The pending question from the Hofstra false gang-rape accusation was how Nassau County District Attorney would hide from her responsibilities. After all, Rice had worked hard on building a “tough as nails” prosecutor image, but busily courted the female vote, and there were deep concerns that prosecuting 18 year old Danmel Ndonye would “chill” true rape victims from coming forward.
I was talking to the Blind Guy about it the other day, and he predicted that she would bury it. And he was right. At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon on a Friday, the news broke. Rice would not prosecute.
The AP story in the New York Times says little more than that, including only the description that she was a “deeply troubled woman.” Would that have been the way Rice described her had she not admitted to fabricating the story? Was she “deeply troubled” because she made this false accusation that put four innocent men in jail? By that definition, the same sympathy evoked from the description could be applied to a lot of people. Yet I doubt Rice would feel very sorry for most of them.
The Newsday story gives Kathleen Rice’s brief explanation.
And notice the concern about “incarcerating an innocent person for even one minute?” But Rice never apologized to the four men that sat in jail for her role in blindly accepting the word of this “deeply troubled woman.” She didn’t even thank the criminal defense lawyers for the men who brought forth the proof that Ndonye was the criminal, not the boys, thus saving her from the destiny of Mike Nifong.
Timing is key to the success of this maneuver. By Monday, when people get back to paying attention to the news, this will be an old story. The Saturday paper is the least read paper of the week. Over the weekend, nobody will know. By Monday, nobody will care. Chances are good that something new will happen over the weekend, and if Rice has any luck at all, it will be a drunk driving death of a child. She’s very strong on drunk driving deaths of children. They get prosecuted for murder, and she gets to rail about how she’s tough on crime and saving us from the demon.
She’s a shrewd one, that Kathleen Rice.
I was talking to the Blind Guy about it the other day, and he predicted that she would bury it. And he was right. At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon on a Friday, the news broke. Rice would not prosecute.
The AP story in the New York Times says little more than that, including only the description that she was a “deeply troubled woman.” Would that have been the way Rice described her had she not admitted to fabricating the story? Was she “deeply troubled” because she made this false accusation that put four innocent men in jail? By that definition, the same sympathy evoked from the description could be applied to a lot of people. Yet I doubt Rice would feel very sorry for most of them.
The Newsday story gives Kathleen Rice’s brief explanation.
“There exists no perfect solution to this case, only our best attempt at holding her accountable while encouraging real victims to come forward and accusers to tell the truth, so that we can avoid incarcerating an innocent person for even one minute, Rice said in a statement Friday afternoon.It’s a well-designed statement, carefully crafted to make two wholly unrelated things appear connected. Allowing a woman who lied about a heinous crime being committed against her to avoid prosecution, causing four men who committed no crime to be arrested, smeared throughout the media, sit in jail and have their names perpetually tied to a gang rape, has no rational connection whatsoever to encouraging real victims to come forward. It does, however, have a strong connection to encouraging false accusations, since the conditions of counseling and community services offer little disincentive to not take the risk.
And notice the concern about “incarcerating an innocent person for even one minute?” But Rice never apologized to the four men that sat in jail for her role in blindly accepting the word of this “deeply troubled woman.” She didn’t even thank the criminal defense lawyers for the men who brought forth the proof that Ndonye was the criminal, not the boys, thus saving her from the destiny of Mike Nifong.
Timing is key to the success of this maneuver. By Monday, when people get back to paying attention to the news, this will be an old story. The Saturday paper is the least read paper of the week. Over the weekend, nobody will know. By Monday, nobody will care. Chances are good that something new will happen over the weekend, and if Rice has any luck at all, it will be a drunk driving death of a child. She’s very strong on drunk driving deaths of children. They get prosecuted for murder, and she gets to rail about how she’s tough on crime and saving us from the demon.
She’s a shrewd one, that Kathleen Rice.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To the extent the accused were damaged — and don’t get me wrong, they were seriously damaged — they have adequate recourse in the civil justice system. Sue her. Sue the cops and the prosecutors if they like. Even if they win nominal damages, or only an uncollectable reward against her, they can clear their name.
The benefit of criminal prosecution is less clear — should we fight to deter false reporting, at a cost of deterring legitimate reporting? Keep in mind: it is not uncommon for police officers to immediately disbelieve rape victims, fail to investigate the allegations, and then cook up false reporting charges. I’ve seen far more of those than I’ve seen false rape reports.
Not only will the timing of Rice’s decision bury it over the weekend, the decision itself not to prosecute will insure that this case will not be active, oh say, around election time.
Suing the cops and prosecutor won’t work. Prosecutor has absolute immunity while the cops may have qualified immunity. That leaves only the false accuser.
Frankly they should have charged her. Also false report penalties should be changed. The penalty for false report that result should be related to the seriousnes of the charges they brought forth.
Will a nominal “reward” really be an adequate recourse? Will winning a civil suit “clear their name[s]?” Will a lawyer take a civil suit to win nominal damages?
And how many more true rape victims have you personally seen a police officer disbelieve than false rape reports? Are you the barometer of what it means to the victim of false rape accusation of how serious it is? Other people (like the Blind Guy, below, who was a long time prosecutor) have actual experience with these issues and their experiences differs from yours. Are you sure you, not a criminal lawyer at all, know more?
And is there a logical basis for your assumption of a connection between false rape accusers and deterring legitimate reporting? False accusations have nothing to do with true accusations. One thing happened, the other didn’t. Or does it change when it involves a sacred cow crime, like rape?
That the accused may retain private counsel to bring a civil action against various parties really misses the point. It is the district attorney’s obligation to do justice regardless of what private remedies the accused might have. Additionally, this seems to have sprung up a theory that prosecuting false accusers will prevent those actually victimized by sex crimes from coming forward. Most respectfully, I reject the theory and having some experience in this area I can tell you that false accusations and sex crimes are by no means rare. It is precisely for that reason that false accusers should be prosecuted. There may be many reasons that people do not come forward to report sex crimes. Being prosecuted for falsely accusing a person when there has been an actual sex crimes is not one of them.
Mr. Kennerly: In a civil rights/1983 case, the prosecutor will get absolute immunity. The police will argue that they reasonably relied on a complaining witness; so they’ll almost certainly get qualified immunity. It’s highly unlikely that any government actor will be held liable. Which leaves just the girl – who is undoubtedly judgment proof.
Anyhow, given that you think that “nominal damages” against a judgment-proof defendant is “adequate recourse,” you’ll no doubt take the boys’ case for “nominal legal fees.” Yes?
I’m not a barometer of anything, nor are you or anyone else. “Personally” I’ve seen a number of these cases; e.g., before even practicing, I worked on a 1983 suit arising from just such a situation while clerking. The situation is so common that the Third Circuit is currently analyzing yet another 1983 case arising from a police officer who didn’t bother to perform any investigation of the rape at all, but instead charged the victim. A month before her trial the rapist confessed when he was caught committing another rape. “Oops.”
I also have empirical data, which apparently neither you nor anyone else you’ve cited has. Major cities have a particular problem with this: Philadelphia Police had a policy of systematically downgrading rape and sexual assault to “investigation of a person” and other low-priority crimes, something New Orleans apparently itself just started doing: http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1592
There’s also plenty of reports from organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police — which of course is far less familiar with this issue than you — detailing the problems specific to rape and how rape victims, far more than other victims, are hesitant to report the crimes and to cooperate with the police for fear of being disbelieved. Which is what the IACP and others perform training on this specific issue because, in addition to the problems of rape investigation even in the best of circumstances, police officers themselves subscribe to a number of rape myths, which is part of why they so easily downgrade these investigations and re-focus them on the victim. Here’s a Third Circuit brief on the issue from a whopping ten years ago: http://www.womenslawproject.org/Briefs/schieber_final_brief.pdf
Yet, the exact same issue is up in front of the Third Circuit again, because it’s depressingly common.
So, yes, there’s a “logical basis” for a concern about deterring legitimate reporting. Legitimate rape victims, more than victims of other crimes, often refrain from reporting or cooperating for fear of disbelief by the police. The empirical data backs them up: a number of departments systematically discount rape claims.
I don’t know the full circumstances of this case, nor do you. My point is: the prosecutor’s decision not to further discourage rape reporting by prosecuting someone over a false report that caused two days of jail time is not irrational or ridiculous. It’s an exercise of discretion in one case to further a broader policy.
Blind Guy’s remark — “It is the district attorney’s obligation to do justice …” — is insultingly simplistic in light of your experience. As as prosecutor, did you ever once exercise your discretion to pursue less than the maximum charges and sentence against someone? If so, then perhaps you can address the issue from that angle, as opposed to pretending these issues are simple.
Let’s try this again. Slowly. This is not about problems with women reporting sexual assaults, but with the prosecution of a false accuser serving as a disincentive for a true victim to report a rape. There are many reasons why women don’t report rapes, and why cops don’t believe women who do. But this is a different issue. I know this doesn’t make conform to your certainty, but these are different issues. So no, you don’t have a logical connection because you have yet to comprehend the issue with your simplistic analysis that all the elements that cause women to not report a rape or sexual assault are the same or interconnected.
As for the blind guy, you’re not in a position to call anyone simplistic. Here or anywhere else. Ever. Don’t do it again. I realize you think you’re brilliant. I don’t. But this is my blog, my rules. I get to insult stupid people. You don’t get to insult anyone.
And here I thought I was being so logical. Damn, wrong again! In THIS case there was a demonstrable false allegation discovered AFTER the police accepted the false allegations lock, stock and barrel. We are not in the 3rd circuit but in the 2d Dept in NY State where I have spent 30 years practicing criminal law in Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island. As far as the IACP reports go I am very happy they study these problems. I missed them when they came to Long Island to study the situation here. As for reducing charges as a DA I routinely did that. The point you miss is that there was a charge to reduce. DA’s doing justice is not a simplistic theory. It is one of the hallmarks of the criminal justice system. In my simplistic way I kind of think you insult legitimate rape victims by limping them in with false accusers.
Sorta weird that a guy who considers himself above the rest of us would have written something like this: “To the extent the accused were damaged … they have adequate recourse in the civil justice system. Sue her. Sue the cops and the prosecutors if they like.”
As “Waste” pointed out before me: That’s totally ignorant – though I won’t say “stupid,” since that’s SHG’s prerogative. Still, the self-aura of superiority is incongruous with ignorance of basic civil rights law.
Then again, “He has convinced opposing attorneys to withdraw on the eve of trial.” What does the law even matter when your very presence sends opposing counsel running?
Let’s try it really slowly.
Many rape victims worry the police won’t believe them. They also worry about the consequences when the police don’t believe them, like being wrongfully prosecuted for “false” reporting. It happens.
Prosecuting someone for lying about a rape charge sends a message: lying about rape can get you sent to jail.
This messages gets to people who were considering lying about rape charges. That’s a good thing.
But, as you don’t seem to understand, the message also gets to people who were raped, are considering reporting it (or have reported it and are considering how much they should cooperate with the police), but are concerned about the consequences if the police don’t believe them.
For those legitimate victim, the message raises the psychological barriers against reporting & cooperating by making the stakes higher if the police don’t believe them.
That’s bad.
I know from your vantage point that legitimate rape victims should trust that the good, fair and omnipotent police department will recognize them on sight as truth-tellers, but that’s not the case.
Given your line of work, I’m surprised to hear you promoting the notion that all citizens should bestow unquestioning trust upon the police, and that any citizens who don’t bestow such trust should be regarded with suspicion.
“In my simplistic way I kind of think you insult legitimate rape victims by limping them in with false accusers.”
You’re right, legitimate rape victims never, ever, ever worry about if the police will disbelieve them, and so legitimate rape victims never, ever, ever worry about the consequences of police disbelief. Indeed, only criminals ever worry about the police.
Women believe that women can’t be criminals, only victims. Look at the Garridos case. Both Husband and Wife have been charged exactly the same–but all the female bloggers are calling for Philip Garrodos to be put to death, while labeling his wife a “victim”
Disgusting.
Your ability to miss a point is truly stunning. We all have to be good at something I suppose. Have a lovely day Max. Rant on! Your comments are no longer worthy of my attention.
That’s my problem with Max too. His arguments aren’t interesting because he doesn’t grasp the point, so I let him rant a bit and just ignore him.
Yet again Max, you’re stuck so you’re not getting the issue. Rape victims are not an admitted false rape accuser. What happens to the admitted false rape accuser has no correlation with true victims and the police, the prosecutor or anyone else. Why? Because they are not admitted false rape accusers. We aren’t arguing here that an accuser with a shakey story or lack of evidence be prosecuted. We’re arguing that an admitted (as in, she did it and she said so and nobody thinks otherwise) false rape accuser be prosecuted.
Why must you persist in your position rather than make the small effort to grasp the point? Tenacity is a fine quality, but intelligence is good too.
Regarding Max Kennerly’s logic, this is my take on it (posted also at overlawyered):
I am surprised/disappointed/curious as to why no one ever looks at the problem of false accusations and the argument that we want to encourage women to report their rapes in terms of statistical Type I and Type II errors.
Type I errors are false positives, of which false accusations are a subset. Type II errors are false negatives which includes women who were raped but do not report it.
When I learned about this stuff, I learned that reducing one type of error almost certainly increases the other type of error. Reducing false positives of say, a pregnancy test, increases false negatives, saying you were pregnant when you are not. Reducing false negatives, releasing killers from jail will increase false positives, killing innocents on death row.
I would hope that if that analysis is accurate, that it would be easier to convince the lawyers and academics behind various rape advocacy groups that it is morally, ethically, and legally important for them to concern themselves with false positives.
Not punishing this woman will in the absolute scientific statistical sense increase the numbers of false positives, and do little to reduce the number of false negatives.
A gross miscarriage of justice in a locality (Nassau County) where a strong anti-male bias pervades the entire legal system, overseen by a notorious corrupt, incompetent D.A.
This vicious perjurer deserved indictment. The prisons have far, far too many innocent males, often of minority and poor backgrounds. Visit the website of The Innocence Project if you have any doubt.
Lawyers are people, and when it comes to taboos/sacred cows, they go deaf, dumb and blind. Rape is such a sacred cow, and their otherwise finely honed ability at logical reasoning goes flying out the window.
BTW, your comment was valuable, and so it was manually allowed, but for future reference, you won’t be able to comment without a valid email address. There’s no need to hide here.
Sir, Another prefect & fitting title to a post that’s deserving of our attention on a continual basis. So much so, the topic, the players & eventual outcome will be covered & recorded in Simple Justice archives for all eyes.
We at “PROJECT: Not Guilty” (work in progress) also feel that it’s worthy to consider including this case. Basing this on the obvious & on veiled attempts to bury their mistakes.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It’s post like this that educate us about politicians & why they do what they do. Most of all, it keeps us on our toes & reminds us who has the biggest shovel.
the problem with the so call civil recourse, is that the cops and prosecutors will be rubber stamped with qualified and absolute immunity respectively, and the woman, should they be awarded some judgment against her, likely has no assets from which they could be paid. so in reality, no, these men who have been victimized by the justice system do not really have any meaningful civil recourse