The Judge's Gavel Falls: Portland DA Told to Stand Down in Reckless Driving Case

A Multnomah County courtroom recently became the unexpected stage for a rather pointed drama, a clash, you might say, between the bench and the prosecutor's office. At the heart of it all? Judge Jenna Plank, who, with an air of absolute finality, laid down the law to Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt: no more public chatter about the ongoing, high-profile reckless driving cases. And honestly, her message was crystal clear: litigate in court, not in the court of public opinion.

This isn't just some run-of-the-mill judicial scolding; no, this felt different. It came after a prosecutor from DA Schmidt’s very own team, during a recent hearing, seemed to suggest a willingness to consider a lesser charge for one of the defendants. A seemingly small comment, perhaps, but it clearly struck a nerve with Judge Plank. Her directive, delivered with an unmistakable firmness, leaves little room for interpretation: such statements, whether directly from the DA or filtering through his office, simply won't be tolerated moving forward.

You see, the backstory here is important. DA Schmidt, for his part, had previously issued a memo – a policy, if you will – indicating his office’s leanings toward probation for individuals charged with reckless driving, especially those tied to the city’s concerning street racing incidents. This stance, naturally, ruffled feathers, drawing criticism from various corners, including law enforcement and some quite vocal public figures. It’s a contentious issue, undoubtedly, reflecting deeper debates about how justice should be meted out for these specific kinds of urban offenses.

The specific case that brought this judicial admonishment to a head involves Roman K. Klyuchenko and Pavel V. Neschseret. They stand accused, mind you, of reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and a hit-and-run stemming from an incident back in 2023. These aren't minor charges, and the potential implications of public statements by the DA’s office are, in the judge's view, quite significant. Because, well, it's about fairness, isn't it? About ensuring that these individuals receive a trial that’s untainted by outside influence.

Judge Plank’s concerns, articulated with genuine conviction, revolve around the potential for such public commentary to, for lack of a better phrase, poison the jury pool. She fears it could unduly sway public sentiment and, crucially, influence prospective jurors before they’ve even heard a shred of evidence in court. She reiterated, with a compelling clarity, that the case, indeed any case, should be argued and decided within the confines of the courtroom – where evidence is presented, arguments are made, and due process is, crucially, observed. The court, she emphasized, will not tolerate anything that might compromise a fair trial for the accused.

So, there it stands. A clear message from the bench to the prosecution: when it comes to the specifics of ongoing cases, especially those with public interest, perhaps silence isn't just golden, but absolutely necessary. It’s a reminder, you could say, of the delicate balance required in our justice system, where the public’s right to know must, at times, yield to the accused’s right to an impartial hearing.