J. TODD FOSTER: Was Justice Blind In Bradshaw Case? Who Knows

One of the many roles of a free press is to keep an eye on the judiciary. It’s incumbent upon newspapers to monitor and scrutinize our legal system and its proceedings to see whether lady justice is truly blind and dispenses justice equally.

When all else seemingly fails – questionable wars, $4-a-gallon gasoline, a subprime mortgage crisis – Americans want to believe we have the fairest and most-efficient judicial system in the world, regardless of a defendant’s fame or fortune, or lack thereof.

Most of the time we have such a system.

In the case of professional football player Ahmad Bradshaw, we might never know. And if it depends on the Virginia Code as currently written, we most certainly will never know.

Bradshaw, 22, is a native of Bluefield, Va., and a former superstar at Graham High School. He played an integral role in the New York Giants’ upset Super Bowl victory over the undefeated New England Patriots earlier this year.

Like other hometown heroes, we wish Bradshaw much athletic success. His exploits on the gridiron can’t help but benefit Southwest Virginia.

But off the field, Bradshaw has fumbled several times. One of those times occurred when he was a juvenile and was arrested and charged with a crime in Tazewell County, Va. We can’t tell you what the charge was because a circuit court judge ruled against us Friday in our effort to open up some of Bradshaw’s juvenile court records.

The ruling appears defensible because Virginia closes juvenile records unless the defendant is 14 or older and the crime for which he was convicted would be a felony if committed by an adult.

Like other states, Virginia presumptively closes juvenile court records for several noble reasons. Those include rehabilitation, not embarrassing a youngster and not forever penalizing impulsive behavior by minors who have their whole lives ahead of them and can become productive, even outstanding, members of society.

That’s a reasonable rationale behind Virginia’s secretive juvenile and domestic relations court system. But it’s one that Bradshaw is using like a pulling guard as a shield. You see, Bradshaw recently was found to have violated his probation stemming from his juvenile case and has two other criminal convictions as an adult.

Because of the Virginia legislature’s broad and outdated juvenile court statutes, the public not only will be shielded from Bradshaw’s original offense, but what he did to violate probation and the court order sentencing him to a recent 30-day incarceration at the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail, where we have reported that the football star was afforded the star treatment.

“Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may seriously impair rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system,” wrote the Virginia Attorney General’s Office in a demurrer opposing the Bristol Herald Courier’s legal action. “Exposure of a juvenile’s involvement in the juvenile justice system may cause undue embarrassment to family members and handicap the juvenile’s adjustment to society.”

The state’s argument was a solid one – several years ago, when Bradshaw was still a juvenile and had every opportunity to stay between the law’s white lines. Instead, Bradshaw has run out of bounds at least twice since then that we know of: In 2004, he was caught with alcohol as a minor and then ran from police in an incident that got him kicked off the University of Virginia football team.

Marshall University then stepped up to give Bradshaw a second – as it turns out, at least a third – chance at rehabilitation. In 2006, Bradshaw stole a PlayStation from a Marshall dorm room and was convicted of petit larceny.

The football player’s stock fell, but the Giants took a third – as it turns out, because of the juvenile conviction the team apparently was unaware of, at least a fourth – chance on the running back. He rewarded the team by being its leading rusher in the Super Bowl and recovering a teammate’s fumble.

The State Attorney General’s Office argued against us that: “It appears from petitioners [sic] memorandum the only reason they have an interest in the disclosure of the confidential information is because of the fact the juvenile is famous.”

That’s half true. And the only reason the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman riveted the nation for years is because the offender was a famous football player.

But our motivation was far more than that.

At the end of the day, we cannot assure our readers that Bradshaw was treated the same as any other juvenile offender turned adult defendant. We can assure you of this: When he reported to jail in June, Bradshaw most certainly was not treated the same as other inmates. He got twice the food, four times the recreation time and the opportunity to sign autographs.

Was the judicial system equally as star struck when Bradshaw was arrested as a juvenile with a promising college football career ahead of him?

The judiciary won’t answer that question.

So we’ll get you the answers the old-fashioned way – through continued old-school, gumshoe, investigative reporting.

The thing about the truth is that it always comes out, especially when it involves football stars from small towns. Bradshaw’s juvenile crime did not occur in a vacuum. There most certainly were witnesses and possibly victims. My contact information is below.

J. Todd Foster is managing editor of the Bristol Herald Courier. He may be reached at jfoster@bristolnews.com or (276) 645-2513.