Wednesday

Another Shameful Prosecution:

A man who served three-and-a-half years in prison on a conviction for illegally re-entering the United States was actually a citizen and never should have been deported in the first place.



In a case of mistaken status, Duarnis Perez faced a second deportation before the government told him he was in fact a U.S. citizen. Even after discovering his status, federal prosecutors fought to keep him in custody.

"In effect, the Government is arguing that an innocent man who was wrongly convicted should not be released from the custody of the United States,'' U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn wrote.

What asinine Assistant United States Attorney would make such an argument?

It's Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Lord a harvard law grad and Rhodes Scholar who by dint of such grotesque argument brings dishonor on both institutions. (That link is to her wedding announcement which detail her rather privileged background and her marriage to..you guessed it, another prosecutor.)

5 comments:

Tom McKenna said...

gotta agree with you on this one. I would like to hear what possible rationale the government could have produced for arguing for continued incarceration.

Not knowing this particular one, I can't say anything more about her, but in general, I don't think ivy league, ivory tower-types are the best prosecutors. It's unusual to see one who has enough common sense (as opposed to book learning) to do this job well. Why is it that feds hire those types in droves?

dtarrell said...

David, perhaps you've forgotten that AUSAs enjoy privileges akin to the divine right of kings. When Sonya Singleton dared to argue that the word "whoever" applied to AUSAs when a statute stated that "Whoever... promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath" the Tenth Circuit concluded that the law "does not apply to the United States or an [AUSA] functioning within the official scope of the office." the court went on to call this argument "absurd", reasoning that "the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words."

The Court did throw us lovers of equal protection a bone, however, stating that "while we agree with [defendant's premise that the govt is not above the law] we simply believe this particular statute does not exist for the government."

In other words, all pigs are equal but AUSAs are more equal than others.

No wonder they think ethical rules don't apply to them. They're not only the good guys, they're described as kings by an en banc panel of the Tenth Circuit. (U.S. v. Singleton, No. 97-3178)

(Now we know where the neocons got the idea for the unitary chief executive too.)

As Steve Earle says in "F. the C.C." "it just gets tougher every day, to sit around and watch it while it slips away..."

Anonymous said...

Surely, David, you must understand the prophylactic benefit of incarcerating those who might commit crime in the future. Indeed, after having committed no crime but spending three years in the pokey, this poor guy has been indoctrinated in the finer points of a justice system that makes little connection between conduct and consequence. His sense of right and wrong might be so scrambled that that he could be a danger because he might be pissed.

On the other hand, Mr. Perez might find some correlation between conduct and consequence. If so; he probably believes he has prepaid for a crime that is worth three years. Thus, if he is on the street he could be even more dangerous than somebody who is merely pissed at having been treated like crap.

If you are a prosecutor it must be great fun to screw people’s lives “just because you can.” That said, Ms. Lord probably decided to impress her Columbia educated hubbie with a gift of prosecutorial logic in the form of one of the above arguments.

Anyway, I am a bit surprised ay your query: “What asinine Assistant United States Attorney would make such an argument?” By now you should know that most Assistant United States Attorneys would make such an argument.

By the way, did you send a wedding gift? If not, it may be a little late. This happy couple appears to have tied the knot in '91. Of course, that means the lovely prosecutrix is no rookie. She has had plenty of time to hone her skills.

Indefensible said...

Thanks Tom and Dave!
And Annon just made me laugh out loud.
Thanks all!
D.

Anonymous said...

When will these professional persecutors be held accountable
for putting away innocent citizens with lies and omissions that destroys lives? It's official corruption at it's worst, plain and simple. Perhaps law students need a primer in the history of the Spanish Inquisition before they find themselves on the rack.
This woman should be disbarred.