Following his conviction for rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree, Harvey Weinstein will next face sentence, which potentially ranges from five years to 29 years in prison. There will be an appeal of the conviction, regardless of sentence, with substantial grounds, but that by no means assures reversal.
If the conviction is affirmed, and the sentence is either not appealed or affirmed as well, there stands a good chance that Harvey Weinstein will die in prison. And for good measure, he still has an open indictment in California, just in case. But while there’s empathy for killers, Weinstein remains the monster most hated, the embodiment of #MeToo outrage and a defendant for whom no woke tears are shed. Continue reading →
Despite concerted efforts from local news media, friends, family, and acquaintances, a Grove Park man refuses to freak out about the coronavirus illness sweeping the globe causing numerous cases of illness and death.
Nathan Schultz, 35, a father of two and graphics design artist, was quoted as saying, “I get it, people are worried about the coronavirus thing. I just don’t see a reason to freak out about it especially when I’ve got two clients who need their projects finished by the end of the week.”
When asked about the letters of concern from his children’s school about the coronavirus, Schultz said, “I get they’re worried. I’m glad they’re looking out for the kids. So am I, and right now my biggest worry is making sure my daughter makes basketball practice on time tonight.” Continue reading →
While we have yet to see whether coronavirus will be the end of the word, no big deal or something in between, Charlie Warzel sees an opportunity to put his “privilege” on display.
I’m a Times employee living in Montana and so social distancing is closer to the status quo for me than I care to admit. I work from home. I show my disheveled face in meetings via Zoom and Skype and Google Hangouts. I FaceTime my therapist who practices in New York City, where I used to live. I chat endlessly with co-workers, sources and friends via Slack and 49,000 other direct messaging channels. Recently, my partner and I calculated that we’d save on gym membership if we splurged upfront on a $2,245 Peloton. Hermit Tech has made my (definitely not typical) life wildly efficient. Thanks to technology, human contact has unexpectedly become a luxury I can choose to seek out. Continue reading →
Bill Lapinskas was remarkable in that he had the epiphany while he was still in a position to do something about it, and he did.
The Department of Corrections was not enthused.
Most of the time, the epiphany comes from the “formerly” folks, formerly a cop, formerly a senator, formerly a judge. But when they had the power to do something, they were company men through and through. Only afterward do they come out with passionate tears for all they’ve done wrong, when they no longer have any power or authority to actually do anything. And when doing so no longer involves any risk.
While the words are mostly familiar to those dedicated to criminal law reform, Lara Bazelon and Aya Gruber argue that they should be embraced by the many women who have taken up the cry of #MeToo as an “alternative to prison.” It’s time, they write, to consider “restorative justice.”
For decades, victims’ rights advocates, including many feminists, have stood behind the promise prosecutors routinely make to victims: We will absolve your pain by prosecuting your offender to the maximum possible extent. But for many, it is an empty promise. A vast majority of sexual assault cases never see the inside of a courtroom. Some victims, like Ms. Judd, seek restorative justice, a remedy intended to heal victims and prevent reoffending through accountability and restoration — not incarceration.
As the Supreme Court heard argument in an “abortion” case, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer whipped up the crowd of protesters outside with the words they so desperately wanted to hear.
Schumer can’t use the Trump defense of claiming total ignorance of how law and the Constitution work. He knows. He also can’t claim the brand of being a perpetual spewer of nonsense and idiocy when his team’s brand is to return the nation to normalcy, dignity and decency. He knows. And Chief Justice John Roberts knows he knows.
On the one hand, this statement evoked the usual tit-for-tat reaction from the useful idiots, ignoring that C.J. Roberts similarly criticized Trump for demeaning Judge Curiel in the early days of his administration, before it became clear that Trump’s rhetorical diarrhea meant this would become so regular phenomenon that addressing each impulse would be a full-time job. But that was Trump, a lost cause.
A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said the chief justice had engaged in a willful misrepresentation.
“Senator Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grass-roots movement on the issue of reproductive rights,” the spokesman, Justin Goodman, said in a statement.
“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes,” he said.
Had Justin argued that Schumer’s words poorly expressed his intended message, it would have still been incredible, but at least not Trumpian in the boldness of its lie and accusation. Instead, he attacked C.J. Roberts as a right wing tool who lied about Chuck’s words, even though they’re on video for all to see and hear.
This wasn’t Schumer’s way of trying to persuade Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh to be swayed by the power of the mob, by the threats of a senator (to do what?). This was Schumer doing the Trump, whipping up the crowd of no better grasp of the structure of government, of the nature of the Supreme Court, to believe that the Court is just another political branch of government to go in whatever direction the winds of outrage are blowing.
It’s not that anyone should be surprised that Chuck Schumer is a politician, is willing to pander to his tribe, to whip up a frenzy that he believes will work to his advantage, no matter how low he has to go to make it happen. Schumer has never met a microphone he didn’t love.
But just as pundits like Linda Greenhouse have been using their New York Times platform to delegitimize the Supreme Court in anticipation of rulings that don’t align with her feelings, the Senate Minority Leader has now joined her on the dais, taken charge of leading the chorus and, naming names and leveling threats of retaliation should they not rule as he demands, demeaned the office of Supreme Court justice to no better than any other political hack.
The judiciary is the “least dangerous branch” for a reason. The only tool it possesses, or weapon if you prefer a more violent metaphor, is its integrity. If the public accepts its rulings as legitimate, they are. If the public does not, our Republic is no longer viable, as our disputes will then only be resolved by the people with the most guns. It can’t be said with certainty, but Chuck being the senior Senator from New York, probably does not possess a gun.
On the ground, however, are the many unduly passionate believes whose emotions Chuck hopes to capture. Among them are law students, lawyers, for whom the issue of abortion, inter alia, is a hill they are willing to die on. And here, the Senate Minority Leader, a man who takes to the platform as the paragon of a party laying exclusive claim to morality and decency, tells them that these two despised justices will suffer should they not succumb to his, and his crowds, demands.
I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanagh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Is there anything Schumer could do about it? Sure, though it’s unlikely. But what seems eminently likely is that the young ideologues who have to come to believe that their feelings justify their actions, and that as long as they truly believe they are serving some higher cause, they can do no wrong, will be far less circumspect than Chuck Schumer. Will mobs show up at justice’s homes in the dark of night to protest? Will they surround a justice eating dinner in a restaurant? Will some unduly passionate law student take it upon himself to punch a justice who comes to judge moot court?
When you whip up the mob, and delegitimize the courts, you undermine the last remaining institution that grounds the continued existence of the Republic. No, the Supreme Court may not rule the way you believe it should. Indeed, it’s often ruled contrary to what I would want it to.
But I know what would happen without it, and as much as it may fall far short of the Court I would wish it to be, there is no doubt how much worse off we would be without it. I know. So too does Chuck Schumer. He knows.
I’ve just learned that my dear friend, and friend to SJ, Jim Tyre has died. I will post more information when it becomes available. Damn, he was one of the good guys.
Update: This from the EFF. A bit more about Jim, though not much more about his death yet.
Ed. Note: In light of the negative sentiment numerous high-profile criminal cases in recent history generated in both the public and members of the legal profession, Fault Lines alumni Mario Machado and Chris Seaton were tasked with debating the following: “Is the presumption of innocence a viable guiding principle or is it just a technical legal rule?” The following is Mario’s argument.
It’s 5:30 am, and you’re sound asleep, due to be up in about an hour for another hard day’s work, because you’re lucky enough to have a thriving business. Your beautiful wife lies next to you, and your three wonderful, intelligent kids are snoozing next door.
You had a few cocktails too many during the night prior, but it’s nothing you can’t get over after a greasy breakfast. Then comes the rudest awakening by knocking you’ve ever had. BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Continue reading →
Ed. Note: In light of the negative sentiment in numerous high-profile criminal cases in recent history generated by both the public and many members of the legal profession, Fault Lines alumni Mario Machado and Chris Seaton were tasked with debating the following: “Is the presumption of innocence a viable guiding principle or is it just a technical legal rule?” The following is Chris’s argument.
There’s a certain picture I have in my head of attorneys like myself who believe the presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system. It’s Eugene Young from David Kelley’s show, “The Practice,” delivering his “America defense” summation.
If you’ve never seen it, Eugene musters the fire of an evangelical minister at a tent revival as he addresses the jury with something resembling the following: Continue reading →
As Joe Otte made clear, the job of running a public defender’s office in Pennsylvania is fraught with collateral politics. The problem begins with the fact that funding for indigent defense comes from the county directly rather than the state, and so the hiring, firing and funding is more personal, and more directly felt by the local politicians and taxpayers.
Pennsylvania PDs know this, even if we don’t. They are well aware of who’s butt needs kissing if they want to hire more public defenders, or need new computers, or want to start a program for the good of mankind. Or just need to get along. This isn’t a good situation, but it’s what they have, and they know it.
For the chief public defender and second in command in Montgomery County, this became a problem. A huge problem. Continue reading →
