That over a million people – mostly Americans – have signed a petition directed to the Prime Minister of the UK declaring that the US is still a British colony?
Or is that some kind of hoax website?
That over a million people – mostly Americans – have signed a petition directed to the Prime Minister of the UK declaring that the US is still a British colony?
Or is that some kind of hoax website?
Another sad chapter in the ongoing saga of the law enforcement community getting its way.
“We now know that Dawn Nguyen knowingly and intentionally bought those firearms for William Spengler, the man who was responsible for the tragedy,” said U.S. Attorney William Hochul.
Of course we know nothing of the kind. We know what she said in the course of pleading guilty, and that if she hadn’t said that she would have had to go to trial, and if found guilty at trial she would have spent the balance of her young adult life in federal prison.
This was a plea of convenience. As far as being the truth of the matter, you can read a recent 2nd circuit opinion recognizing the uncomfortable reality that innocent people plead guilty and say what they have to say in order to avoid draconian punishment here.
If you terrorize people into pleading guilty they most often will.
There’s nothing to be happy or satisfied about in all this. If my opinion counts for anything, the only reasonable interpretation I can see of what happened here is that the law enforcement community, far from honoring their fallen comrades, helped their murderer to posthumously, and gratuitously, injure another person. And that would be my opinion even if Dawn Nguyen actually did buy the guns for Spengler.
But here’s something that’s not just my opinion: whatever Dawn Nguyen claimed in pleading guilty is only marginally more factually unreliable than jail house snitch testimony. It should hardly be any sort of “closure” for anyone.
And if law enforcement as a group can take any satisfaction from this sordid episode where a mob relentlessly brow-beats a young woman into prison I just feel sorry for them. Though not nearly so much as I do for her.
Originally posted on JONATHAN TURLEY:
Submitted by Kimberly Dienes, guest blogger.
Sometimes, paradoxically, the most difficult times in our lives can lead to some of the happiest occurrences and memories. Although I had heard about Jonathan Turley from my father many times, I met him at my father’s funeral. Some of you may have seen his wonderful blog about my father, Charles Thomas Dienes (http://jonathanturley.org/2014/04/24/farewell-to-tom-dienes/). Jonathan suggested that I join his blog as a contributor and publish my eulogy for Dad.
The key message of the eulogy is this: it is not easy to love. Many words, phrases, and stories in our culture might lead you to believe it is, falling, instant, first glance, but love takes much more than effortless submission to a greater force…it is an act, and sometimes that act can be difficult. The act requires vulnerability, it requires communication, it requires thought and time. Loving can be so…
View original 1,032 more words
The NYPD’s public image campaign on twitter didn’t exactly succeed.
I really hope the NYPD isn’t as bad as the anecdotal evidence suggests:
A New York Police Department campaign to burnish its image via social media instead produced a flood of pictures of police brutality and tweets critical of the force being shared at a rate of thousands an hour…The tweets included images of violence from New York’s Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, pictures of an NYPD officer pointing a gun at a dog, and an officer asleep in a subway car.
Images and tweets also referred to the fatal, controversial New York police shootings of Sean Bell in 1999 and Amadou Diallo in 1999, each of which led to criminal trials in which all the officers were acquitted.
Granted, the social media thing is a little hard to read. You’re dealing with the people who have a strong opinion, which is not the general public. At least not necessarily the general public.
In any case I give credit to the department for resilience in the face of the torrent, though this might seem a bit pollyanna-ish:
After the campaign appeared to backfire, the department issued a two-sentence statement saying that it was “creating new ways to communicate effectively with the community.”
“Twitter provides an open forum for an uncensored exchange and this is an open dialogue good for our city,” the statement said.
Sure. I feel you.
But I can’t help but wonder if this social media incident is on the cutting edge, such that the perspectives of many of the players in the system – such as we just noted with federal Judge Kopf – have a lot of catching up to do.
But then again we also know, or at least have inferred, that there’s movement afoot. Does change come from the top down or the bottom up? Or is that a simplistic question anyway? Maybe it’s just in the ether, or it’s a weltgeist.
Does the future belong to the twitter community, or to Judge Kopf? Either way, it’s an interesting time right now in the law world, n’est-ce pas?
So here in Rochester we just completed one of the most high profile trials of the last year or so, involving the prosecution of a woman who now stands adjudged guilty by a jury of having ‘falsified business records’.
Ordinarily, of course, falsifying business records charges don’t generate a lot of copy, but this particular business record was a form filled out when buying guns that were later used to kill two firefighters and wound two others in a particularly depraved act on Christmas Eve 2012. The killer shot the first responders when they came to help, there having been a fire no doubt started intentionally by the killer himself. Who had just killed his sister.
He had been released from prison years before. He was in prison because he had killed his grandmother.
I’m not making any of this up.
The basis of the case against Dawn Nguyen is that she had stated on the business record that she was the purchaser of the guns, when in fact the guns were intended for the killer, named William Spengler. The puchase of the guns occurred, apparently, in June 2010.
That’s two and a half years before Spengler went on his perverse Christmas killing spree.
Let’s assume she’s guilty as charged on the business record thing, just like the jury said. What’s really animating the prosecution, what made it “high profile”, is not what Nguyen did; it’s what Spengler did. To drive the point home, Nguyen’s trial was very well attended by fire fighters from the relevant department and cops from the relevant village police department. Indeed after the guilty verdict the firefighters and police chief were breathlessly interviewed by local media for their opinions, which were uniformly that they had been extremely interested or involved in the prosecution of Nguyen, that they were ‘gratified’ by the verdict as far as it went, that they were upset that the 1-1/3 to 4 year maximum sentence was woefully insufficient punishment, and that they looked forward to a federal prosecution arising from the very same facts and circumstances that would entail as much as 30 years in prison.
And then they would set about the business of changing the state law to provide for more severe penalties for doing what Dawn Nguyen had done. One of the wounded firefighters commented that as far as he was concerned, Dawn Nguyen was a conspirator in the murder of his comrades.
Now. A few more observations.
Ms. Nguyen’s lawyer, Matt Parrinello, did a fine job and knows a lot more details than I do. It’s a very tough thing to do: stand up and defend someone when the most important possible constituency – law enforcement and their fellow travelers in the fire/EMT communities – is out for blood very publicly. Matt is my hero today. Let’s be clear about that.
Second, this was as clear cut a case as you could ever have of what might be called a substitute criminal prosecution. The guy everyone would really like to see hanged is dead, having killed himself. Good riddance, but it does leave law enforcement bereft of that particular remedy. Not to be left unsatisfied, they go looking for an alternate target, and lo they find one: a twenty something Vietnamese heritage (maybe an immigrant but I don’t have that information) woman. The fury they would like to unleash on the deceased miscreant they unleash on her instead. Its searing intensity is wildly, insanely disproportionate to the wrong alleged, but that’s one of those things you mention at your peril, from a community point of view.*
I don’t know how you could get a much more attenuated moral fault than filling out – or maybe just signing – a form some two and one-half years before a crime you had no involvement with took place. I mean, this is one of the problems here. Spengler’s sister must have known that he illegally possessed weapons. He lived with her, each and every day of that two and one-half years. She bears much more responsibility for what her brother did than Dawn Nguyen. But of course Spengler’s sister is dead, too – Spengler killed her.
Beyond Spengler’s sister, how many neighbors knew Spengler had those guns but never reported it? According to the village police chief, Spengler was a braggart about the neighborhood, in addition to all his other sterling qualities. That’s one of the reasons the police chief figures Dawn Nguyen must have known all about what a bad guy and felon he was.
Of course the problem with that is, lots of other people must have known, too. Figure out something they did or didn’t do that violates some law or other within, say, merely one year as opposed to two and a half, and maybe you’ve got yourself a better case than the one against Nguyen. File into the courtroom every day of their trial and glare at the jury until they convict, as by now almost any jury in the United States has been conditioned to do through decades of relentless law enforcement propaganda.
What’s to stop you from doing that, from roping in many, many other people to pay for Spengler’s crime? Why, nothing.
A third observation: Dawn Nguyen is an attractive female. The jury dynamics for attractive female criminal defendants are atrocious. There’s almost no way to win: other women hate her; men, of course, side with law enforcement.
Fourth: that attractive female defendant thing also seems to generate a fevered intensity all by itself, to say nothing of combining it with a homicide. Throw in the victims are law enforcement, or at least quasi law enforcement. Throw in that it was Christmas. Ugh.
Fifth: Will anyone – other than me and her lawyer, that is – venture to state the obvious, that at this point a federal prosecution is overkill? Will the local media give any air whatsoever to this, or is it a thought crime?
Sixth: Dungeons, racks, screws, stockades, the pillory. When someone is facing 30 years over lying on a form, these medieval tortures begin to look comparatively humane. Something is seriously wrong when that happens.
But we already knew that, didn’t we? Why do you think this blog and others like it even exist?
* Note, that is an obviously correct observation, and that makes it all the worse. There’s no answer for it, so it interferes with the desire to wallow in simmering hatreds and desires for revenge. Woe unto the cooler head pointing out such an obvious moral consideration in the midst of a collective frenzy.
A hissy fit this morning from Greenfield and another blawger named Josh Blackman over an opinion by Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals.
It’s interesting, because on the one hand I found the little experiment the judge conducted in chambers kind of startling myself, at first. That is, my first inclination was that this was improper.
But thinking it through a bit, juries do that kind of thing: conduct some little experiment while they are deliberating to see if they can figure out who’s telling the truth. Watch 12 Angry Men sometime. Seems like that’s all the jury did when they weren’t at each others’ throats.
Anyway, if a jury can do something like that can’t a judge, to the extent the judge has to determine a fact?
Of course, appellate court judges do not determine facts. Not directly. As Blackman and Greenfield point out, the record on an appeal is fixed, nothing else comes in or out. That’s pretty basic to the whole idea of an appeal, at least in our system. Such as it is.
But there are limits to this principle. As a general rule, intermediate appellate courts do have jurisdiction to ‘review’ – that is, second guess – the fact findings of the trial court. And there are times they should do so. Many more times than they actually do, in my experience.
The ‘standard of review’, it is constantly noted, is ‘highly deferential’, although deference is as deference does and there is an obvious disparity on how much deference there is depending on which kind of litigant benefits: lots and lots when the favored litigant has prevailed in the trial court; none when the disfavored litigant has prevailed.
But I digress.
Greenfield and Blackman are a bit off, and they’re being a little unfair to Judge Posner. The evidence in an appeal, it is true enough, is fixed in the record. But evidence isn’t always res ipsa loquitur. Interpretation is sometimes necessary. A fact finder is entitled to interpret where he feels he needs to, and a judge reviewing a fact finder is entitled to do that, too.
There are some contentions that are true, or they are false, and the conclusion is not debatable, at least not on the practical level on which we operate on a day to day basis and not, therefore, in our courts of law. If we fairly assess what an appellate judge might do in ‘reviewing’ the facts found by the trial court, he surely has an obligation to point out a fact finding that is clearly wrong, or absurd.
We’ve been over this idea here at Lawyers on Strike several times. We return to it occasionally simply because we reject the notion that the “adversarial process” requires courts to seriously entertain the clearly false, or the clearly fraudulent, or the clearly stupid.
Now is there a danger that a judge, or a jury, will mistakenly conclude the degree of clarity required, or involved? Sure. We live in a dangerous world. Greenfield:
The possibilities are endless for judges to conduct secret experiments in their chambers, or on the streets, or, if they have any clue how to gain access, on the internet, to figure out “who was telling the truth.” The flaws of the experiment will never be known, never be subject to question or challenge, and yet will dictate the outcome for people’s lives and fortunes. What could possibly go wrong?
Two things here: first, Judge Posner’s experiment wasn’t “secret” – he disclosed it in his opinion, for which he should be given credit, not excoriated. And second, it doesn’t seem quite right to complain that a judge wrongly believes himself to have some sort of clarivoyance about assessing witness “demeanor”, and finding the truth that way; but then complain more loudly when he eschews that kind of superstition for a more rational and better method.
At some point the fact finder – or the fact reviewer – must make his decision and the time for the advocates to have input is past. That might rankle ego-centric lawyers who feel their input can be both absurd and never-ending and the fact finder must listen to it, but I have to disagree.
There was nothing wrong with what Judge Posner did, especially considering he disclosed it in his opinion.
Actually, I am agnostic on the very existence of aliens from another world or wormholes or that kind of thing, but you have to start considering some pretty bizarre scenarios at this point.
I’m probably a little more knowledgeable than most people (hardly an ‘expert’, but a little more knowledgeable) about aircraft and the communications type stuff involved. You know, US Navy and all.
So, I think what might be perplexing a lot of folks right now is….there are almost no non-supernatural/extra-terrestrial scenarios that fit, other than maybe some highly skilled pilot-hijacker who could basically shut off all the automatic signaling devices, like the IFF transponder, fly under the radar coverage, evade satellite detection and land the plane in some pre-determined location where it can be quickly hidden.
Of course, that would mean there are 239 people to account for and no one’s demanding ransom so far as we know.
So in other words, the one natural, same-dimension-as-the-rest-of-us scenario that might fit seems so unlikely that I, at least, don’t believe it. Then again, if you had told me that a 777 jetliner could have any kind of accident – mid-air, over water or over land without some indication something had gone wrong – a distress call, an explosion detected by someone – and that even if this had happened no one would find any trace of the plane for almost a week, I would have said that was a practical impossibility, too. There is just too much stuff on an airplane that squawks no matter what happens, the whole idea being that if some sudden catastrophe takes place you’re still going to find what’s left in fairly short order. Even with AirFrance 447 in ’09 they found debris after a couple of days and that was pretty much over the middle of the Atlantic, which is way more remote than the anything on the flight path of this one.
As a practical matter, the longer it goes with no trace of anything, the less chance anything is going to be “found” – like debris, other than the “black box” which has a beacon that can’t possibly have stopped working.
So in other words:
1. The highly skilled pilot-hijacker scenario is so unlikely I don’t believe it.
2. The absence of any evidence at all after almost a week that the plane has been destroyed or crashed through a bomb or some natural catastrophe leads to, at the very least, significant doubt that either of those things actually occurred.
That leaves as wide an opening for some sort of paranormal/supernatural occurrence as you’re ever going to get. Right? Or am I wrong?
Update: Well, there’s been quite a bit of information since I posted this, so I think I should address the matter again.
Now, I found the skilled hijacker scenario unbelievable, but since I wrote that it appears that certain of the automated communications devices were deliberately disabled (but not all of them) and so now we must re-evaluate. Also, it appears that the plane was deliberately diverted westward and flew pretty close to the point that its fuel would have run out, and maybe it did run out of fuel and crash into the Indian Ocean, although you’d think someone would have found something by now.
So at this point the skilled hijacker scenario has legs. But it also has some problems.
As for “legs”, there is a fairly believable scenario at this juncture. The plane was hijacked by a skilled hijacker, the pilot(s) did what they could to avoid endangering anyone else or helping the hijackers to complete their mission, and they were somewhat successful in that the plane never reached its hijacked destination and either ran out of fuel over the Indian Ocean or perhaps there was some kind of altercation in the cockpit and in the melee the plane was crashed into the sea. Or perhaps the hijackers blew it up mid-air, in which case it wasn’t so much a hijacking as a terrorist act like 9-11.
Of course if any of that happened search parties should find something soon. Something. So the jury’s out on a crash scenario of any kind, hijacker or no.
But going a little further with the hijacking scenario, you can’t rule out yet that the plane was landed somewhere. If the hijacker was skilled enough to disable so many systems that would have tipped off authorities, he would also be skilled enough not to just crash the plane but to deliver it to wherever it was that he was supposed to be hijacking it to, and skilled enough to hide it once he got it there.
Yet another scenario is that one or both of the pilots are the “hijackers”, with some mysterious agenda that at this point it’s very difficult for me to fathom.
In any scenario that does not involve a crash, of course, there are 239 people to be accounted for. Let’s not forget that. Ugh.
Finally, until search and rescue finds something – anything – UFO’s and Wormholes or some other supernatural cause are not off the table. If you don’t rule that out in advance because you can’t accept something like that, that is.
Update 2: As some on twitter have noted – and which I had forgotten about, oddly enough – there is a US Naval Air Station at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and I’m sure a 777 could land there, if indeed it could make it that far, though I don’t know whether it could or not.
That puts the US Government in the cross hairs of the usual conspiracy theory suspects, of course. Not that I’m buying anything like that, mind you.
Then again, could Diego Garcia have been the target in a 9-11 type suicide mission that failed?
Update 3: This is a good article, via CNN.
Our previous consideration of supernatural causes, never really too heavy, has been pushed to the outer margins at this point. Actually it really belonged out there as soon as it became apparent that transponders and other auto-communnications devices were deliberately disabled.
There’s a lot of focus on the pilot and co-pilot right now, as in some kind of pilot suicide. While I realize this kind of thing has happened (very rarely) before, there would have to be some really good evidence to convince me that either one of those guys did this. It is likely they would both have had to be in on it. Very hard to swallow that one.
Most plausible to me at the moment? A hijacking. A sophisticated hijacker, perhaps bent on a suicide mission to crash the plane into the Diego Garcia US Naval Base. Similar to the 9-11 style of attack, turning a commercial airliner into a missile. Lots of innocent people terrorized and killed.
The two pilots may have foiled the effort and crashed the plane in the attempt, perhaps deliberately running out of fuel or something.
Some people are still thinking the plane landed somewhere, but while I suppose that’s possible – just barely – I can’t see it as having any likelihood given all the other evidence. As between that and the pilot-suicide scenario, I’d opt for the latter, and I just find that one too hard to accept at this point.
Update 4: So here’s a pilot writing on CNN.com saying that the Boeing 777 can essentially fly itself, even with auto-pilot off, for a good long ways and that some of the manuevering that has been alluded to in other reports is consistent with such a scenario. This lends plausibility to the “sudden, catastrophic decompression” scenario in which everyone on the plane is more or less instantly knocked out.
Ugh. 11 days later and things are just as confused as they were at the beginning. For a while there it seemed that a deliberate act, such as a hijacking, was a certainty. No longer.
A very tragic situation for anyone who had a loved one onboard.
Honestly, I don’t see much point in speculating further. If they don’t find the aircraft – and it appears we may never find it – it’s just going to remain very much a mystery.
The black box emits a signal and remains active for about 30 days. If the plane is underwater, that is. But of course like everything else we don’t know that one way or the other, either.
In a suburb just north of Rochester called Irondequoit there was a rather nice, bright and airy shopping mall (‘nice’ as those things go, mind you), first called The Irondequoit Mall when it opened in 1990.
For reasons that will always be something of a mystery to me*, it began failing as a retail outlet within ten years and has now been almost completely vacant for about a decade. A few hucksters have appeared on the scene in the years since promising this and that to the town board, but nothing of any significance has come to pass. Then, a couple of months ago, with the rather brutal winter afflicting the entire country and of course in this area as well, a bunch of pipes burst in the now unheated gigantic space and the results have been captured on film (or digits, as the case may be) and posted by one of the local news stations here.
A couple of samples:
Bottom line is, it’s a tear down at this point.
Everyone’s sights are turning on the most recent
con man developer, but I think it’s clear from the photographic evidence that the waste of this facility, both inside and outside, is not the product of one pipe bursting incident in January, although I’m sure that didn’t help things. I mean, like I said, the place has been largely vacant for 10 years and it looks just the way it should.
I don’t know why the story interests me. Part of it may be the role that “rumors” of “crime” at the mall around the year 2000 might have played in gutting the place.
There’s a race angle there, of course.
In any event I’m sure some scapegoat will be identified and pilloried somehow, but I don’t think this is as simple as all that. We may be letting ourselves off the hook too easily.
Maybe more on this later.
* Probably the most reasonable explanation is that opening a mall in the Rochester area in 1990 is pretty bad timing, and we might have been pretty well saturated with malls by that time, but like a lot of things economic, you can fake it for a long time, covering losses, etc.
The Republicans in the US House of Representatives are so pathetic at this point that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to tell her troops not to “gloat” about their latest tactical victory. No kidding.
I don’t know what is worse: that the GOP threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit (you know, “government shut down” time again) unless some goodies would be dispensed to one of their core constitutencies (military pensioners); or that when they were called on it they caved. Both are so miserably inept. The GOP shows you craven, unprincipled pandering competing with despicable cowardice – a complete and almost nauseating lack of character or fortitude – and asks people for their votes. It would be funny. Maybe it is anyway.
I do not know the parties at all. I am not a big Woody Allen fan. I am not a big Mia Farrow fan.
One way or another, Dylan Farrow has been through hell. Either because Woody Allen did to her what she says, or because her mother has made her believe that he did that even though it didn’t happen. I mean, those are the only two alternatives here, so that much is certain.
If I had to pick a side it would be Allen, for two very basic reasons: no previous or subsequent similar allegations; and the fact (which I am trying to verify) that the allegations of abuse were not made until after Allen had started an affair with his current wife (Soon-Yi), which understandably greatly upset Mia Farrow for a lot of reasons.
I wouldn’t accuse anyone of “lying” here. All parties may believe what they are saying even though they can’t all be right. But this is a very good example of a case where you cannot be certain and you have to be comfortable with being uncertain. When defense lawyers are asked: how do you defend those you know are guilty? – this kind of situation is one very good answer. Most of the time you don’t know.
Update: Well, no wonder I was having trouble nailing down the timing of the first emergence of these allegations that Woody Allen sexually abused Dylan Farrow. Look at the NYS Supreme Court opinion from 1993. It bounces around from time to time and person to person in a somewhat chaotic fashion as it recites “fact findings”, which, in a case like this, it’s extremely important to get right. There are some places in the opinion where the only time frame referred to for an important development or even is “…in 1990″. Ugh.
In any case, it’s apparent that Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi began developing in 1990 when he started taking her to Knicks games. The first independently verifiable* indication that Mia Farrow had concerns about Allen’s relationship with Dylan occurred in the fall of that year, with a therapist named Coates who opined:
I understood why she [Mia Farrow - ed.] was worried because it [Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan] was intense, …I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child…
So by the fall of 1990 Mia Farrow is expressing concerns to a therapist about Allen’s conduct with Dylan. Whether the concern was that this conduct was of a sexual nature is not clear, at least from the opinion, though the possibility was considered and rejected by the therapist herself. At roughly the same time a relationship is beginning between Allen and Soon-Yi, which apparently developed into something romantic no later than fall of 1991. Again, during roughly this same time period, Dylan enters therapy with a Dr. Schultz in April of 1991, and was formally adopted by Allen, finalized by December, 1991. It was just a few weeks later in the following month – January 13 of 1992 – that Mia Farrow learned that Allen had been romantically involved with Soon-Yi.
This led to a lot of strife in the Farrow-Allen-Polyglot household(s), obviously.
The molestation incident described in Dylan’s open letter allegedly occurred in early August of 1992, more than 7 months after Mia Farrow had definitively learned of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi. August 4th, I believe is the exact date but the opinion is frustratingly vague about it. Dylan is alleged to have told her mother about it on August 5, the next day. On August 6th Dylan saw a doctor and the report was made and presumably all hell broke loose. On August 9th Dylan was examined and no evidence of sexual abuse was found.
The timeline undercuts (Doesn’t rule it out entirely, but undercuts it) the case against Allen, for two reasons:
1) He was openly involved with Soon-Yi and had been romantically involved with her for at least a year, probably longer. He was in an acrimonious dispute with Mia Farrow for months. It would seem bizarre beyond description that he would pick a time like that to molest his adopted 7 year old daughter.
2) Mia Farrow’s anger at Allen that had begun in earnest in January showed no signs of abating, and every indication of hardening and deepening by then. This doesn’t mean she is “lying”, but it does make it more likely that she’s looking for horrible things to think and say about Allen.
Bottom line is, the allegations don’t add up. They’re not impossible, but they are very, very unlikely to be true.
Very, very sad news. Such a talented man.
First time I remember seeing him was in a film called “Twister” that I thought was so terrible, but the one thing I enjoyed was watching him. And I had no idea who he was at the time.
He hailed from Fairport, New York, and his mother – Marilyn Hoffman – has been a fixture in the Rochester legal community for decades.
Our thoughts and prayers are with her, obviously. This is a great tragedy for the acting community and the country, but it’s an unbearable sadness for her.
To say that guaging the significance or importance of a case is not an exact science is to understate the matter dramatically. Still, there are many reasons to believe that the 2nd Circuit’s Poventud case, that we have been picking apart for a few days now, will reverberate strongly and widely both in the 2nd Circuit and around the country.
One reason is, of course, the simple fact that the 2nd Circuit itself treated it as such an important case. It went to a three judge panel which split on the outcome and featured unusually strongly worded opinions from both sides. It was then reviewed en banc, which almost never happens and hasn’t happened in the 2nd Circuit in two years. When the en banc ruling came down there was very, very sharp division again, strongly worded to the point of being tart-tongued dissents, numerous amicus briefs from several state’s attorneys general and national and state associations of this and that.**
And in the end it was a decisive ruling against the government in a case where the government actually had good arguments that it should prevail. For my entire legal career, the favoritism shown to the government as a litigant in the courts has been grotesque and often disgraceful. The government as a litigant can ordinarily be expected to prevail over an individual even where the arguments in the government’s favor are literally ludicrous and patently self-contradictory – at least with judges. The Poventud case constitutes a dramatic and highly visible departure from this day-to-day reality, for reasons that are not easy to identify.
Although I’m going to try.
I believe it has finally dawned on some judges – not many of them, I presume, but apparently some – that the indulgence of the government as litigant has reached insane proportions and it’s past time to check it. We noted that a South Carolina state court judge said something to this effect openly in a post a few weeks ago, and further opined that it’s as though there’s something just floating around in the ether out there where judges mingle and talk:
In any case, if a judge on a state’s highest court is talking this way openly, that means there have been discussions among a much larger group in private for some time. It would be fair to say that the judge’s remarks reflect the beliefs of some not insignificant group of jurists and that those beliefs are bubbling up into more explicit statements either in opinions or in these confabs that public officials seem constantly to be holding and attending, sequesters or no.
From where I sit it’s like a radio signal I can’t quite lock onto. I know it’s there and have an idea what it’s about but it’s not entertaining me in my car yet.
But if this is like other such sea changes, that might actually happen before too long.
Of course, I don’t want to run with my own thoughts too far. Then again, if I do say so myself I am far less prone (though of course not absolutely immune) to confirmation bias than virtually anyone I know. I mean seriously, I’m not in control of the objective indicators of Poventud’s significance; they are just there and I just notice them.
Also of great interest is the nature of the split of opinion among the judges of the 2nd Circuit. We have a majority opinion by Judge Wesley that is both cautious in spots and alternatively daring (holding that a section 1983 Plaintiff who pleaded guilty can still have a valid claim about how he was convicted). We have a concurring judge, Lynch, who actually characterizes the convicting of an innocent person as a “horror”, terminology that seems to hearken back to a long lost era of jurisprudence that in truth may never have really existed at all.
The dissents, by judges Jacobs and Livingston, go on and on about the sanctity of the guilty plea and the sanctity of that distortion of Brady that they believe in. For more than 30 years this is the kind of language you would see only in majority opinions. To see it in dissent could be called stunning, without exaggeration or hyperbole.
This may all be just the natural pendulum swinging, I suppose. But I think in more “proximate cause” terms it may have something to do with just how far prosecutors and attorneys general have pushed the envelope in their dealings with the less powerful. They get together at conferences and whatnot and adopt as policy the position that if they can get rid of pesky innocence claims through stonewalling them, they’ll do just that. When they argued that there’s no “free-standing” constitutional right “not to be framed” by the government, or when they argued that grotesquely abusive behavior by prison guards towards inmates is not “cruel and unusual punishment”, it finally sunk in to at least those judges who have some experience with, or who can imagine, being the human being on the receiving end of such atrocities that some matters have gotten out of control. Like some criminal prosecutions, where what is appalling is not what the defendant is alleged to have done but what the government has done in the course of prosecuting them.
These transparently disingenuous arguments – the “bastard children of Brady” most prominently, may have finally undone the mighty. At least in some quarters.
** According to one commentator:
En banc cases are “arguably the most significant cases decided by the courts of appeals, receive “more attention in the legal community, and are more likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court than are rulings by three-judge panels.”
Let’s get into it a little more. First, the facts. Of course, we start with the facts. We are lawyers here at Lawyers on Strike.
So this guy Poventud was convicted of attempted murder in 1998 in New York State courts, after a trial, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. After serving about 9 years of it, the state courts vacated his conviction and ordered a new trial because of…..Brady violations.
Thus the title of this post, and the previous one. I thought you might be wondering.
Anyway the State is doing what the State does in those situations: blustering, chest thumping, we’re going to appeal, we’re going to try you again, we’re going to win again anyway – but since you’ve already served 9 years we’ll be really, really nice and lenient and let you plead guilty to a lesser offense and you’ll get time served and you’ll be out. Which is more than you deserve, you lousy criminal piece of shit.
This is the graciousness with which the State ordinarily handles a loss, as they did at the hands of Mr. Poventud. Maybe it’s understandable here, even if it’s wrong: because if Mr. Poventud is not a criminal piece of shit someone else is.
But I digress.
So anyway. It goes down like this:
The prosecution filed a notice of appeal; successfully argued that Poventud be denied bail; and offered him immediate release in exchange for a guilty plea to a non-violent, Class E felony charge of third-degree attempted robbery. By this time, Poventud had been incarcerated for nearly nine years. Poventud testifies that during his imprisonment he endured gruesome and repetitive physical and sexual abuse; that he attempted suicide; and that he suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. In January 2006, Poventud accepted the terms of the plea bargain and went home….Poventud now contends that he was deceived into pleading guilty. He alleges that the assistant district attorney knew, but did not disclose, that the district attorney’s office had decided not to perfect its appeal. Poventud alleges further that the ADA withheld crucial information from the defense. When he learned of these omissions, Poventud stayed the instant federal suit and moved in state court to have his guilty plea vacated as involuntarily given. The New York Supreme Court for Bronx County granted an evidentiary hearing on the question of voluntariness, but Poventud withdrew his motion without prejudice. He says he did this after learning that he had multiple myeloma, after nearly dying from kidney failure, and after undergoing bone and stem cell transplants and chemotherapy. Poventud asserts that he thought the stress and infection risks of a new trial, together with the possibility, however remote, of returning to jail, would kill him.
You remember how Norm Pattis says that criminal court cases often involve tales of horror?
By any sane measure, Poventude’s guilty plea was a plea of convenience. But it wasn’t an Alford plea, so the judge asked him a couple of questions and Poventud said yes and that was that. It’s important to bear this in mind: this guilty plea was the only way Poventud could avoid the certainty of additional years in prison.
In other words, this was a plea of convenience and nothing more. Its probative value about what actually occurred, to a sane person, is nil.
Read the dissenting opinions. One is by Judge Jacobs. We have had occasion to discuss Judge Jacobs before (here and here), very early on in the blog, and damned if he doesn’t vindicate us all over again.
The other is by Debra Ann Livingston.
We haven’t examined Judge Livingston’s opinions before.
But we will now.
Conveniently, she very explicitly and succinctly exhibits the very Brady confusion we just mentioned about two months ago. That is, she treats a prosecutor’s inadvertent failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and his deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence as if these are the same “due process” problem.
She really should have come over here before issuing that opinion, but never mind.
Observe. We quote:
Heck itself involved a Brady claim. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 479 (stating that Heck’s pro se complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants had “knowingly destroyed evidence which was exculpatory in nature and could have proved [Heck's] innocence”
But deliberately destroying someone’s evidence of innocence is not a simple Brady violation, it’s a Mooney violation:
Petitioner charges that the State holds him in confinement without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The grounds of his charge are, in substance, that the sole basis of his conviction was perjured testimony, which was knowingly used by the prosecuting authorities in order to obtain that conviction, and also that these authorities deliberately suppressed evidence which would have impeached and refuted the testimony thus given against him…Reasoning from the premise that the petitioner has failed to show a denial of due process in the circumstances set forth in his petition, the Attorney General urges that the State was not required to afford any corrective judicial process to remedy the alleged wrong. The argument falls with the premise. (Emphasis supplied.)
As we peons over here at Lawyers on Strike said in November:
Now, it’s true that as you get to the serious end of Brady violations – that is, the deliberate withholding/hiding/destroying of exculpatory evidence – it becomes a distinction without a difference, as they say. But the key to understanding Brady is that the case really wasn’t about the serious end violations. Those were assumed to be covered by Mooney. Brady was “extending” the principle of Mooney both to place an affirmative duty on prosecutors to search their files and to err on the side of disclosure if there’s some question about whether the subject evidence is “exculpatory” or not.
None of this implied – except possibly, let us face it, to a very warped mind indeed – that the out and out, deliberate willful and malicious fabrication of evidence and subornation of perjury was not different from the inadvertent failure by a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence. Brady called the latter a due process violation as well; but the former had been held to be not just a due process violation, but an obvious due process violation even at the time of Mooney, which is to say 1935 – almost 80 years ago.
There is more to say here. Next post.
Elsewhere in the blawgosphere, a couple of interesting posts: one from Gamso about the death penalty (of course) and one from Greenfield about, well, apparently increasing lawyer suicides, among other things.
The death penalty. Ugh. Speaking for myself I trend in Gamso’s abolitionist direction and then away from it, depending on, well, nothing in particular. Stepping back from it all I think of it as a very interesting question for debate. As long as it remains completely abstract I think the death penalty winds up being justifiable in this or that imagined case.
Make it more concrete, though, and the whole chain of reasoning, elegant though it may be in theory, falls apart. Breivik, the Norwegian who killed about 70 teenagers in a shooting spree the like of which is normally seen only in the US? Both sides of Gamso’s debate seem to think he fits the bill of ‘the worst of the worst’. But I think he’s completely fucking nuts, not a good death penalty candidate at all. I realize what he did was unspeakable, but the harm done is not the measure. People – lots of people, or at least frequently more than 70 at a time – suffer terribly, are terrorized and die in plane crashes. Nobody should get the death penalty for that; it’s usually an accident. Nobody’s criminally liable at all.
Not to mention what the death penalty apparently does to us as a people. The bloodlust I have observed over the web with respect to numerous cases over the last few years is bewildering. Stupefying. It leaves me speechless and as close as I ever come to being depressed. I’ve pretty much decided that this particular collateral consequence is sufficient reason in and of itself to abolish the death penalty. Most days I decide that, anyway.
Speaking of depressed, apparently a lot of lawyers are becoming depressed and committing suicide. Greenfield goes into it and his take is illuminating and predictable at the same time. He uses the opportunity to mock “therapeutic justice”. Maybe he should, but on the other hand it seems to me that the blinders type approach to legal representation – that is, where the lawyer is very narrowly focused on “the case” and won’t bother with even the most obvious, if broader, consequences to the client, the client’ s family, etc. – has very deep flaws of its own.
Then again, as he often does despite himself, I’d have to agree almost completely with SHG here:
From my perch, two things seem to permeate the problems suffered by lawyers: First, good, hard-working lawyers are not earning enough to enjoy a sufficiently comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their family to justify surmounting the barriers to entry and the headache of the job. Second, the arbitrariness of the law. Non-lawyers think the law is somewhat reliable, and if a lawyer does good work, they will prevail. We know better, and it makes us nuts.
The only caveat: it’s not the law itself that’s arbitrary; it’s how it is administered in practice.
I also appreciated a quote from the underlying CNN article about lawyer suicides. Describing the stresses of lawyering, someone pointed out that a surgeon works with a group of people to save a patient; but there isn’t an opposing team trying to kill the patient.
I used to express sort of the same idea to people but not as well. I would tell them that sometimes I longed to be a mechanic, because you might or might not figure out how to fix the fuel system, but at least the fuel system isn’t fighting you while you try.