UPDATE: After calling out @NYPost on verifiably false reporting, reporter reached out. Cordial conversation. Sent detailed corrections. Part of me (the public defender, who asks for impossible & sometimes it works) believed hed retract & correct. He didn't. Thread of corrections:
@nypost NY Post: “A judge believes he found a loophole for state’s controversial new bail reform law & used it to send a serial burglar to jail.”
Truth: This so-called “loophole" is actually not one. It is a *key provision* of the new bail reform law. Also "person" not "serial burglar."
Truth: This so-called “loophole" is actually not one. It is a *key provision* of the new bail reform law. Also "person" not "serial burglar."
@nypost NY Post: “In a ruling published this week, a judge tapped a little-used 40-year-old statute that lets judges keep some persistent felony offenders behind bars."
Truth: The Judge didn’t “tap a little-used 40 y/o statute.” He applied the new bail reform law. He even said so!
Truth: The Judge didn’t “tap a little-used 40 y/o statute.” He applied the new bail reform law. He even said so!
@nypost Quote from the decision: “CPL § 530.60 remains largely intact, although the new bail law “provide[s] for a *broader basis* for revocation of a securing order” in cases of re-arrest while at liberty."
In other words, lawmakers kept the provision & updated it to be harsher.
In other words, lawmakers kept the provision & updated it to be harsher.
@nypost NY post: "Judge argued the 1981 law was not changed when state lawmakers made their reforms & should therefore still apply."
Truth: As noted above the law was changed by lawmakers, but only to provide for a “broader basis for revocation of” bail or release.
Retract or correct.
Truth: As noted above the law was changed by lawmakers, but only to provide for a “broader basis for revocation of” bail or release.
Retract or correct.
@nypost NY Post: "The unorthodox legal maneuver divided opinion among legal experts."
Truth: Judge applied a clearly written law as intended. Nothing at all “unorthodox" about it. In judge's words: “The plain language of [new bail law] answers that question rather straightforwardly.”
Truth: Judge applied a clearly written law as intended. Nothing at all “unorthodox" about it. In judge's words: “The plain language of [new bail law] answers that question rather straightforwardly.”
@nypost NY Post: "Judge is just the latest to try to find a way around the bail reform measures. Last month, a Nassau County Judge ordered accused serial bank robber Romell Nellis held on $10k cash bond—even though the charge was not bail-eligible under the new law."
Truth: Next tweet
Truth: Next tweet
@nypost This judge just applied the law as intended. The Nassau Judge willfully violated the law to jail someone on unaffordable bail that the law required he release. Said: “I don't want you walking around my neighborhood." Equating the two is false & misleading.
@nypost NY Post published a lie: “Bennett Gershman, a former Manhattan prosecutor said judge did 'right thing.' 'The judge rescued a very bad situation using this statute,' who added that state legislators overreached on the reform measure, exposing the system to “'embarrassing' lapses."
@nypost State lawmakers didn’t “overreach." Judge “didn’t rescue[] a very bad situation” using “this statute.” This implies judge used a different statute than New York Bail Reform law to take action. Lawmakers explicitly provided judicial discretion for this outcome. The judge used it.
