I have not seen enough of Judge Leo Holt ["A Law Abiding Judge," March 5] to form an opinion of him, but I was in his courtroom the day he sentenced William Ligue.
Judge Holt's ruling cited the prosecution's failure to enter victim Rocky Gamboa's medical records into evidence. This omission left only Gamboa's hearsay testimony that a doctor had told him his injuries were permanent. Thus, one of the aggravating factors necessary for a prison sentence was not proven up. Neither the Tribune, Sun-Times, or the Reader mentioned this.
Ligue's sentence included 60 days in jail, time served while he was in jail before his bond was reduced. (If somehow he'd been cleared of the charge, he would never have been compensated for that time, as many defendants are not.) The Tribune mentioned the 60 days in its report, the Sun-Times did not, and the Reader did not.
These are salient factors in the perception that Judge Holt is too soft. The answers to the following questions might help us ascertain the reality: How many of Judge Holt's defendants fail to come to court after posting reduced bonds? How many commit crimes while out on such bonds? (The Reader did not make clear who set the bond that Serrick Pruitt violated by committing murder.) What percentage of his probationers violated their probation? How many of his defendants, released by verdict, pretrial ruling, or minimal sentence, went on to commit proven crimes? A little more information from the Reader might help us make up our minds, with a reasonable perception of the truth.