Kudos to David Crook for having the backbone to question the actions of (Maine Superior) Judge (Francis) Marsano in his sentencing of Ray Tingley. All too often the criminal is getting off with nothing more than a talking to, only to go out and do it again.

Judge Marsano should now pray that Tingley’s next victim is not a family member. This man should not be allowed to drive again after five OUI convictions and a mlanslaughter conviction. What more does Marsano need to be convinced that this guy is athreat to a society when he’s behind the wheel?

I hope Crook is not intimidated by the Maine Trial Judges Association and continues to question the irresponsible actions set forth by some of these judges. We don’t have enough people like him who dare to stand up and be counted. Jan Putnam Bangor

I am the lawyer who represented Ray Tingley in the operating-under-the-influence case in which Justice Marsano imposed his now-famous sentence. I also had occasion to vigorously prosecute Tingley for manslaughter and OUI back in the early 1980s when I was an assistant district attorney, working for “lifetime” prosecutor David W. Crook. I therefore feel qualifed to comment on David’s personal attack on Justice Marsano and the resulting bar complaint.

Ray Tingley was arrested on March 30, 1993, for OUI, and finally sentenced in the superior court on Nov. 15, 1995. While the case was pending he addressed his alcoholism and maintained sobriety. He married his thoughtful and caring wife, Kathy. A new baby was born. At sentencing he was able to demonstrate to the judge that he had made solid efforts to reform and rehabilitate himself. A person’s struggle with alcoholism is never easy and never ends. There are slips and close calls. The important thing is to keep on. We all know this. Certainly Ray does.

The maximum penalty available under the law to Justice Marsano was 364 days in jail. Marsano, after hearing from Ray, his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, his wife, his lawyer, the probation department and the assistant district attorney, decided to impose a 364-day jail sentence with all but 90 days suspended with a year’s probation to follow. He also imposed a $500 fine. Conditions of probation included total abstention from alcohol, weekly attendance at AA and being subject to random search for the presence of alcohol.

Tingley has now served his jail sentence and is in compliance with the terms of his probation. He is getting on with his life, caring for his family, living in his community and living also with the consequences of his actions. Interestingly enough, had Ray been sentenced to the max he would be due for release very soon and would not be on any probation or under any supervision. Thus, in terms of actual state supervision and control, Marsano’s sentence was longer than the sentence Crook would have imposed had he been the judge.

Dave Crook was neither in the courtroom nor in Skowhegan when the sentence was handed down. From his eyrie in Augusta he commanded his assistant to demand the maximum sentence, regardless of the particular facts of the case. Justice Marsano was certainly entitled to discount the state’s recommendation, given the circumstances under which it was made. He was also entitled and required to fashion a sentence that took into account a whole host of factors and considerations set forth in the law which go beyond the past driving record of the defendant. His sentence could have been longer; it could have been shorter. It was a matter of independent judicial discretion and so it should be. Like it or not, neither headline-hunting district attorneys nor disgruntled newspaper editors, nor angry mobs are given the power to sentence citizens who have broken the law. It is more than a worn-out stroke of speech to say that an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society.

There are three people involved in this small but real drama. There is Ray Tingley who has paid for his past crimes, who admitted responsibility in this case and who has demonstrated a capacity for rehabilitation. There is Justice Marsano who acted with intelligence, independence and integrity in fashioning a sentence that the particular facts of the case supported. And then there is David Crook, who, 40 miles away in his office in Augusta, attacks a judge personally in order to publicly intimidate, embarrass and offend him and then hides behind the First Amendment and the Maine Civil Liberties Union. It all causes me to wonder. Now just who is insane here, anyway?

A final thought on the bar complaint. It is a waste of time and ought to be dropped. Crook, who despite our differences is an old friend and whose heart is more often in the right place than is his mouth, surely will have the decency to apologize to Justice Marsano, if he has not already done so. Then the whole business should be forgotten about. John Alsop Attorney at law Norridgewock

I am deeply disturbed by David Crook’s statement that Judge Francis Marsano is insane. I expect any time now Crook will come back with a denial of his statement; however, there were many witnesses to his saying that Judge Marsano is insane. I have known Judge Marsano for 30 years and he is far from insane. I have also known Crook for 25 years and look at him as a politician who needs to bolster his standing by inflaming public opinions to keep his job. He is a politician who needs his job because he needs the money it brings him. It is doubtful that he could make as good a living practicing law. He has tried many times to get himself appointed to a judgeship, however, cooler heads prevailed, and he never made it.

Crook would be well advised to stick to his own job of prosecuting and leave the judge to do the sentencing. His duty ends after he has presented the state’s case to the court and he makes his recommendation of sentence. He has absolutely no status to otherwise determine the sentence, that is the sole province of the judge.

If he wants the law changed, he has a perfect right to go to the Legislature and try to have it changed; this is done often by district attorneys.

I know there were mitigating circumnstances in this case that were not published, such as, this man waited 2 1/2 to three years to be sentenced, he was sober during that period, he got married and was doing very well. These things most likely were considered by Marsano when he sentenced.

The observation here is that Crook is a politician and he felt that he would appeal to the masses if he took a shot at a judge. He went too far and if we expect reputable and competent lawyers to serve on the judiciary, then we must not allow other lawyers to wrongfully accuse judges of being insane, etc. Robert E. Cox Attorney at law Newport

If the ramifications for the rest of society were not so acute, the Crook-Marsano spitting contest would shape up to present quite a summer’s worth of media entertainment. At a minimum, it would legitimize most of the lawyer jokes that come to mind. Unfortunately, the potential levity is far outweighed by a myriad of critical issues too important for society to leave to the lawyers to sort out.

In this discussion, the list of issues and their magnitude of importance peel away like the layers of an onion. They range from the degree of societal safety that should be inherent in our judicial system to the near elimination of trust, confidence and respect felt by most in that system. And like the onion, the deeper one looks the more stinging are the tears we are reduced to.

Should David Crook have called Justice Marsano insane? Certainly not. The tribulations faced by those with challenged cognitive abilities should never be so trivialized. The ostrich analysis stands on its own. Are we in dire need of establishing some mechanism of civilian review of the judiciary? Forty-nine other states have recognized the wisdom in keeping the foxes out of the henhouse security business. Why has Maine been so slow to see the light?

Now is the time — before another tragedy hammers home the point evern further — to make our judiciary accountable. For if, in the final analysis, it is the maintenance of the status quo that emerges, we all lose. Jon Sias East Holden