IN PRAISE OF JUDGE TINKLER MENDEZ

 The story broke Tuesday by superstar reporter David Ovalle on his twitter @Davidovalle305 (no use linking to an article behind a firewall)  that MDPD police detective Armando Socarras pled guilty during a bench trial before Judge Tinkler Mendez. Socarras was caught stealing $1300 cash during a fake drug bust set up by public corruption detectives. The prosecution- rightfully so- was seeking an adjudication and prison. Judge Tinkler Mendez declined to follow the recommendations of the prosecution and sentenced Socarras to twenty-four months probation and withheld adjudication. 

Here is why we support that decision. 

First, what Socarras did was reprehensible. And we sincerely doubt this was his first rodeo. Cops have been stealing money from contraband busts ever since Al Capone was running booze during prohibition. In federal court, the land of no-mercy, there are enhancements for public corruption by police officers which would have boosted the almighty federal guidelines into a severe prison sentence. The 18 USC 3553 factors would have also supported a prison sentence under the "send a message" theory to other corrupt police officers, which we imagine there just might be a few more in the Sunshine State. 

And of course there is the defense attorney mindset of punishing a cop who has been responsible for so many defendants going to prison. If he stole money, maybe just maybe he lied on an a-form! Judges everywhere reading this blog are gasping at that last sentence. How many times have judges based their decisions denying motions to suppress on the theory that "this officer would not put her career on the line to lie in this case." News flash- yes they would and they do all the time. 

So lets start with the proposition that the prosecution's request for a year in prison and an adjudication was, if anything, lenient, perhaps reflecting Socarras's plea, albeit at the very last moment. 

Now we turn to the sentence, issued by a Judge affectionately called "Tink" by the denizens of the REGJB. 

This was a first offense (or at least a first arrest). The defendant had significant money pressures. Although it hurts the public perception of law enforcement, he stole drug proceeds, not the life savings of an elderly person. Socarras faces the loss of his law enforcement credentials, if he hasn't lost them already, and the loss of his career. He has admitted his responsibility and appears motivated towards rehabilitation. 

Our point is this. There are tens of thousands of defendants every year in a similar position to Socarras. And probably five percent of them get the type of mercy shown by the judge here. The rest of them. a large majority of them most likely African-American young men, have their life thrown into the gulag. Sent to prison, they emerge hardened and more bitter. Unable to get a job or public housing, their limited future narrows even more. Judges send people to jail for up to a year for misdemeanor and traffic offenses for goodness sakes. How many people in Socarras's position receive the type of reasoned mercy and a sentence that Judge Tinkler-Mendez issued? 

The answer is far too few. And this is the starting point. Good lawyers should  now repeatedly tell felony judges how Officer Socarras got a withhold and probation while stealing from a crime scene. "And if he got that sentence then why isn't my client entitled to.....(fill in the blank)? "

For years we perambulated around the REGJB on bond hearings telling Judges that Joyce Cohen got a bond, so why can't my client get a bond? This lasted until the current crop of thirty-something judges would stare at us blankly, having been in diapers at the time of the last great murder trial in the REGJB. 

The point is we hope and want our judges to be more than human calculators, adding up points and issuing a top of the guidelines sentence because while we all know there is NO SUCH THING as a trial tax, it just so happens that in this case, despite the pre-trial probation offer, ten years prison is the right sentence here. 

We applaud Judge Tinkler-Mendez for her bravery. It isn't easy to show mercy when the public is watching. People want the death penalty for all crimes, until they or a loved one are charged, and then they cannot understand why the punishment is so harsh. 

Let's hope this is the start of a trend of treating people a bit more humanely, especially in non-violent crimes. If Socarras gets in  trouble again, it most likely will not be a violent crime and he can still be sentenced to prison. Without a badge he does not represent a danger to our community. 

Let's see what happens in other cases, and if you have a case similar to this one where the Judge wants a five year prison sentence, let us know. The door swings both ways on praise and public criticism.