Court: ‘Extreme bias’ in sending pregnant woman to prison |

Court: ‘Extreme bias’ in sending pregnant woman to prison

Associated Press

DETROIT — A woman who was sentenced to prison because a judge believed she would use drugs while pregnant has been released after the Michigan appeals court accused him of “extreme bias.”

Samantha Hughes gave birth to a boy on July 2. The appeals court on Tuesday threw out a 13-month sentence for tampering with her tether, an electronic monitoring device, and ordered her release from prison.

In a 2-1 opinion, the court said Grand Traverse County Judge Thomas Power discriminated against Hughes last December by sending her to prison because she was pregnant. Hughes had a history of drug use but told the judge that she hadn’t used drugs during previous pregnancies and “would never jeopardize my children or baby.”

“Essentially, the trial court determined defendant’s sentence term based on her pregnancy due date. … We conclude that the trial court’s reasoning behind defendant’s sentence is constitutionally inappropriate, prejudicial and exemplifies extreme bias,” said judges Kathleen Jansen and Jane Beckering at the appeals court.

Hughes, 29, was released Wednesday after nearly seven months. She declined to comment. Her attorney, Jordan Leff, said a prison stay wasn’t proportionate to her crime.

“She’s emotionally and physically exhausted,” Leff said. “She’s happy to be back to her family.”

Power, meanwhile, has no regrets about his decision to send Hughes to prison and said he would “absolutely” do it again.

“This isn’t even a close call,” the judge told The Associated Press. “She very likely would have relapsed and done drugs. The potential damage was very real. It was better for her, better for society and obviously better for the child.”

The case made two trips to different panels at the appeals court. On June 20, judges Jonathan Tukel and Mark Cavanagh said Hughes’ appeal had no merit and rejected it. Judge Elizabeth Gleicher disagreed.

The Michigan Supreme Court intervened on June 28 and ordered the appeals court to take the case.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.