THREAD re: Linda Fairstein. The outrage factory targets the former prosecutor who got rape corroboration repealed, worked to enact the rape shield law, spearheaded eliminating NYC's rape kit backlog, and spearheaded John Doe indictments of DNA profiles. /1 bit.ly/2ZfkmZj
Accepting that the five defendants in the Central Park Jogger case were wrongfully convicted - absolutely *awful* in itself - no one has come close to making the case that Linda Fairstein and Liz Lederer should be vilified the way they have been. /2
People fail to grasp that this awful fact is not evidence that either #prosecutor did anything wrong. I've said this before, but it's worth emphasizing: this is a criminal justice *system*, & it's designed to make it more likely that guilty are freed than innocent convicted. /3
But sometimes, the system fails - as all systems do. We can hope to learn from mistakes and failures, and do our best to avoid them in the future. /4
How do I know they handled the case reasonably? I don't have personal knowledge, but when @BilldeBlasio became Mayor, he made it a point to settle the civil lawsuit and asked his Corporation Counsel, Zachary Carter, to do so. /5
I respect the hell out of Carter (he hired me as a federal prosecutor), and I think most people do, including, notably, many progressives. Here's what Carter said about the prosecutors and detectives when the city announced the settlement: /6
"This agreement should not be construed as an acknowledgment that the convictions of these 5 plaintiffs were the result of law enforcement misconduct. On the contrary, our review of the record suggests that both the investigating detectives & the ADAs involved in the case... /7
... acted reasonably, given the circumstances with which they were confronted on April 19, 1989 and thereafter." /8 www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-…
So we have prosecutors who acted reasonably, and it looks like they got it wrong after new evidence came out later. That's *clearly* not misconduct, but more importantly, is that what we're doing now? Are we really taking 1 incident/case in a long career & writing people off? /9
Lederer has solved multiple cold cases and put away many murderers. Fairstein prosecuted hundreds of rapists, and supervised the prosecution of thousands more. They both, literally, saved lives. /10
And here's a fascinating part of this: the facts of the jogger case have been known for many years, and enormous amounts of evidence have been freely available on line since 2016. /11 nyc-cpj.org/Home/Disclaimer
But the outrage didn't really get going until a few days ago - when a *dramatization* of the case, from the point of view of the defendants, was released on @netflix. Once people saw that, they were off to the races. /12
Really? Are we not only vilifying people's entire careers, but also doing it based on depictions in drama? I haven't seen the full movie yet, but the director made it without speaking to Fairstein or Lederer. But again, I don't know the facts firsthand, so here's . . . /13
. . . info from Fairstein's lawyer, who told @WNYC that the mini-series "grossly misrepresented Linda’s participation, is filled with outright lies, [and is] missing large swaths of critical, actual facts, documents and testimony." /14 wnyc.org/story/public-a…
Again, I accept that they were wrongfully convicted, and want us to work so this never happens again. But we shouldn't become an angry mob based on what we see at the movies. Particularly when there's actual *evidence* to review. /15 nyc-cpj.org/Home/Disclaimer
The reporter (@MonicaHesse), catalogs her research into past positive articles written about Fairstein, claiming that she "brought a lot of swagger to her public persona." /17
I believe that treating #prosecutors as rock stars, or even mere celebrities, is a bad idea, and wrote just that last week in a different context. /18
But that doesn't mean Fairstein was wrong in accepting that celebrity; in fact, it helped her do genuine good in her victim advocacy efforts. /19
There are no winners here, least of all the men convicted. But shame on those who would define an extraordinary public service career by one unfortunate case. It's exactly the kind of unfairness no one would tolerate from - a #prosecutor. /End wnyc.org/story/public-a…
• • •
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