THREAD: This is some of rhetoric that has ruled the day in the discovery debate - both of the very thoughtful #prosecutors quoted in the article are worried about whether witnesses will be chilled from reporting crimes... /1
... and cooperating w law enforcement if their names will be provided w/in 15 days. Hard to believe that anyone would casually dismiss that concern - even the defense advocates didn’t dismiss the concern *casually*. Yet Mr. Stengel says that their comments are “chilling.” /2
Here’s the Chief ADA from Manhattan (the former boss of Mr. @stengellaw): “Will witnesses want to come forward in the first place?” she said. “We hope it doesn’t deter victims and witnesses from coming forward and reporting a crime.” (From @janransom’s article) /3
She cited a case where providing discovery *directly* led to a witness refusing to testify. I’ll bet many of us might do the same, or our kids. /4
Here’s @DavidSoaresNY, DA of Albany County, a “progressive” elected with support from George Soros, who is president of the DA’s Association: “The only way we can get them to come forward is by promising them we won’t disclose their information until we absolutely have to.” /5
These shouldn’t be radical statements in a society that values public safety, much less “chilling,” as Mr. Stengel states. The truth is that NY *did* need discovery expansion. /6
BUT law that passed makes NY an outlier in its inflexibility. W/o many more prosecutors, I can’t imagine that they will have time to investigate crimes or prepare for trial. They’ll be spending time either producing discovery or drafting applications for protective orders. /7
Have their been abuses? Sure. That’s why we needed expansion of discovery. But the point by Mr. Soares and Ms. Agnifilo are spot on: this will deter people from cooperating out of fear, or just out of not wanting to be bothered. /8
If one wishes there to be fewer convictions, as many do, this will do the trick better than many things. There are lots of arguments to be made on the other side, to be sure. /9
But the attacks on the Albany DA and the Manhattan Chief ADA as saying “chilling” things because they are concerned about witnesses are outrageous and shouldn’t be countenanced. /10
For one view of the problems with NY’s new discovery law, here’s my op-ed from earlier this year. /11 nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…
But this topic is way more nuanced than the 700 words I got for the op-ed. Which is why the #NYS Justice Task Force spent 2 years reviewing it and issued thoughtful recommendations. /12 nyjusticetaskforce.com/recommendation…
The #NYS Legislature ignored the Justice Task Force, appointed by the progressive Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, in favor of the purely political decision to allow defense advocates to draft the bill and *barely* allow the state’s DAs to weigh in. /13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD in response to @alegalnerd: Where to begin? Since McCarthy is a smart commentator whose work I sometimes agree with, I'll start with the positive. he's right that in the old days when he was a fed, SDNY never liked letting the DA's office take "high-profile" cases.
2/ They usually won, but not always - see eg., the CBS Murders, Tyco, BCCI, & most of the bank cases that Morgenthau started and Vance increased. He's also right that fed law generally favors prosecutors more than NYS. In other words, federal prosecutions are *easier.*
3/ That's where we part ways. On some things, he's just factually wrong: (1) NY's broad double jeopardy is not "under New York’s constitution," as @AndrewCMcCarthy says, but it is a *statute*, NY CPL 40.20
Excellent thread, which adds a twist to the question that was being asked before the indictments: will the indictments cause the Trump Org to go under, and specifically, will its lenders demand immediate repayment of loans?
2/ I’m skeptical this indictment alone, particularly bc it doesn’t encompass the company’s core activities, would lead to that result (& it’s notably not an argument the Org’s lawyers have made publicly). If they’re performing, banks like $ & wouldn’t have huge incentive. But...
3/ Eichenwald reminds us that a key debt covenant relates to accurate books and records & that’s likely in the Org’s loan agreements. First step is for lenders to ask questions - if they find false entries, which it seems likely they will, the Org could be in jeopardy.
THREAD answering some questions about the #ManhattanDA race and recent controversy and sniping over candidate fundraising and suggestions in yesterday's @nytimes that @AlvinBraggNYC & @TaliFarhadian had created issues that Trump could exploit in any future prosecution.
2/ I've already analyzed the issue of Weinstein's interview for a judgeship with the White House counsel's office during Trump's first year in office and dismissed it as a non-issue.
3/ Worth noting that two law professors, @CBHessick and @jedshug agreed in excellent threads yesterday. Shugerman disclosed that he supports Weinstein's candidacy but Hessick (thread above) is not supporting anyone (nor am I, though I've expressed views).
Thread: Those who are writing that tax *avoidance* (the term @nytimes uses) is not a crime are exactly right - tax *evasion* is a crime, not "avoidance." But there is a lot here that with a proper investigation could lead to discovery of criminality. /1 nytimes.com/interactive/20…
This article contains what federal agents and prosecutors call "predication," which is the bare amount you need to open a criminal investigation. But who would investigate? The President himself oversees @IRS_CI and @FBI and @TheJusticeDept. /2
Luckily, regulations from 20 years ago provide for what happens when such a conflict of interest exists: the Attorney General "will appoint a Special Counsel." /3
This plan to combat violence from a #ManhattanDA candidate is notable for a few reasons. First, it is incredibly substantive for a political campaign - @TaliFarhadian has clearly thought about this crucial issue. /1
Second, it's a crucial issue and she is practically the *only* candidate who has a real plan - the sole exception being @LucyLangNYC, whose website reveals a five-point plan that is also quite thoughtful. /2 votelucylang.com/en/ending-gun-…
Not surprisingly, the candidates who haven't been prosecutors don't even mention the issue on their websites. @AlvinBraggNYC, who certainly has experience, devotes only a small section of his site to the issue, focusing (good) on trafficking and community anti-violence: /3
Forgive me for being a little late to the party at the end of a long day. I worked with and under @AWeissmann_ and appeared many times before Judge Gleeson, and I think your criticism is not completely correct. /1
You're right that Barr did not monkey with the sentencing rules - the guidelines calculation was correct - he just thought the sentence was too harsh. You're also spot on that if DOJ thinks 1001 GL are harsh, then examine this across the boars, and not only for DJT's buddies. /2
But I understand what Andrew was saying bc I was taught this way as well (including by him): he's talking about guidelines calculations and the obligation of AUSAs to make sure the court and probation are not misled as to the relevant facts and relevant conduct. /3