Secret justice?

The Sixth Amendment says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," and that is what the attorney for a local man accused of contempt of court is seeking.

A federal judge has scheduled a Monday morning closed-door hearing for Howard Awand, a former medical consultant accused of collaborating with local doctors and lawyers to fraudulently manipulate medical malpractice cases. At that time U.S. District Judge James Mahan is expected to decide whether to find Awand in contempt for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.

The accused's attorney Harland Braun has made a formal demand for a public hearing to protect his client's due process rights. The contempt proceeding is not listed on the court docket, and all papers filed in the case are sealed.

Awand, 66, who is already incarcerated for income tax evasion and failing to report criminal activity, refused to testify before a grand jury on Nov. 10 even though he was under the threat of having his imprisonment lengthened for the duration of the grand jury's tenure.

The grand jury apparently is continuing to investigate what prosecutors have described as a scheme to defraud medical clients by protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits and sharing kickbacks from legal settlements. An attorney and a doctor have accepted plea agreements in the case, and two other doctors got immunity in exchange for testimony.

Attorney Braun was quoted in the Review-Journal this past week as saying, "The reason you have a public trial is so there will not be secret proceedings to throw people in jail without public scrutiny."

There is a term for that: Star Chamber.

Created by English King Henry VII in 1487, the court was so named because it met in a chamber with stars painted on the ceiling. The court, which met in secret, was notoriously arbitrary and cruel. When it was abolished in 1641, Parliament cited the Magna Carta's guarantee of due process. The concept lives in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against anyone being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

There is no acceptable rationale for locking away any American without allowing the public to see whether justice was done.