American justice is administered in various forums – from local magistrates to the Supreme Court to specialized courts for taxes, military justice and an array of other issues. But all of these tribunals share basic principles of justice. Both parties in a case have equal access to evidence. Judges don’t favor prosecutors. Administrators don’t meddle with judicial decisions.
But one jurisdiction, the Baltimore-based Coast Guard administrative law system, apparently has not been adhering to the principles of fairness. Following up on a tip from an unhappy mariner, Sun reporter Robert Little discovered that the Coast Guard judicial process was broadly biased.
Little’s dogged reporting found that the court, set up to weigh possible fines and punishments for mariners charged with violating Coast Guard rules, almost never decided cases in favor of those charged. Little’s work also showed that Coast Guard judges who disagreed with prosecutors found their cases retried or were lectured by the chief judge of the system.
Little’s hard work produced a powerful Page One article in last Sunday’s Sun. It was followed the next day by an article reporting that Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Baltimore Democrat, will hold congressional hearings on The Sun’s findings and seek reforms. Cummings’ comments were pointed: “I practiced law for 20 years, and I can’t imagine some of this stuff happening.”
Little’s project was a shining example of how newspapers can defend basic democratic principles.
The story began early this year when Sun reporter Michael Dresser told Little and his editor, assistant managing editor Marcia Myers, about a continuing case that Dresser’s brother Christopher had before the Coast Guard’s administrative court. After several phone interviews with a lawyer involved in the case, Little and Myers began to understand the behind-the-scenes issues at the court and the potential scope of the story. At that point, Little went to New Orleans to meet with the lawyer and examine documents, including the 87-page statement in which Administrative Law Judge Jeffie J. Massey said she had been ordered to always rule for the Coast Guard.
“But we didn’t think one person’s experience was enough, so I started calling any attorney or former judge I could find who had experience with the court and found very quickly that it is not regarded as the gold standard of fairness and due process,” Little says. “I spoke with at least 10 attorneys who have handled cases before the Coast Guard and not one of them believed they’d been treated fairly, and most of them complained of outright bias and hostility.”
Little then requested a database of all available Coast Guard court cases, which went back eight years. These provided not only eye-opening statistics – for example, mariners had prevailed in only 14 of more than 6,300 charges – but led Little to other examples of questionable rulings by judges. Over a period of two to three months, the reporter built files of these cases, obtained internal documents and gathered records to compare the success rate of Coast Guard prosecutors with those at other federal agencies.
Coast Guard administrative law judge Massey’s explosive and detailed revelations – in her statement and in interviews with Little – form the heart of this substantial investigative piece. After reading her statement, Little examined Massey’s record as a judge and interviewed her colleagues to ensure that she was not just a disgruntled employee airing grievances. He found that Massey is considered an excellent administrative law judge.
Little also interviewed a number of mariners, who have had their careers ended because of convictions by the Coast Guard court. Many continued to fight and appeal their convictions.
One top-of-the story detail was especially telling about the Coast Guard courts’ unfairness: while the Coast Guard had a win or settlement rate of 97 percent, the Social Security Administration rate was 43 percent.
A number of readers reacted strongly.
Pat Wright said: “Excellent article! All mariners abandon hope when they have to go to an administrative law hearing with the Coast Guard, but this shows that it is even worse than I imagined. Thanks for covering the waterfront.”
From Mark Haggerty: “Thank you sir! Your expose is in the highest traditions of investigative journalism, and truly an act of social justice.”
Capt. David Pate wrote: “Thank you! My professional mariner colleagues and I all know of someone whose career has been destroyed by the USCG prosecution team’s job-justification witch-hunt. The feeling is that the USCG is out to punish mariners, not support their keeping the waterways safe and the commerce flowing.”
Bob Chase said: “As one who recently resub- scribed to The Sun, I found Robert Little’s investigative piece on the controversial rulings by the Coast Guard judge to be journalism at its finest. Kudos to Mr. Little for a job well done.”
