Sunday, October 04, 2009
Opinion

A response to Judge Arrington's response

Clearly, Deadwyler knew he had HIV, and his infectious state was on his mind when he locked his teeth into Fincher’s arm and literally tore out a chunk of flesh

 Officer Andrew Fincher before the biting incident. Inset: Judge Arrington.
 Courtesy Fincher

By Stephanie Ramage

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is in answer to Judge Marvin S. Arrington’s letter to the editor on page 10 of this week's issue.

Dear Judge Arrington,

Thank you for taking the time to write two pages to me about how Ross Ozro Deadwyler’s deafness was an overarching factor in his biting a police officer, all the while knowing that by doing so he would more than likely infect the officer with HIV.

Let’s consider how, in your opinion, Deadwyler’s deafness played a major role in the events that led to Atlanta Police Officer Andrew Fincher enduring months of physical agony brought on by a harsh HIV drug regimen and anxiety caused by waiting every few months for the results of yet another HIV test.

You stated during the court proceedings that your sister was deaf and mute. You said this immediately before sentencing Deadwyler—who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery—to serve only 18 months in jail.

You and I have something in common.

Early in my career, I covered the Georgia School for the Deaf at Cave Spring. The assignment meant a great deal to me, because it was the school my brother Phillip Ramage had attended. He died when he was 16 years old, after a failed kidney transplant. Phillip had been almost entirely deaf since birth. He was extremely intelligent, funny, with a sharp wit and a gift for mimicking mannerisms. He spoke, as Deadwyler does, in a voice that let you know that he had some kind of hearing impairment.

Reading your sentencing transcript, I saw that you asked Deadwyler’s brother to speak for him, even though Deadwyler spoke and the assistant district attorney tried to draw your attention to it, saying, “I just very clearly heard him just now say … ”

Judge Arrington, it appears that you may have projected onto Deadwyler your sister’s inability to speak. This is why judges recuse themselves from cases involving things about which they might not be objective.

Deadwyler could speak. He spoke in court and, more to the point, he spoke on the night of Aug. 23, 2008, when he was apprehended by the Georgia State Patrol and the Atlanta Police Department after leading the GSP on a high-speed chase through residential streets. He said, according to Fincher, after biting him, “I have full-blown AIDS, motherf**ker. You’re going to die.” You counter that the GSP officers’ reports only show that Deadwyler stated he was HIV-positive. You imply that absent the statement “you’re going to die,” there was no grievous intent by Deadwyler.

But, even if we pretend that he never said “you’re going to die,” we are left with the agreed-upon fact that he said he was HIV-positive immediately after biting Fincher. Clearly, Deadwyler knew he had HIV, and his infectious state was on his mind when he locked his teeth into Fincher’s arm and literally tore out a chunk of flesh.

As you know, much of our law hinges upon intent. To fail to examine the relationship between the moment when Deadwyler bit Fincher and the one, only a few minutes later, when Deadwyler said he had HIV—regardless of whether he explicitly threatened Fincher—is to fail to apply one of the most basic standards of our laws to your judgment. 

For my article, which you found “so inflammatory,” I interviewed half a dozen experienced district attorneys and defense attorneys from across the metro area. Every one of them said that Deadwyler’s deafness should not have been a factor in determining his sentence, but the sentencing hearing transcript makes it clear, as does your own letter, that his deafness was a factor in your judgment.

You say Deadwyler's deafness confused him regarding what the police wanted. Yet, Deadwyler had a valid Georgia driver's license. Georgia will grant deaf people licenses, but is less giving when it comes to the blind. Why? Nearly all of our driving cues are visual. The sight of two sets of flashing blue lights in a motorist’s rearview mirror is a non-verbal sign that the motorist should pull over. The fact that his passenger, Calvin Foster, had tried repeatedly to shift the car into neutral and pull the keys out of the ignition during the chase also might have been some indication that Deadwyler should stop. He had to be forced to stop.

You claim that the bite would never have happened had officers understood that Deadwyler could not hear their verbal commands to step out of the car. You say this as if Deadwyler were merely sitting docilely behind the wheel. The issue was not that Deadwyler was sitting in the car. The issue was that Deadwyler was sitting in the car, pressing the gas pedal, banging into another car, endangering the life of the GSP officer who was leaning into Deadwyler’s car.

You say that Deadwyler was a good employee of the U.S. Post Office for the past 10 years. However, he was charged with murder in 2003. True, he was acquitted by a jury in DeKalb County, whose members were no doubt touched to see two sign language interpreters by Deadwyler’s side.  You say, correctly, that a previous acquittal could not be considered in the case, even if you had known about it. It is unfortunate that you were unaware of it, because facts that came to light during that trial might have been illuminating in this case: for example, the fact that the man Deadwyler stabbed 30 times, killing him—in self-defense—was his cocaine dealer.

It was Deadwyler’s lack of respect for the law that played the biggest role in his decision to bite a police officer with the intent of infecting him with a deadly disease. As Assistant District Attorney Patrick Dutcher said, “He’s dangerous and he doesn’t need to be on the street.” 
But that is where he will be come spring, because of your sentence. SP