What an easy way to pay your debt to society.
Let’s hope this is not situation that is followed by others.

I have gone through the Judicial Committe and other resources to no avail. So I will now hope that you can aid me in this misjudgement.

Since I learned that no one can undo a judgement, it perplexes me that a Judge was allowed to do it, and there seems to be no way to rectify the damage done nor any way to be compensated for my loss. I had a judgement in divorce and I went to have this judgement enforced, this particular Judge ( not the original one) gave my ex-husband a complete new trial, no one asked for one, I asked for enforcement and she undid not only the reinforcement but undid the judgement. I can not be the only one this has happened to and I need help as I can not afford anymore lawyer fees ( just one of the many issues this judge has cost me) The Judicial committe wont help as they can not undo her judgement, NON ONE CAN UNDO A JUDGEMENT without proper procedure such as an Appeal (Fair enough). SO since no one can undo it with out the proper proedure why did this Judge do it. . She also should not have been able to overturn a judgement, especially when it WAS NOT even requested and previous request for reconsideration were denied. This gave my husband an instant Appeal without even so much as a verbal request. The court system failed me and caused me much in monatary, emotional, and health as well as other damages.

Much appreciation for your anticipated help,

Lisa Jorge

Judge Gunn won praise from a lot of quarters well before drug court was put on local access cable. This is an overwhelmingly Republican area, and the notion of a drug court, despite proving its worth elsewhere, was a hard sell. I don’t know if the judge’s skills had anything to do with the decision to fund it on an experimental basis, but I think she was the reason the funding continued. I understand that over 90% of the people who were accepted into drug court have remained drug free. That is exceptional.

Some of the comments about this judge have no foundation in truth and could not have been made by anyone familiar with Judge Gunn and how she operated her court and handled her function of being really the sole gatekeeper, determining who got in the program and when, or if, they got out (and if they left through a different gate it was to their detriment). A “Judge Folksy-Wisdom Firecracker Sugar-Britches” characterization would be absurd. She bears zero resemblance to that. This is not Nancy Grace, folks. Judge Gunn was 100% genuine. As real a deal as deal could be. She was hard when she needed to be, and tender when empathy was appropriate. She rejected a lot of people that were begging to be accepted into the extremely demanding, months long rehabilitation program, sentencing them instead to hard time in the state prison. She was protective of those who were in the program because she wanted them to succeed. She wouldn’t allow someone who’d exhausted all their opportunities to be an interference to those in whom she was assigning the trust of the court on behalf of the citizens. Everyone the judge accepted into the program was made to understand in no uncertain terms they were being granted the chance — maybe their last chance — and the responsibility to do the hardest thing probably any of them will ever do and reclaim their lives from devastation. Many of these folks began the program while incarcerated and were granted release as they made progress, but under strict conditions. They had to work. They had to remove themselves from the people that shared or enabled their drug use. They had to test constantly. The slightest slip in meeting any of their conditions would immediately put them back before the judge. Sometimes they’d go back to jail within the program. Sometimes they’d be sent to prison. Sometimes they’d get a warning and another appointment with the judge to make sure they were keeping on the up and up. Often she would call the parents or the spouse or someone in the position of being around the person and read them the riot act if they were a contributor to the problems that that put that person in court that day. She always tried to help modify the broader circumstances of a program participant to give them just a little better chance of succeeding. So often people wanted to help but were doing the wrong thing, or they couldn’t see what they could do, and she was great at educating them. Finally, for most of them would come “graduation”. Gunn would call each of them before her and ask them to express their feelings about their accomplishment, sometimes to the audience in the court and specifically to those just starting the program. The Judge would engage them very personally. She knew all about every one of them and their unique circumstance. If they had children she knew their names. It was quite amazing. To each one individually she expressed the court’s pride in their achievement and the stern warning to keep control of the circumstances of their life, for the sake of never returning before the judge, but also because they had responsibilties and obligations to the people who loved them, who employed them, and to their community who absorbed the cost both of their addiction and their recovery. I’m a 51 year old lug who doesn’t often get misty-eyed, but it was impossible for me not to tear and not to cheer for these folks.

So to the previous commentor who finds himself “… pretty well satisfied that a judge that is more interested in money than justice or ethics has removed herself from the bench. She’s done justice and America a favor”, I say you would find your crass presumption embarrassingly wrong if you had actual familiarity with this lady and the work she’s done. At no time did I ever see or hear of Judge Gunn do anything self-serving, exploit her exposure to seek a TV deal like that Anna Nicole Smith custody trial judge, or anything remotely of the kind. She had a long career and did more genuine good for people, for her community, her country, and for justice, than most could ever hope to do. Drug Court was once again under threat of losing its funding, even as there was begimning to be a buzz about it nationally. I’m not at all surprised that this program drew attention beyond the limited range of Jones TV (a community access station carried by Cox Cable in their local system but not affiliated with them — it originates within a community center that’s funded by the private gift of a local couple who built a successful trucking business and gave much back to the local folks, and continue to do so though they’ve both passed on). If I were someone on the lookout for talent and for a concept that would make a successful show I would feel lucky to have stumbled upon Washington County, Arkansas, Drug Court and I would have made a hard pitch to convince the judge she wanted to be a tv star. Wouldn’t most people would be flattered and tempted and probably go for it? Professor Turley often answers when TV call, I’ve noticed. I wouldn’t dream of impugning his motive. He is usually asked, I’m sure, because of his reputation for excellence in legal interpretation and expertise on civil liberties, also because he is gifted at bright, succint commentary, and finally for his dashing, highly telegenic appearance. He knows he may not get to say everything he wants to say, and if he’s taped his words may be edited in a way that misrepresents him, or maybe a soundbite will be picked out that could even be embarrassing without context. But he goes, hoping to accomplish something, not just for the thrill of, say, the car and driver sent to whisk him to Manhattan and perhaps even a small compensation. So surely anyone can understand how it could be easy for Judge Gunn to convince herself that she could do something most people never have a chance to do, that could be quite lucrative, and, if done right, could be of benefit to some people who may be struggling with drug abuse. If the show can successfully convey the sorrow and ruin that a drug like meth not just can but will bring to someone’s personal life, how devastating it is for their loved ones, and the ways it costs society, it will have a thousand times more merit for its existence than Judge Judy or Larry Joe or any one of those “judge shows”.

Having said ALL this, I sadly still have little faith that the show will elevate the concept of drug court and be a cause for its expansion into communities where it doesn’t exist but might do good. I have little faith that, if its successful and the judge becomes famous that it won’t go to her head to some unattractive degree. But if there is one person with a chance of bringing integrity into the judge show TV genre, it’s Judge Gunn. If anyone could use that platform to become an advocate for one of the few things that actually has a powerful positive social impact, its Judge Gunn. The way this whole thing came about is nowhere near as tawdry as Professor Turley sees it. While I don’t know anymore about the courthouse than that the state attorney general’s opinion was sought and he determined it was acceptable usage. Also the courthouse had recently gone through extensive renovation and this presented an unexpected boon, a unique opportunity to generate revenue to recover some of the cost to the relief of taxpayers. I think the county officials that were negotiating use of the courtroom with the production company were thrilled when, after naming their price, were countered with substantially more than they were asking.

No one around here begrudges Judge Gunn for taking the opportunity that came her way. Really, everyone should hope this show is done in an honorable way. And that something good can come of it. Some of you folks might benefit from a little introspection and try to use your harsh where it is deserved, when it has a basis in reality. And maybe soften your stereotypes a little.