Courtroom of Judge Norman Mailer, 5th Floor, Genesee County Courthouse, August 28th, 1996.
At 9:40 AM
JUDGE MAILER: All right, next is the case of Jones vs. Jones. I see Mr. Whalen is present, I see Ms. Joplin is present. Mr. Whalen , I have read your petition, thank you for being brief. Is there anything you would like to say that is not in your petition?
MR. WHALEN: No, judge.
JUDGE MAILER: Ms. Joplin, I have read your answer as well. Tell me, did you receive an answer to those allegations in your answer to which you demanded an answer?
MS. JOPLIN: No, judge, I did not, but I do have one addition for you, I obtained the police officers' report this morning, and would like to submit it to you, it may help you to make up your mind as to who's version of events is closer to the truth.
JUDGE MAILER: Have you provided a copy to Mr. Whalen?
MS JOPLIN: I have, judge, just a few minutes ago.
MR. WHALEN: I object to the report judge, it's obviously hearsay, and further, it's inaccurate. Let Ms. Joplin call her witnesses at a hearing, where I can cross examine them. I can't cross examine this police report.
JUDGE MAILER: Ms.Joplin, on the question of hearsay?
MS. JOPLIN: Judge, this report may be hearsay, but by way of information, it is obviously a business record of the Flint Police Department, and therefore one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. I offer it because the Plaintiff claims, in her petition, that there are witnesses to support her version of the so-called altercation, and the report makes clear that the police located no such witnesses. As you know, my client disputes very strongly that any assault occured. My client wants a full hearing, and we know that won't happen today. But I don't think...
JUDGE MAILER: I said "on the hearsay question", Ms. Joplin, not anything else. I didn't invite you to argue your case.
MS. JOPLIN: I'm sorry judge. Business record exception.
JUDGE MAILER: Mr. Whalen, I'm going to make a finding that this police report, if it is the standard patrolman's report, is a business record, and I'm going to look at it. I think we have all seen dozens of these, and we know what they are, and we know their limitations. Does it say that there were no witnesses to this altercation, well, if it's not an altercation, then to this event, this whatever-it-was between these two parties? I'm not making a finding right now that it was or wasn't an altercation, but something happened, now didn't it?
MR. WHALEN: It says that the police officers couldn't LOCATE any witnesses, Judge, it doesn't say that there WEREN'T any witnesses.
JUDGE MAILER: I appreciate the difference. Can you, as an officer of this Court, tell me that YOU have located a witness or witnesses to this event?
MR. WHALEN: No, judge, I can't. My client informed me that there were were, that there must have been witnesses, and she identified the lady across the street, a Mrs. Parker, Katie Parker. I haven't spoken to that lady, and evidently the police officers say that they have. The report says that Mrs. Parker was mowing her lawn, and that she didn't hear anything, likely because of the noise of the mower. That's all that I know right now.
JUDGE MAILER: Then this is still a contested matter. Ms. Joplin, tell me why I shouldn't enter the injunction. It will protect everyone, whether or not it's needed, right?
MS. JOPLIN: No, judge, it won't. The only thing that it will do is to prevent my client from visiting his children. It may serve to embarrass my client, it may serve to give Mrs. Jones a little tactical ammunition, because then you see, Mrs. Jones gets to gossip around the neighborhood "Well, I had to go get an injunction against Mr. Jones, and the judge gave me one", with all that that implies, and of course he won't be there to defend himself. The fact that the injunction entered speaks, to some extent, for itself. But you should ask "Will this protect anybody? and from what?", because the record reflects that nobody has ever needed any protection from Mr. Jones. These parties separated about a year ago, and this is the very first instance of any claim of trouble with Mr. Jones. That's why we demanded a reply to those matters which appear in our answer. All of those allegations are true. They simply have to admit that, and, if they don't, then we're prepared to prove the allegations. Mr. Jones has never caused any trouble before, and we assert that he hasn't caused any on the day in question.
JUDGE MAILER: Well. Mr. Whalen, are the allegations made by Mr. Jones in his answer all true? And if not, why didn't you answer them?
MR. WHALEN: The allegations, up to the date of the event in question, are true as far as we know judge. That doens't, however, give Mr. Jones a right to do what he did. He simply lost control, he became a wild man, he was ranting and raving, and he assaulted two people: Mrs. Jones, and her brother, Mr. Kevorkian. We need this protection, we need this injunction.
JUDGE MAILER: But isn't it true, Mr. Whalen, that the injunction you requested would prevent the Defendant from appearing at the marital home, to pick up his children for visitation? And might likely prevent him from attending any further school functions?
MR. WHALEN: We can amend the request judge, to fit whatever you think it should say. But we need the protection.
MS. JOPLIN: From what, judge? There has never been a problem....
JUDGE MAILER: Don't interrupt, Ms. Joplin. You had your chance to argue. Mr. Whalen, the present situation is at issue. The facts are not agreed upon. I am not going to take testimony today, and, frankly, I'm not ever going to take testimony about what did and didn't happen last Saturday. Some District Court Judge will hear that case, if it ever comes to trial. But today, I'm asked to accept on faith that this man is dangerous, when I believe it is uncontested that he's never made any trouble in the past, and this case is a year old. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to enter an Order against this man, at the present time. Ms. Joplin, is your client here?
MS JOPLIN: Yes, judge. Mr. Jones, stand please. That's him in the second row, your honor.
JUDGE MAILER: Thank you, sit down, sir. Ms. Joplin, I'm going to advise you that your client probably doesn't need to get out of his car for the time being, when he goes to get the children, or drop them off. Any problem with that?
MS. JOPLIN: No, judge. I get the picture.
JUDGE MAILER: I hope you do. I don't want any more allegations, period. Mr. Whalen, when Mr. Jones appears, at the appropriate time, and sounds his horn, I trust that the children will be ready to go. He won't be getting out of his car. Am I clear on that?
MR. WHALEN: Yes, judge.
JUDGE MAILER: Then, for now, that's the way we'll do it. Request for injunction is denied. Next case.
Proceedings concluded at 10:05 AM.