New York Times coverage here
New York Daily coverage here.
Interestingly the DA’s have already admitted liability in the case, but argue that someone should have said something. Well guess what? They did---over and over. In fact—not only were the zealous defense lawyers repeatedly asking for dismissal in open court, some even filed written motions (complicated for reasons I can explain later). And what happened to the written motions?
The prosecutors opposed them, and (in at least one case I’m told) none other than Judge Ralph Fabrizio –the same judge who issued the outrageous decision I blogged about yesterday, DENIED a dismissal even though the motion cited the federal case that had held the statute unconstitutional.
Astonishing.
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available for Kindle and Ipad.
8 comments:
I guess the pic says it all for those on the left... some bum who won't work panhandling for "reparations." Was she a slave? No. Are her fellow New Yorkers responsible for slavery? No. Are other blacks resorting to this type of shakedown and moral blackmail? In vast numbers, no. She should be ashamed.
Have any conservatives demanded the removal of the activist judge who refused to dismiss the case despite binding precedent finding the statute unconstitutional? These judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it!
Thanks, Mr. defense attorney. We'll quote you on that next time you rely on some activist decision like, oh, Miranda or Gideon and cases like those.
Was it really binding precedent ?
Without going into federal courts theory, I seriously doubt that a decision of the SDNY binds a judge in the Manhattan Criminal Court. In fact, injunctions, if issued, are issued against the DA’s office. (So they may be in contempt of the SDNY.)
Same deal with 2d Circuit. It does not bind the New York Courts.
Unless the App. Div. or NY Coa said so, the judge wasn’t bound.
You really need to cite SPECIFICS to be credible. Just saying that a federal court did something doesn’t mean that a state court is not following precedent.
Um,
Not to be too quarrelsome but you are just wrong here. Indeed, the city and the DA's office have already admitted liability.
To the person above who said Miranda was an activist decision: I don’t think you read it. However, I chalk up your non-reading of cases you speak of to your culture. However, if you had read it and still disagree with it, you must understand that for better or worse, it is the law of the land, and it binds every court in the US. Unless and until the Supreme Court revisits Miranda (again), it is per se not “activist” and it is the law of the law.
Indefensible, you have still not cited the actual cases that bind the trial courts in New York city, so I don’t know if I can trust you or not. You said that the prosecutor “admitted liability” but you didn’t provide any specifics. They might have admitted that they, in fact, prosecuted people, in the face of, say, a habeas decision from the SDNY, but that doesn’t bind prosecutors, and it doesn’t really bind a state trial court. You would need a much higher showing for 1983 damages.
So, come on. Stop acting like a lay person. 1) Provide the cases; and 2) provide the text of this so-called admission.
Saying that I am wrong does not make you right.
Hey anonymous, I don’t want to break it to you, but like it or not Miranda IS the law. You might not like it. (I doubt that you have read it, or even know what it says.) Whatever the case it binds every judge in the country, so you need to deal with it.
No shit sherlock... of course Miranda is the "law of the land" but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bunch of Warren Court activist judicial legislating. Read the constitution. No mention in there of a duty to advise suspects of their "rights" much less the non existent, non-6th amendment "right" to have counsel present PRE-charge.
So yea.... read it, it sucks. When are we gonna rule ourselves instead of handing over our sovereignty to these robed wonders?
Post a Comment