Thread by @shoshanaaufzien

If you're wondering how @Columbia and the @ManhattanDA fumbled this case so spectacularly, I read all 46 pages of Judge Lebovits's ruling so you don't have to.

It's worse than you think. Buckle up. 🧵 (1/19)

iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
@AGPamBondi @AAGDhillon @LeoTerrellDOJ x.com/CUJewsIsraelis…

Let's start with the facts: At least two individuals hid inside Hamilton Hall past closing. At 12:30 a.m. on April 30, 2024, they opened the front doors from the inside to let in 40-50 masked individuals. They smashed glass door panes, "spread out through Hamilton Hall, covered interior security cameras, and set up barricades," thereby obstructing every entrance/exit. (2/19)

The janitors trapped inside Hamilton Hall allege in a federal lawsuit (Torres v. Carlson, SD NY) that they were "assaulted and taunted by some of the occupiers as being 'Jew-lovers' and 'work[ing] for the Jews.'" They took extended leaves of absence "due to the effects of their experiences." The court noted these allegations and moved on. (3/19)

22 hours later, the NYPD cleared Hamilton and provided @Columbia with a list of everyone arrested. Columbia's Department of Public Safety used it to prepare an "Offense/Incident Report." This report was the sole evidence before the University Judicial Board that any of the 22 petitioners were present in Hamilton Hall during its occupation. No police officer testified at any hearing, nor did any independent university investigation identify individual occupiers. (4/19)

Bragg dropped all criminal charges in June 2024 under CPL 170.40, publicly citing a lack of evidence about individual conduct inside Hamilton, "due in part to their having worn masks and blocked security cameras." His office also told @Columbia that dismissal was "based, in part, on the Office's understanding that the students would be subject to Columbia's internal disciplinary proceedings."

The @ManhattanDA punted, mistakenly assuming Columbia would pick up his slack. (5/19)

Upon dismissal, the arrest records were automatically sealed by operation of law under CPL 160.50(1). The statute allows the DA to move at the time of dismissal to keep records unsealed if "the interests of justice" require it. @ManhattanDA did not make that motion, nor did @Columbia ask him to. Respondent's counsel confirmed both of these facts at oral argument. (6/19)

Columbia predicated its entire disciplinary case on the incident report derived from those now-sealed arrest records. The University Judicial Board found the 22 students responsible for 8 of 11 charged violations and imposed sanctions ranging from lengthy suspensions to expulsions to retroactive degree revocations. The UJB's own written determination stated that its finding of each petitioner's presence in Hamilton Hall "was based on" the incident report compiled using NYPD arrest information. (7/19)

Columbia tried to argue that the sealing statute only binds government agencies and that a private university can use sealed records freely. The Court of Appeals has said the sealing statutes aim "to preclude access by those, especially in government and bureaucracy, who might otherwise prejudicially use rightfully protected information," with "especially" indicating a primary rather than exclusive concern. Once sealed, nobody gets to use them. (8/19)

Under CPL 160.60, upon favorable termination "the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution." The Court of Appeals says the statute "clearly intends that the criminal action and proceedings be treated as if they never occurred."

Put simply: once charges are dismissed, the law nullifies the arrest. Columbia's entire disciplinary case rested on evidence of an event that legally didn't happen. (9/19)

And this is where it becomes truly absurd. The court notes that had @Columbia asked petitioners at their UJB hearings whether they had been arrested in Hamilton Hall, the students would have been legally entitled under CPL 160.60 to deny it. The First Department has held "that a trial witness who has secured a favorable termination of criminal charges may properly testify under oath that he was not arrested in the first place." (10/19)

Columbia argued the incident report was admissible because it wasn't a sealed record, just a private document that happened to contain information from sealed records. The court rejects this, citing the First Department's holding in Matter of Palacio that sealed information may not be incorporated into documents outside the scope of CPL 160.50. (11/19)

Columbia emphasized the timing of disclosure, claiming that because they received the arrest information before sealing occurred, they should be free to use it afterward. The court holds that the "relevant provisions of the statute are not primarily about the timing of the possession of the sealed arrest information but the use of the sealed arrest information." Pre-sealing receipt does not entitle post-sealing reliance. (12/19)

Even if the arrest evidence were admissible, most charges still fail on their merits. @Columbia's own revised Guidelines to the Rules of University Conduct, enacted by the University Senate in August 2024, provide that "individuals alleged to have violated the Rules shall be charged for their individual actions based on available evidence, not the actions taken by others in a larger group." (13/19)

The UJB tried to circumvent this by holding that "individuals who contributed their presence are responsible for the Rules violations that the group committed." The court calls this an impermissible reading that "renders meaningless" the Guidelines' requirement of individualized evidence. Columbia's counsel conceded at oral argument: "We don't know" what each petitioner "individually did inside the building… because they were wearing masks and they covered the cameras." (14/19)

The charges for endangering others, destroying property, and misappropriation all fail because the court finds no record evidence that any specific petitioner smashed windows, moved vending machines, assembled barricades, or detained janitors. Only the charges amounting to unauthorized presence in a closed building survive the sufficiency analysis, and even those depend entirely on the inadmissible sealed arrest evidence. (15/19)

You can't make this up: @Columbia's Rules Administrator initially included screenshots of petitioners' Criminal Court dockets in their investigative files, until a Columbia Law School professor wrote to warn that retaining those screenshots violated CPL 160.50. A professor had to tell the university's own disciplinary apparatus that it was breaking the law. (16/19)

That same professor wrote a four-page letter to the UJB three weeks before hearings began, warning that use of the incident report would violate CPL 160.50. The UJB used it anyway. The Appeals Board affirmed, specifically rejecting the argument that considering "certain public safety records" for "purposes of identification" was procedural error. The university president then denied discretionary review. Every level of @Columbia's internal process failed. (17/19)

The court vacates every sanction, every expulsion, every degree revocation, and remands for "further proceedings." Consider what that means practically: @Columbia now has to independently prove who was inside Hamilton Hall and what each individual did, nearly two years after the occupation, knowing the occupiers obscured their identities and destroyed security footage. Good luck. (18/19)

The court's own ruling confirms every failure was avoidable. One motion from @ManhattanDA would have kept the students' records unsealed. One phone call from @Columbia would have gotten him to file it. A police officer's testimony would have been admissible evidence. A law professor repeatedly warned the UJB that its key evidence was illegal.

Nobody cared. The students who occupied Hamilton Hall now walk free. The janitors they harassed are pursuing justice alone in federal court because no one else would. That is the legacy of Alvin Bragg and Columbia's gross negligence. (19/19)