Here’s the sum of my understanding about the Greg Wright case:
He was 17 years old. He came to a high school in Oroville with a gun. He briefly held some students hostage. He fired two shots into a ceiling. It does not appear that he pointed the gun towards any person with the intent to shoot or kill.
The District Attorney charged Wright as an adult. One of the charges was attempted murder. Wright was offered two different plea bargains. One carried a potential sentence of seven years to life. Wright chose the second plea bargain, which had a potential of 22 years. Wright actually received the whole 22-year sentence. The entire case was over in a matter of weeks.
Several questions come to mind:
(1) Did the case seem to be “over-charged” by the DA’s office? Yes.
(2) Did the ultimate sentence seem to be excessive? Yes.
(3) Did it appear that there was a “rush to justice”; that the authorities wanted to get the case dealt with and out of the public eye? Yes.
(4) Did the entire court process constitute a “kangaroo court” that was a sham of Due Process?
No. In a criminal proceeding, the judge may only rule on a case after it is presented to the court by the District Attorney. The Court’s job was to see that the rules were followed. Wright was represented by counsel. When a defendant accepts a plea bargain and assures the court that he understands the nature and consequences of his plea, the Court must accept the defendant’s responses at face value.
__________
The overall flavor of this case is distasteful. There is the appearance that the Butte County District Attorney’s Office slammed Greg Wright hard simply because it had the power to do so, and because he was of lower income and education status.
A key component of justice is a consensus that justice is actually dispensed. That perception is lacking in the Greg Wright case.
