Monserrate Receives Bench Trial After Waiving Trial By Jury

by: robert.harding

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 13:53:54 PM EDT

Senator Hiram Monserrate made a surprise move today by waiving his right to a jury trial. Instead of facing 12 jurors, he will face judgment from the justice presiding over the case.

As is his right, Mr. Monserrate, 42, accused of slashing the face of his companion, Karla Giraldo, 30, with a broken glass in an argument at home last December, chose to be judged by Justice William M. Erlbaum of State Supreme Court in Queens, instead of a 12-member jury.

...

Earlier, in discussions in the judge's chambers with an assistant district attorney, Scott Kessler, Mr. Tacopina apologized to the court and said that a jury consultant and polls had convinced the defense that Mr. Monserrate could not get a fair trial before a jury anywhere in the state.

Protesters with signs demonstrated against Mr. Monserrate outside court Monday morning, comparing him to a rat, and Mr. Tacopina cited their presence as proof he could not get a fair jury trial.

"We want this case judged fairly and impartially," Mr. Tacopina said outside court. "Having all these potential jurors coming in seeing signs just ramps up the intensity. We want to take intensity out of the mix."

If convicted of a felony, Monserrate would have to give up his Senate seat, which throw the Senate into disarray until a replacement is named. (It actually might not be bad, given the time of year this is taking place.)

The decision to face the judge is peculiar. This is a judge who hasn't exactly been Monserrate's best friend and has ruled against him every step of the way. Also, 12 people gives you a better shot than does one. But maybe there is something else we don't know about this case.

On Death And Justice, Or, What If The Death Penalty Could Be Fair?

by: fake consultant

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:48:16 PM EDT

Staying in the majority, however, requires the assistance of centrist voters--and that means, from time to time, finding philosophical compromise with voters we'd like to keep "in the fold".

In years past, the issue of the death penalty has created a considerable chasm between Progressives and centrists; with the one side concerned about the misapplication of capital punishment, and the other convinced that, for the most heinous of crimes, the only way to achieve a truly just outcome is for the guilty party to face the most severe of punishments.

What if we could bridge that gap?

In today's discussion we propose to do exactly that: to create a death penalty process that only executes those who are truly guilty and excludes those who might not deserve to be put to death...in fact, those who might not be guilty of any crime at all.

Court: Collecting DNA with a Taser A-Okay

by: urizon

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:19:54 PM EDT

Republicans Spread Misinformation On Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms

by: robert.harding

Fri May 29, 2009 at 14:15:42 PM EDT

Now, Republican state senators are making sure that they spread misinformation so that they can reap the political benefits of that misinformation.

The Republicans are arguing that a provision in the deal that would allow those who complete a drug treatment program, such as a drug treatment court, alternatives to incarceration program or other non-prison-based treatment program, to have their drug conviction sealed so that they can re-enter society and obtain employment.

There are exceptions to that provision, however. The exceptions apply to all law enforcement purposes, background checks for police officers and those seeking a license to carry a firearm.

The goal of this provision wasn't to compromise public safety, as some Republicans would like you to believe. The goal of this provision was to allow those who successfully complete a drug treatment to have a chance at re-entering society and finding employment.

However, Republicans would make you believe that drug felons will be invading your schools and becoming teachers.

From The Buffalo News:

A group of Republican state lawmakers Thursday said they are unhappy about a new law that permits courts to seal the criminal records of certain drug felons so there will be no record of their conviction when the offender applies for a job.

"Cocaine dealers or crack heads could end up teaching your child at school, caring for your toddler at day care or attending to your sick grandmother in the nursing home as a result of this shocking new law that hides the past of criminals," said State Sen. Catharine M. Young, R-Olean.

When the Republicans are losing a battle, they resort to fear. That's exactly what they are doing here. The truth is that the Republicans are trying to benefit from the same idea that led to the creation of this legislation. Remember, it was Nelson Rockefeller who created these laws to try and make himself appear tough on crime and drugs at a time when he needed to show that he was conservative enough for the national stage.

Now, the GOP is trying to use public safety as a reason why we need to get rid of this provision.

While we all support public safety, the Republicans try to scare us into public safety. If doing it to protect our families isn't a good enough reason, they start to say things like "cocaine dealers or crack heads could end up teaching your child at school" or "caring for your toddler at day care or attending to your sick grandmother in the nursing home." If you have to scare someone to support your view, then you really have no real argument or view to begin with.

The reality is that this is nothing new. This provision has existed for some time, but it was previously handled by prosecutors, not judges. Now, thanks to the reforms passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor David Paterson, the power is put back where it belongs: In the judge's hands.

And to be clear: This provision will not apply to anyone who is sentenced to prison. Also, the provision doesn't mean that records will be automatically sealed. Again, that is up to the judge. Even if an individual successfully completes a drug treatment program, the judge will still have the authority regarding the sealing of their records. So if an individual successfully completes the program, a judge can still, thanks to these reforms, deny their sealing request.

As for the claim by Sen. Young that drug dealers would be allowed to teach in schools and work at day care facilities, I have never heard of a drug dealer who has gotten off easy. Dealing drugs is worse than just being found in possession of drugs. Having a drug addiction is a problem, but the people who feed that addiction are a bigger problem. You won't see any drug dealers teaching in schools because they are likely to receive prison time, meaning they won't have the option of a sealing request when their time comes.

The Republicans are grasping at straws here and will continue to argue (incorrectly) that this provision puts us in danger. Actually, the provision doesn't put us in danger. It provides a judge with more power and gives those who have committed minor drug offenses an option to turn their life around.

That is what these reforms are all about. The Republicans didn't support this from the beginning. So it's no surprise they are picking this provision to oppose now.

Looking At The Sotomayor Pick

by: robert.harding

Tue May 26, 2009 at 12:25:36 PM EDT

The nomination is a historic one. Sotomayor, if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, would become the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor would also become the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court, joining Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is currently serving, as the only other women to do so.

Sotomayor's resume is an impressive one. She is a 1979 graduate of Yale Law School and attended Princeton for her undergraduate studies. She started her career as a New York County Assistant District Attorney before going into private practice. She was then nominated to become a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush with a recommendation from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In 1998, after being appointed to the post by President Bill Clinton, Sotomayor started serving in her most recent post as a U.S. Appeals Court judge.

Sotomayor is considered a centrist, or as Jeffrey Toobin put it, "a voice like David Souter for moderate liberalism." While she has been considered a centrist, she has also been known to take liberal views on issues like the environment.

The last time she faced confirmation, Sotomayor was confirmed by a 67-29 vote. Some of the Republicans who supported her confirmation in 1998 are still in the Senate. Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar and Sen. Olympia Snowe are examples. Sen. Susan Collins was also around at that time and voted in favor of Sotomayor.

Not that a Supreme Court justice's confirmation is ever guaranteed, but based on Sotomayor's past performance, it will be tough to see a way that she does not get confirmed. With the Democrats nearing a 60 vote majority and with a handful of Republicans on her side, it looks like Sotomayor won't have too difficult a time getting confirmed.

Judge Makowski Resigns Amid Allegations Of Tampering

by: robert.harding

Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:45:11 AM EST

Makowski resigned from his seat after an investigation into tampering charges involving himself and an attorney.

From the Buffalo News:

State Supreme Court Justice Joseph G. Makowski resigned Friday in disgrace, and former prosecutor Anne E. Adams pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors for their roles in trying to clear her in a drunken-driving case.

"They tried to fix a case, and they got caught," District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said.

...

In his affidavit, Makowski stated he had been with Adams from 2 to 5 p. m. Sept. 2 on a professional basis. He then met with her from 5:30 to 7:15 p. m. in Shanghai Red's restaurant to talk about changes Adams was considering for a UB law school program.

While they were at the waterfront restaurant, Adams ordered two glasses of wine and a glass of water with lime, he stated.

Makowski also stated that nothing in her speech, gait or mannerisms had raised his concerns about her ability to drive that evening.

An eyewitness, however, told law enforcement officials that Adams was stumbling as she headed for her car and that the man with her was holding her to keep her from falling.

Also, Makowski said in his signed statement that, "After speaking with Ms. Adams for another five minutes, I told her I had to get on the Skyway to my mother's house. She told me she was heading to her home in Angola on the same route. I drove over the Skyway to South Buffalo with Ms. Adams' vehicle in my continuous presence."

But an eyewitness told authorities Makowski also got into Adams' car, and the two sat inside the car for about 20 minutes. Adams then pulled her convertible into another part of the Shanghai Red's restaurant parking lot, near the marina.

Makowski was trying to help Adams get out of drunk driving charges. His affidavit was found to be false when matched up with witness testimony of what actually happened.

NYCLU On Sentencing Commission Report

by: robert.harding

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:13:34 AM EST

The New York State Sentencing Commission released their report yesterday and it has already drawn criticism for not going far enough in drug law reform. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has a policy paper on the Rockefeller Drug Laws, said the Sentencing Commission's report did not go far enough.

But the NYCLU made a great argument in their response to the commission's report. In their response, the NYCLU calls for reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws and said that the commission's report fell short of making those reforms.

The New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform's final report, released today, falls short of Governor Paterson's call for a complete overhaul of the notorious Rockefeller Drug Laws.  

The New York Civil Liberties Union urges fundamental reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of illegal drugs. Intended to target major drug traffickers, the drug laws have instead caused the large-scale incarceration of low-level, nonviolent drug users. As noted in the Sentencing Commission's report, the laws have produced unconscionable racial disparities: Blacks and Hispanics comprise more than 90 percent of those currently incarcerated for drug felonies, though most people using illegal drugs are white.

"The State Sentencing Commission claims to embrace the principles of drug law reform, but its proposals just perpetuate the status quo. Sadly, the commission has squandered a historic opportunity to address this shameful blight on our criminal justice system," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "New York cannot correct its unjust, cruel and wasteful drug sentencing scheme without overhauling the laws that created it. We encourage Governor Paterson to improve on the commission's report by supporting reforms that provide true judicial discretion in drug sentencing, expand and fund alternative to incarceration programs, and provide long-sought justice to the thousands of families that have been torn apart by the Rockefeller Drug Laws."

The commission's report acknowledges that sentencing non-violent drug offenders to prison may be ineffective and counterproductive; but the report's proposals would preclude judges from considering alternatives to incarceration for thousands of individuals who would benefit from treatment and rehabilitation. Specifically, the committee's recommendations would:

·         Preclude youthful offenders with certain prior convictions from diversion to rehabilitation.

·         Require a "certification of addiction" procedure that will result in a complex and costly factual dispute that prosecutors will always be better armed to win.

·         Exclude from eligibility for diversion those who are not addicted but could nevertheless be better served by community based rehabilitation programs. Successful diversion models employed across the country and in New York State demonstrate that providing mental health, vocational and educational services offer the best outcomes.

The Rockefeller Drug Laws' mandatory minimum sentencing scheme compels judges to hand out fixed sentences regardless of the circumstances surrounding an individual's arrest. The criteria for guilt is not the offender's role in the drug transaction or whether the offender poses a genuine threat to others, but simply the quantity of drugs in his or her possession at the time of arrest. The discretion to impose sentences based upon the unique circumstances of each case and to divert nonviolent offenders into suitable alternative-to-incarceration programs should be returned to the judiciary in order to ensure fair and appropriate sentences.

Enacted in 1973, the Rockefeller Drug Laws were intended to target drug kingpins, but most of the people incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and many of them have no prior criminal record.

"The Rockefeller Drug Laws are destroying lives and wasting tax dollars, and have neither curbed drug use nor enhanced public safety," Lieberman said. "Unfortunately the Sentencing Commission's report will result in more of the same."

The Rockefeller drug laws are a top priority in the New York State Legislature. Governor David Paterson mentioned the laws in his State of the State Address when he said, "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller drug laws."

It is time for reform. The Rockefeller drug laws were created by Nelson Rockefeller who, in an attempt to come off as a hardliner on drugs, created stiff punishments for drug offenders. He did this so that he could woo members of the Republican Party. I think it's safe to say that it worked to his benefit, but it left New York with a huge mess.

It is time to clean up that mess and reform the Rockefeller drug laws.

NY-26: What Is Wrong About Today's Decision

by: robert.harding

Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 17:02:08 PM EDT

At the time, I saw a lot wrong with how easy it was for Fumerelle to get nominated and within moments, it seemed, Lee was able to get on the line.

Compare that with today's announcement that Jon Powers will remain on the Working Families Party line, robbing Kryzan of a minor party line of her own. By all accounts, Lee's awarding of the IP line went without incident. However, when the WFP line was going to be awarded to Kryzan, the Republicans decided to create a scene and challenge that.

Here are the facts:

(A) Jon Powers no longer lives in New York. The judge in this case admits that, but also contends that Powers living in Washington only means that he will not be in New York on Election Day. What? If a person no longer has a residency in New York, how can you make such a contention? It's not as if he had dual residencies. He's in D.C. now. That's where he is living.

(B) The judge also made this argument: "However, upon his nomination, he accepted the nomination. He did not decline the nomination, nor were there any challenges to his nomination." I believe the same could be said for Fumerelle, am I correct? Upon his nomination, he accepted the nomination. He did not decline it. The deal to get him off the ballot didn't take place until 16 days after Primary Day. So why doesn't the court review that as well?

(C) Bob McCarthy of the News says that this is a blow to Kryzan. I don't think it is. Late last month, Powers was only polling at five percent. I can't imagine he's polling any better now. In fact, I'm sure his numbers have dropped. Even with his name on the ballot, I can't see too many people voting for him. Unless, of course, they want to waste their vote.

(D) Lastly, this is what the Republicans wanted. Yes, Powers isn't polling well and will be a non-factor. But they know that people will vote for Powers. If the race is close, that could mean Powers serves as a spoiler, helping Lee. This decision only helps the GOP and Chris Lee. This decision does rob voters of the 26th district from having another line to support Alice Kryzan on.

This is an absurd decision and the rationale given by the judge for her decision boggles my mind. Nevertheless, we will push forward and I urge fellow citizens of the 26th district to vote for Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line. This is the kind of politics Tom Reynolds and Chris Lee adhere to. Let's keep Chris Lee away from Washington D.C. We don't need another Tom Reynolds. We need new, responsible leadership from a true progressive. That candidate is Alice Kryzan.

More Good News from Albany

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:06:19 PM EDT