While it’s premature to claim democracy is alive and well in Nassau County, at least it’s not yet moribund. After Joy Watson, former heard of sex crimes and candidate for District Attorney, finally had an opportunity to state her position on why Rice blew the decision to decline to prosecute Danmell Ndonye, the Hofstra false rape accuser, her opponent, current District Attorney Kathleen Rice was forced to publicly explain.
Of critical significance, the plan to bury the decision and story after the 5:00 o’clock Friday press release was thwarted. Feeling the pressure of a story still kicking despite her efforts to use the news cycle to her advantage, Rice gave a press conference on Monday to explain herself. No matter whose position one supports, the story has been resurrected.
Newsday, which apparently has plenty of room for Kathleen Rice even if there’s little space for Watson, reports:
Of critical significance, the plan to bury the decision and story after the 5:00 o’clock Friday press release was thwarted. Feeling the pressure of a story still kicking despite her efforts to use the news cycle to her advantage, Rice gave a press conference on Monday to explain herself. No matter whose position one supports, the story has been resurrected.
Newsday, which apparently has plenty of room for Kathleen Rice even if there’s little space for Watson, reports:
In her first interview explaining the decision, Rice said her goal had been to ensure that the young woman publicly admitted guilt, accepted accountability and responsibility for her crime and repaid the community through service.Rice, who said she never personally spoke to or saw the young woman, said she was satisfied prosecutors had plentiful evidence of Danmell Ndonye’s lie, which sent four innocent men to jail.
This is a fundamental shift in strategy by Rice, who earlier explained that her reason for declining to prosecute was to avoid discouraging rape victims from coming forward and because Ndyone was “deeply troubled.” The strategy has now turned to a “tough on crime” rationale, apparently based on a belief that prosecuting would have somehow served to sweep this under the carpet.
“We did not want any loopholes,” Rice said.
Without explaining what “loopholes” she’s talking about, the only ones that come to mind our those nasty constitutional rights and criminal procedures. Was it fear that the police, or perhaps her office, had violated Ndonye’s rights in the course of its investigation? Is there a loophole that Rice knew about that remains unknown to the rest of us? Or is this merely a play on the public to denigrate the Constitution as a bunch of technicalities that let criminals go free?
Rice, who defeated Dillon four years ago, slammed back, saying Watson doesn’t understand how modern prosecution works.
“Had this case gone to court, the record would have been sealed,” Rice said, noting that Ndonye’s age and clean record, combined with a misdemeanor criminal charge likely would have netted her zero jail time.
“There would be no public admission,” Rice said, “no public accountability,” because as a youthful offender the records would have been sealed.
Rice’s flip-flop aside, this is simply wrong. The prosecution would have been public, as is every criminal prosecution. Ndonye, at 18, could not have been prosecuted as a minor, and most assuredly would not have been. While it’s possible that she might have been granted “youthful offender treatment” at the time of sentencing, which would have caused her criminal record to be sealed, it happens after the prosecution is completed, not, as Rice appears to suggest, to conceal the prosecution from public view. It would have had absolutely no impact on a public admission or public accountability, which comes before the YO determination is made.
And as to a prosecution “nett[ing] her zero jail time,” didn’t anybody tell Rice that Ndonye isn’t going to jail under her “deal”?
While it might be worthwhile to parse Rice’s explanation in further detail if it truly bore a connection to her decision to decline to prosecute, there is little to suggest that it’s anything more than an effort, in the face of public outrage, to re-spin the move..
And as to a prosecution “nett[ing] her zero jail time,” didn’t anybody tell Rice that Ndonye isn’t going to jail under her “deal”?
While it might be worthwhile to parse Rice’s explanation in further detail if it truly bore a connection to her decision to decline to prosecute, there is little to suggest that it’s anything more than an effort, in the face of public outrage, to re-spin the move..
“There is no doubt that this is not a politically popular decision,” said Rice.Every once in a while, the public will surprise a politician by recognizing their position as fundamentally irrational. It doesn’t happen often. The problem now is that Rice’s new strategy, that the courts couldn’t be trusted to be as tough on crime as she is, makes no more sense than not prosecuting an admitted false rape accuser because it would dissuade true rape victims from coming forward.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I found the line about the goal being for the woman to publicly admit guilt to be particularly odd. When you’re a DA, or a judge, or any other law type, when you want someone to “publicly admit guilt” in a way that has any kind of significance, even if its just political, or symbolic, you do it in court- an allocution, but to say hey, there’s been enough said at press conferences and whatnot, I’m satisfied is a) odd, and b) an abdication of the DA’s responsibility. For whatever reason, this reminds me of Rice’s conduct in the walmart stampede case where she shook down walmart for some dough or something, i.e., something not really inside the normal bounds of the court system and the prosecutor’s toolbox.
The notion that Rice understands more than Joy Watson about “modern prosecution” whatever that may be, is laughable.
I’m glad you brought up the Walmart stampede case, another instance where I believe Rice acted way beyond the appropriate scope of her authority. She apparently thinks quite highly of her ability to sentence, courts notwithstanding.
Sir, In her effort(s) to explain, she has backtracked & fell in it.
SNL will have fun with this.
Question regarding these examples; catch & release or catch & have mounted.
A (video) clearly depicts a female made a false rape accusation. Confronted with this info. victim is allowed to recant and all are released. Fire-storm follows…
Verses.
A (police report) depicts a robbery suspect described as; male, white w/ shoulder length straight black hair & no mustache. A person in the line up w/ over the collar wavy sun streaked brown hair with a mustache, is positively picked out. Confronted with obvious description discrepancy, should victim be allowed to change description to brown hair & charges be brought or release? Thanks for your in-put.
It is pretty apparent what type of person this prosecutor is, certainly not concerned with justice as so many claim to be. I just would like to know how those accused person fell about this and what about their rights? It is sad that our justice system has become a gaming field forgetting that people are behind those names.
From what I understand, they men are just happy to be out and no longer the worst human beings alive. Whether that will change over time has yet to be seen. I think some wanted the accuser prosecuted and one, at least, didn’t care.
Not to revive a dead thread, about a secondary topic within a post, but I was thinking about the walmart settlement- if its contrary to the ethics rules for a lawyer to send a letter saying, settle with my client, or we will go to the criminal authorities, why is it ok for a lawyer to do basically the same thing if that lawyer is the DA?
Was this girl admitted to Hofstra on her academic qualifications? If not, perhaps Hofstra needs to reconsider its admissions policy.
There’s no information to suggest that Ndonye wasn’t admitted to Hofstra based on her academic qualifications, and to even think otherwise is flagrantly racist.