loaded against Black defendants. How can we claim any kind of moral superiority in the world if this sentence is allowed to stand? It was Thomas Jefferson that said, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Blacks, akin to everyone else in the country, are supposed to have respect for the law, but how can a race of people respect a system that all too often doesn’t respect them in return? The difference between these two sentences is so great, so out of line, that in all fairness and in the interest of justice, Judge Sutula should recuse herself whenever an African-American is set to appear in her courtroom. She has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that she cannot be fair to people of color ... and all racists take umbrage when challenged. Beyond that, since the system obviously can’t be trusted to be consistently fair to Black defendants, a critical look has to be taken at sentencing reform by the Ohio Legislature, with a view toward further strengthening of the prohibitions against discriminatory and unequal sentencing.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com

Send your comments to Contact@JudgeSutula.com and Cc: us at: Letters@CoolCleveland.com
(:divend:)