There’s a weird thing that goes through the heads of some defendants, where they start to believe their own malarkey. Like they’re innocent, when they’re guilty as sin, caught on video doing the dirty. It makes for some very weird discussions about the handling of their case. But regardless of outcome, the last thing you want to hear about is how innocent they were, and how they deserved the outcome as opposed to some damn fine lawyering that saved their very guilty butt.
Meek Mill has parlayed his profile as rapper into innocent spokesperson for the downtrodden in the system. While on probation in Philly, he came to New York City and pulled a wheelie on a dirt bike, which was put up on Instagram, because that’s what cool people do. He got pinched for reckless endangerment. His lawyer, Joe Tacopina, got him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which means that if he stays clean for six months, the case is dismissed. He was also sentenced to 30 hours of community service.
An ACD is a good disposition, and the subsequent dismissal of charges, essentially a second chance built into the law, let’s a person walk away from their offense. But it’s not innocence. It is specifically not a “disposition in favor of the accused,” so as to distinguish an ACD from innocence. It’s just a Mulligan, and Joe Tac did a good job getting an ACD for Mill. Mind you, Joe doesn’t come cheap.
But when Meek Mill decided to pop a wheelie on Tenth Avenue and Dykman Street, there were two things that should have gone through his head. First, he was on probation in Philly, and not committing new crimes is one of those conditions that isn’t hypertechnical, like missing curfew by a few minutes or failing to timely register a change of address, but pretty much a core requirement.
Second is that he was a famous rapper, which means that he wasn’t flying under the radar when he decided to behave poorly. Posting his recklessness on Instagram was tantamount to confessing to the crime. No, it wasn’t murder. Yes, it was reckless driving. This wasn’t the NYPD being mean, but just doing their job.
As a result,* Mill was violated on his Philly probation. The violation isn’t a huge surprise, given that the violation isn’t about the dismissal six months after he took the ACD, but about the crime he engaged in giving rise to the ACD. Still, the sentence imposed by Court of Common Pleas Judge Genece Brinkley, two to four years, was extremely harsh and contrary to the prosecution’s recommendation. It was still just a wheelie.
That Meek Mill came away from this experience with the desire to become a voice for crim law reform, particularly in the areas of probation and parole violations, is great. He’s a high profile guy and could bring some media attention to the issues. But then, his virtue was that he was a rapper, not a lawyer, not an innocent victim and certainly not someone remotely knowledgeable about law. Yet, there he was.
And then** there’s the op-ed.
Like many who are currently incarcerated, I was the victim of a miscarriage of justice — carried out by an untruthful officer, as determined by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, and an unfair judge.
The cop who arrested Mill in 2007 was, according to a source, on new Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner’s “do not call” list. There is nothing to suggest he was lying in Mill’s case. That he describes the judge as unfair is normal. Contrary to popular feminist belief, being whacked by a female judge feels no better than being whacked by a male judge.
My crime? Popping a wheelie on a motorcycle in Manhattan. Even though the charge was dismissed in a New York City court, a Philadelphia-based judge still deemed my interaction with the police to be a technical violation of my probation — stemming from a 2007 arrest — and sentenced me to two to four years in prison despite the fact that I didn’t commit a crime.
Two to four years was absurdly harsh, but “didn’t commit a crime”? Whoever wrote this for Mill should have shown a little more discretion, and perhaps some fealty to facts.
We all need to hold our lawmakers accountable for supporting unfair or inhumane policies and all practices that perpetuate injustice, especially for the blacks and Latinos who fall prey to them most frequently. The reality is African-Americans and Latinos who come from poverty-stricken neighborhoods are assigned public defenders too overburdened to do anything in most cases other than negotiate the most favorable plea deal, regardless of guilt or innocence.
Short on substance, long on condemning public defenders, who plead out the innocent. Should a guy who enjoyed the very expensive Joe Tac get to dunk on PDs? At least he acknowledged that they’re overburdened, though some PDs might take issue with the suggestion that the best they can do is facilitate the conviction of the innocent.
But Mill has decided not merely to indulge his own innocence, but has taken the mantle of reformer because popping wheelies and getting whacked for it makes him a reform expert.
Soon, some friends and I will be announcing a foundation dedicated to achieving real change. In the meantime, if you’re interested in joining us and lending your support to solving what is the moral crisis of our time, please visit www.reformnow.com and sign up.
Mill’s experience, apparently, is the “moral crisis of our time,” because these very real issues never happened until now, until they happened to him. There are, of course, serious people engaged in crim law reform, like Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which have the dedication, experience and sound knowledge of the problems, and who have been fighting this fight since Meek Mill was popping on a Big Wheel, but he’s going to start his own foundation rather than lend his fame to those who have demonstrated competence. It’s a “moral crisis,” suddenly.
Reforming the system is a good cause, and the fact that Meek Mill wants to help is a good thing. But Mill isn’t the poster boy for innocence, and isn’t equipped to lead the fight. That he seeks to contribute to a worthy cause is a wonderful thing, but he would be more useful if he stuck to reality, helped those capable of serious reform rather than pretend to have a clue, and, well, stayed in his lane while popping his wheelies. But then, everyone wants to be a star these days.
*Mill had another problem at the St. Louis Airport, the details of which suggest it too ended in his being given a break upon doing some community service.
**Somebody would have done well to inform Mill that there are white guys in prison too, and the problems of the system suck just as much for them as black guys, so that he didn’t say stuff like this.
.@MeekMill: “The plantation and the prison are actually no different. The past is the present. It ain’t no coincidence, this was the plan since abolition—to keep us subjugated by creating this system. … Now it’s our right to speak up.” https://t.co/tfWKX5cOty
— The Appeal (@theappeal) November 26, 2018
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

SHG,
The only way guilty federal defendants can get out of prison after being found guilty by plea or trial when their direct appeal fails is to file a section 2255 motion–the federal equivalent of a habeas corpus petition. Typically, those motions claim ineffective assistance of counsel and typically the “bad” lawyer was an Assistant Federal Public Defender or a lawyer from the CJA panel. Typically the lawyer did a great job with an impossible case.
For young lawyers who have busted their butts trying to get their plainly guilty clients the best outcome possible, the first section 2255 motion calling them ineffective rocks the youngster’s world. After I dismiss the section 2255 motion without a hearing because the files plainly show that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is horseshit I sometimes add a line.to give the young lawyer some comfort.
The line goes something like this: “No good deed goes unpunished.” Now that I think about it, that could be the mantra for CDLs.
All the best.
RGK
Having never had the experience of a client claiming ineffective assistance, whether on a state hab or a federal 2255, thank you for explaining how that happens. Oh wait, I have. In fact, I brought an IAC claim against myself, once. I lost. It sucks to lose.
SHG,
To coin a phrase, you are a “freak of nature.”
All the best.
RGK
Unlike some malcontents, I accept at least half your premise.
My favorite of the IAC claims against me was the one that got dismissed because “counsel won the case.”
Reminds me of the hand squeezing my arm during testimony, when the deft whispers “he’s lying,” and I turn to him and say, “but his lie is better for you than the truth.”
I once raised IAC on a lawyer for winning an appeal, the effect of which gave my client another chance to get a death sentence even though his first one had been commuted to life with parole in 1976.
You guessed it. He was convicted again and sentenced to death again.
He’s dead now.
“Mill’s experience, apparently, is the “moral crisis of our time,” because these very real issues never happened until now, until they happened to him. There are, of course, serious people engaged in crim law reform, like Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which have the dedication, experience and sound knowledge of the problems, and who have been fighting this fight since Meek Mill was popping on a Big Wheel, but he’s going to start his own foundation rather than lend his fame to those who have demonstrated competence. It’s a “moral crisis,” suddenly.”
Sure, but how much press coverage would Meek have gotten if he’d just starting supporting an actual foundation, instead of forming his own?
I suspect he’s got the juice to get some PR by supporting something real instead of making up the Kim Kardashian Foundation For Justice.
I like your conclusion:
“Reforming the system is a good cause, and the fact that Meek Mill wants to help is a good thing. But Mill isn’t the poster boy for innocence, and isn’t equipped to lead the fight.”
I don’t like you set-up.
You criticize Meeks’ poor grasp of the law and contestable (to say the least) version of the facts. And that criticism is fair enough. But you buried the lede:
“Still, the sentence imposed by Court of Common Pleas Judge Genece Brinkley, two to four years, was extremely harsh and contrary to the prosecution’s recommendation.”
That seems FAR more relevant information for why Meeks might legitimately feel unfairly treated by the criminal justice system.
Two replies come to mind. First, if you think the point should have been made differently, then you make it your way. Second, who cares?
Maybe I misunderstood your point.
I thought you were arguing that Mill was a poor choice to lead a reform effort because: (1) he doesn’t seem to understand important legal nuances; (2) he hasn’t presented his case honestly; and (3) his celebrity status means his interest in reform may be secondary to his interest in burnishing his own image.
Are you implying that, when it comes to criminal justice reform, Meek Mill is doing more harm than good? Do your concerns outweigh his ability to bring attention and resources to criminal justice reform efforts?
You understood the point of the post, but not the point of my reply to your comment. Not even a little bit.