The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Blue Ribbon Panel Delivers White Paper DA Asked For Findings Expose Worst-Case Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
A gesture by Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore more than six months ago, described by Jeffrey Deskovic as “almost unprecedented,” last Monday produced a 38-page report entitled Report on the Conviction of Jeffrey Deskovic. The report, generated
by a most distinguished panel of four, retired Judges Leslie Crocker Snyder and Peter J. McQuillan, together with former Richmond
DA William L. Murphy, and New York City Legal Aid Supervising Attorney Richard Joselson, pulls no punches despite having derived
its content from the cold record without benefit of live interviews.
For the most part, it fully corroborates what Mr. Deskovic and this column have shared with readers of The Guardian for many months now. Given that fact, it is not the intention of this column to regurgitate the contents of the report, but rather to place it into proper and meaningful context. It should be stated, up front, that Janet DiFiore’s commissioning of the investigation and report by such an eminently qualified panel, several weeks after the release of Jeffrey Deskovic from state prison, was highly commendable and clearly in the public interest.
She was, no doubt, fully cognizant that some of the most significant wrongdoing likely to be uncovered would involve former Assistant DA
George Bolen, and other ADAs as well as current Peekskill Police Chief Eugene Tumolo, and members of his department. After all, she worked side-by-side with Bolen for some twelve years, and was his boss for eight months, until his retirement last August, just weeks before Deskovic’s emergence from prison. With respect to Tumolo and the Peekskill Police Department, a law enforcement agency her office has daily dealings with, commissioning the report surely was no less uncomfortable.
Coming as it does, on the heels of the Duke University/Michael Nifong revelations, and a host of recent exonerations involving prosecutorial misconduct and police malfeasance in New York State, and across the nation, Report on the Conviction of Jeffrey Deskovic does not fall on deaf ears. Par-ticularly here in Westchester, jurisdiction of the grave injustice visited upon a vulnerable and innocent 16-year-old boy who would be made to spend the next sixteen years of his life behind bars as the result of the mindless and unconscionable abuse of power and public trust by a handful of self-serving adults, the lesson is all too compelling.
It is probably correct to state that the presentation of facts is more than ninety-five percent accurate, what few incorrect statements
there are having somehow worked their way into the record over the years. Nevertheless, despite their commendable faithfulness to the
facts, the panel members would seem to have gone out of their way to avoid specifically noting by name four major players in this most
sympathetic of American Judicial Tragedies; Jeanine Pirro, who, despite her present denials, repeatedly thwarted numerous attempts
by Mr. Deskovic to gain a comparison of the DNA which did not match his, with the State DNA Databank; Carl Vergari, elected District
Attorney at the time of Deskovic’s prosecution and conviction, who allowed ADA George Bolen the latitude to deliver a conviction
of a clearly innocent accused by whatever means necessary; Nicholas Colabella, the trial judge who had numerous opportunities
to prevent the tragic outcome that robbed sixteen years of liberty from a young innocent life.
The fourth unnamed wrongdoer was then-Assistant District Attorney Robert Neary, currently an appointed acting State Supreme Court
Judge, about whom Mr. Deskovic told The Guardian, “Without what he did, what happened to me might not have happened.” Deskovic explained, “He interfered with my right to counsel because once I had consulted with a lawyer, who advised me that he would inform the Peekskill Police, and they, in fact, stopped interrogating me, my indelible right to council had attached. However, when the attorney
was not retained, he called Mr. Neary to inform him he would not be the attorney representing me. And, Neary, in turn, told the Peekskill
Police that they could, again, interrogate me without counsel present.”
Unfortunately, it was this same sort of collegial courtesy displayed by the panel to Pirro, Vergari, Colabella and Neary that all too often contributes to the perpetuation of injustice within the justice system. Without needing to fully review the circumstances that led up to the
wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction of young Jeffrey Deskovic for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old female schoolmate, Angela
Correa, it is, however, necessary and constructive to note the key players whose misconduct contributed more to the tragic outcome than that of the others, if a clear and workable understanding of what actually occurred is to be teased from the facts. Without a doubt, Eugene Tumolo, former Detective Lieutenant, now Chief of the City of Peekskill Police Department, who choreographed and engineered the outrageously unconstitutional, and unlawful harassment, interrogation, manipulation, and arrest of Jeffrey Deskovic, a youth who he admittedly knew to be innocent by March 2, 1990, was one of two individuals most responsible for the pain and suffering inflicted.
Equally responsible, and as cruelly self-promotional, was Assistant District Attorney George Bolen, who maliciously rushed into the grand
jury on February 27, 1990, to get an indictment, knowing full well the DNA test results that would have defeated that indictment would be
announced within 72 hours. Then, having received those results he proceeded as if they did not exist. At trial, he would tell the jury that the
fact that the DNA found in the fifteen-year-old’s vagina and hairs found on her body did not match accused Jeffrey Deskovic, really didn’t matter because “she had had consensual sex earlier.”
How badly did Mr. Bolen need to convict a sixteen-year-old boy who he plainly knew to be innocent, that he would tell a jury, and all those in the courtroom, including poor Angela Correa’s parents and sister, that it didn’t matter that the Defendant’s DNA didn’t match that found in the vaginal cavity of her limp body because she had had prior unprotected sex with another? On this score, the panel was not imaginative enough, unfortunately working only with the cold record, to realize why clothing exhibits disappeared from the courtroom in the middle of the trial, never to be seen again.
We are told there were issues regarding the pull-over-type sports bra the young victim was wearing, in that it would not have lent itself to
the kind of violent removal by the Defendant that the Prosecution had theorized to the jury. The jury had, in fact, realized that and had called for an examination of the bra during their deliberations, but were compelled to settle for a mere photo of the bra because somehow, mysteriously, the District Attorney’s Exhibit Bag containing all of the clothing found on, and near, the body of Angela Correa, had disappeared. The point missed by the panel, however, involved the victim’s panties.
Mr. Bolen realized he needed to make her clothing disappear once he told the jury that she had had unprotected consensual sex prior to her rape and murder, because if, indeed, she had had such an encounter with someone else prior to the incident, and the semen found in her vagina was not the Defendant’s - and it was not - then clearly there should have been some residue in her panties. Otherwise, the semen found in her vagina must have come from the rapist, and it didn’t match Jeffrey Deskovic’s DNA!
Of course, in fairness to the panel that did a wonderful job; they were not re-trying the case. However, the outrageous disappearance of key evidence, coupled with the willingness by Prosecutor Bolen to do whatever it would take, no matter how unlawful, to obtain a conviction, is what must be learned and fully understood by legislators and concerned citizens everywhere. Mr. Bolen’s conduct was not atypical of him, as those who have observed him over the years, are well aware. Nor was it atypical of the conduct of any number of other ADAs who have worked in the Westchester District Attorney’s Office over many years.
If anything meaningful, and promising can truly be taken from this report, thoughtfully, and bravely, commissioned by DA Janet DiFiore, it
is the fact that there is a compelling need for legislation, both state and federal, to make the kind of prosecutorial misconduct and police malfeasance, exposed in its pages, punishable by financial and incarcerative penalties severe enough to dissuade even the most ambitious self-serving prosecutor, or police officer.
Jeffrey Deskovic has been exonerated, as have more than two hundred innocent individuals rescued by the Innocence Project alone. The sad
truth is that there are literally thousands of innocent persons languishing in prisons across this nation, put there by misguided, self-serving police officers and prosecutors. As tragic as that reality is, we must not forget, as was the case with Mr. Deskovic, having intentionally put the wrong person, an innocent person into prison, the actual rapist and murderer was left free in the community to strike again, and strike he did.
Little more than three years after the wrong man was sent to prison for his crimes, Steven Cunningham, a violent crack-addicted menace to
society, once again struck in Peekskill, murdering Pat Morrison, sister of his girlfriend, under circumstances similar to Angela Correa’s murder. Neither Bolen, nor Tumolo, apparently ever gave thought to Jeffrey Deskovic who would remain in prison for another dozen years.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Our Readers Respond...
Mother Sympathizes with “Deepest Hearts”
Dear Editor:
With regard to “Deepest Pockets Win Over Deepest Hearts,” I have heard this to be very true of that particular judge and I have heard it to be true of “witch hunter” Theresa Malach. What can be done over such a misuse of justice? How can a mother who was left to raise her children lose to the very parent that abandoned them?
One would never think this could happen in today’s times. This has a flavor of Salem, Massachusetts, and burning at the stake. If this happened to her, it can happen to any other mother who has little funds to defend herself. Shame on you, Westchester. I hope there is someone who can help this mother. I can only offer my prayers and the hope that justice will be served.
Another Mother
Concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction
Dear Editor:
The “weapons of mass destruction” justification for invading Iraq is not only, as Polvere notes, “distortion, fiction, and…deceit.” It is also hypocritical. Yes, Saddam Hussein probably dreamed of having and supported work on developing weapons of mass destruction.
But was he the only bad dictator to be doing so? Was he the only ruler on unfriendly terms with the U.S. to do so? Was Iraq closer to achieving WMD than a lot of other countries? Are all countries whose governments dream of and work to achieve WMD dictatorships? Are all countries whose governments dream of and work to achieve WMD on unfriendly terms with the U.S.?
Which countries are closest to achieving WMD? If some are currently friendly with or compliant to the U.S., what are their prospects for staying so? Was not using the WMD pretext for invading Iraq applying a double standard?
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mount Kisco
Judges and Attorney’s Should Know Better
Dear Editor:
“The judiciary would be bringing a frivolous lawsuit if it takes political leaders to court to demand a raise for the state’s 1200 judges,” said Governor Eliot Spitzer in response to Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s strategy for securing bigger paychecks for New York’s judiciary. “Judges should know better than to sue for a raise.” Judge Kaye said she’ll also consider taking administrative action if the state comptroller and attorney general say she has the authority to do so.
Never mind that the Bench, having failed to rally enough support among members of the Bar, sought the clout of the business community to lobby the New York State Legislature for more compensation. New York City Corporation Counsel, Michael A. Cardozo, said judges and lawyers carry only so much clout in Albany on the pay issue because, “past a point, decision-makers can dismiss their concerns by saying, ‘Oh, they’re just looking out for their own.’ ”
The Albany-based Business Council of New York State, Inc., the corporate lobbying group at the state capital that best positions its economic issues stated, “ is is not an issue our members asked to make a priority.” What can a raise-hungry judiciary do?
Business corporations, like the legal/professional sector, have moved in the latter half of the twentieth century from pay raises based on New Deal-era-like protections for the workforce, to a performance-based pay, according to a recent report by W. Bentley MacLeod, an economics professor at Columbia University. As companies began using information technology to determine more accurately the contributions of individual employees and law firm partners and associates, employers and law firm executive committees began to “discriminate among employees and lawyers based on performance.
No longer are people with different abilities and capabilities paid the same amount for doing similar jobs. The fact is, more Americans are paid less on the basis of a job title and more on their individual output.” Greater management and technical skills proven in the corporate
marketplace like finer legal skills and ‘rainmaking generation’ in the law field yield greater earning power. Due to a shifting economic and political environment, even judges have to prove a competency and productivity on their job.
Control of the legal system is not free from judicial intervention as if the law itself were acting, unhampered and unburdened by strong-arm action of court governance; oversight of the process in New York State Courts has been labeled an “inappropriate intrusion” of the judiciary’s internal governance by former Administrative Judge, Jonathan Lippman. Judicial performance has indeed been productive, not in problem solving or administration of fair and expedient justice, but rather as a lucrative, case-churning machine for law guardians in custody matters, legal counsel in divorce litigation, and the myriad of tangential performers in New York State’s Family and Supreme Courts. Forensic psychologists and forensic accountants whose investigations and reports are, with alarming frequency, dismissed as unreliable, immaterial, and unenforceable; but only after their fees have been summed and paid are a good example of this phenomenon. This is not the “generating performance” that W. Bentley MacLeod had in mind; performance of the “job” fits the bill.
Acknowledging the work of the 1995 Committee to Examine Lawyer Conduct in Matrimonial Actions, the Matrimonial Commission in
February 2006 addressed the pervasive, persistent shortcomings in New York State’s Divorce Courts. The Commission urged for greater
accountability for professionalism and civility among members of the Bar practicing in these matrimonial parts. Adherence to promulgated
rules and zealous attention to client’s aims and interest is the touchstone for attorney performance whether it be for the child custody client or the litigating client spouse in a divorce action. The high stakes for the parent and spouse in these railroaded cases has been repeatedly addressed by various writers to The Westchester Guardian. ‘Deepest Heart’, Margarita Walter, Bill G., and Debra Weissman, tellingly depicted the lack of fairness, accountability, and transparency in the courtrooms at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Judges
and attorneys were named.
Transparency of a fair process is not meted behind the closed doors of “attorney-only conferences” of Bill G., “lack of credible evidence” in the case of Margarita Walter, the “case-fixing” of an Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters, Judge Jacqueline Silbermann, in the Debra Weissman divorce matter, and lack of judicial consistency in the custodial matter of ‘Deepest Heart’. Last time one looked, the transparency and accountability and productivity of this New York State Court’s judiciary was behind thick, slick, opaque and shut doors, not glass ones open to public scrutiny.
Pay judges and attorneys for doing their job? Sure! But only if, and when, “the job” is performed. So many are still waiting.
Name Withheld
In Our Opinion...
Justice Department Must Revisit Yonkers For Upcoming Mayor’s Race
Now that Phil Amicone, Mayor of Yonkers, has seen fit to pull Guilio Cavallo, as well as Nick Spano, and his mob, into City Government and the election process, one thing is certain; federal monitors and marshals will absolutely be needed to keep the outcome of the mayoral contest honest. There is no dispute regarding the shameful fact that Westchester’s county-wide, municipal, legislative, and judicial contests have frequently been fixed, altered, and/or otherwise defrauded over the past several years.
For example, in 2004, incumbent 35th District State Senator Nicholas Spano was actually defeated by then-County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins by some 350 votes. Nevertheless, the combined effort and conspiracy involving Appellate Division Judge Robert Spolzino,
Nassau Supreme Court Justice Warshawsky, DA Jeanine Pirro, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Election Commissioners Reggie LaFayette and Carolee Sunderland, the County Executive’s Office, particularly Larry Schwartz, and Nick Spano’s legal team of John Ciampoli, David Lewis, and admitted election fraudster Anthony Mangone, as well as three so called “good men” from the County Police Department (by no means the complete list), managed, over three months, to “wrestle” victory by 18 votes for Nicky from the jaws of defeat.
No reasonable observer of Andrea’s victory in 2006 can deny the importance the Justice Department’s presence and oversight played in bringing about that outcome. In 2005 the race for District Attorney between Tony Castro and Janet DiFiore produced, to be polite, very unusual voting patterns in several dozen election districts in Yonkers, not to mention a call from the Republican candidate, DiFiore, three days before the election, to have the machines impounded, a highly unusual and improper request, nevertheless granted by Chief Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai. Some three hundred machines from the City of Yonkers’ election districts were all stored in the usual warehouse facility on Saw Mill River Road in Yonkers, and “guarded” by Yonkers Police, a department that had endorsed DiFiore.
Castro’s first run for District Attorney, in 2001, against Jeanine Pirro, was the county-wide election, that complicit media for years thereafter would refer to as the “Non-Aggression Pact.” That race was flat-out fixed to return all of the incumbents - County Executive Andy Spano, DA Jeanine Pirro, and County Clerk, Len Spano - to office. The fix was arranged by Larry Schwartz, for Andy; David Hebert for Jeanine; and Nick Spano for his father Len.
Fallout from that charade continues to rain down on Westchester. Larry Horowitz, compelled recently to step down from his Supreme Court position for inappropriate conduct, in fact, was appointed to a County Court judgeship in 2002 from which to run for the Supremes,
in return for having agreed to be a “stand-in” Republican mannequin in the race for County Executive against Andy Spano.
In that same county-wide election, let us not forget Democrat Lisa Copeland, appointed City Clerk of Mount Vernon, who eagerly agreed to replace Bill Giacomo, who had been nominated by the County Democratic Committee to run for County Clerk against Len Spano. Larry Schwartz, mindful of his commitments to Jeanine Pirro and Len Spano, decided that a ticket of Andy Spano, Tony Castro, and Bill Giacomo, might just be too strong, and the Democrats could sweep. Naturally, putting up Lisa Copeland, a Black woman, virtually unknown throughout the County, and pulling down Bill Giacomo, was just the move that would assure the success of Schwartz’ diabolical election scheme. Interestingly, Giacomo was also promised a Supreme Court nomination for cooperating and accepting the embarrassment of removal, at the last minute, from the ticket. However, unlike the Horowitz Affair, for more than two years Larry Schwartz was not willing to honor his agreement, and, ultimately, it took the persistent efforts of Tony Castro, who virtually took him everywhere, to elect Giacomo.
Such has been the sordid tale of recent elections in Westchester, and particularly in the City of Yonkers. Given that history, We believe that the race for Mayor of Yonkers, pitting incumbent Republican Phil Amicone, and every undesirable political creature he can muster, against Independent Nader Sayegh, and Democrat Dennis Robertson, is a contest that will require the utmost attention of the Voters’ Rights Division of the Justice Department, and the provision of sufficient observers and enforcement personnel to protect the integrity of the outcome.
Mother Sympathizes with “Deepest Hearts”
Dear Editor:
With regard to “Deepest Pockets Win Over Deepest Hearts,” I have heard this to be very true of that particular judge and I have heard it to be true of “witch hunter” Theresa Malach. What can be done over such a misuse of justice? How can a mother who was left to raise her children lose to the very parent that abandoned them?
One would never think this could happen in today’s times. This has a flavor of Salem, Massachusetts, and burning at the stake. If this happened to her, it can happen to any other mother who has little funds to defend herself. Shame on you, Westchester. I hope there is someone who can help this mother. I can only offer my prayers and the hope that justice will be served.
Another Mother
Concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction
Dear Editor:
The “weapons of mass destruction” justification for invading Iraq is not only, as Polvere notes, “distortion, fiction, and…deceit.” It is also hypocritical. Yes, Saddam Hussein probably dreamed of having and supported work on developing weapons of mass destruction.
But was he the only bad dictator to be doing so? Was he the only ruler on unfriendly terms with the U.S. to do so? Was Iraq closer to achieving WMD than a lot of other countries? Are all countries whose governments dream of and work to achieve WMD dictatorships? Are all countries whose governments dream of and work to achieve WMD on unfriendly terms with the U.S.?
Which countries are closest to achieving WMD? If some are currently friendly with or compliant to the U.S., what are their prospects for staying so? Was not using the WMD pretext for invading Iraq applying a double standard?
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mount Kisco
Judges and Attorney’s Should Know Better
Dear Editor:
“The judiciary would be bringing a frivolous lawsuit if it takes political leaders to court to demand a raise for the state’s 1200 judges,” said Governor Eliot Spitzer in response to Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s strategy for securing bigger paychecks for New York’s judiciary. “Judges should know better than to sue for a raise.” Judge Kaye said she’ll also consider taking administrative action if the state comptroller and attorney general say she has the authority to do so.
Never mind that the Bench, having failed to rally enough support among members of the Bar, sought the clout of the business community to lobby the New York State Legislature for more compensation. New York City Corporation Counsel, Michael A. Cardozo, said judges and lawyers carry only so much clout in Albany on the pay issue because, “past a point, decision-makers can dismiss their concerns by saying, ‘Oh, they’re just looking out for their own.’ ”
The Albany-based Business Council of New York State, Inc., the corporate lobbying group at the state capital that best positions its economic issues stated, “ is is not an issue our members asked to make a priority.” What can a raise-hungry judiciary do?
Business corporations, like the legal/professional sector, have moved in the latter half of the twentieth century from pay raises based on New Deal-era-like protections for the workforce, to a performance-based pay, according to a recent report by W. Bentley MacLeod, an economics professor at Columbia University. As companies began using information technology to determine more accurately the contributions of individual employees and law firm partners and associates, employers and law firm executive committees began to “discriminate among employees and lawyers based on performance.
No longer are people with different abilities and capabilities paid the same amount for doing similar jobs. The fact is, more Americans are paid less on the basis of a job title and more on their individual output.” Greater management and technical skills proven in the corporate
marketplace like finer legal skills and ‘rainmaking generation’ in the law field yield greater earning power. Due to a shifting economic and political environment, even judges have to prove a competency and productivity on their job.
Control of the legal system is not free from judicial intervention as if the law itself were acting, unhampered and unburdened by strong-arm action of court governance; oversight of the process in New York State Courts has been labeled an “inappropriate intrusion” of the judiciary’s internal governance by former Administrative Judge, Jonathan Lippman. Judicial performance has indeed been productive, not in problem solving or administration of fair and expedient justice, but rather as a lucrative, case-churning machine for law guardians in custody matters, legal counsel in divorce litigation, and the myriad of tangential performers in New York State’s Family and Supreme Courts. Forensic psychologists and forensic accountants whose investigations and reports are, with alarming frequency, dismissed as unreliable, immaterial, and unenforceable; but only after their fees have been summed and paid are a good example of this phenomenon. This is not the “generating performance” that W. Bentley MacLeod had in mind; performance of the “job” fits the bill.
Acknowledging the work of the 1995 Committee to Examine Lawyer Conduct in Matrimonial Actions, the Matrimonial Commission in
February 2006 addressed the pervasive, persistent shortcomings in New York State’s Divorce Courts. The Commission urged for greater
accountability for professionalism and civility among members of the Bar practicing in these matrimonial parts. Adherence to promulgated
rules and zealous attention to client’s aims and interest is the touchstone for attorney performance whether it be for the child custody client or the litigating client spouse in a divorce action. The high stakes for the parent and spouse in these railroaded cases has been repeatedly addressed by various writers to The Westchester Guardian. ‘Deepest Heart’, Margarita Walter, Bill G., and Debra Weissman, tellingly depicted the lack of fairness, accountability, and transparency in the courtrooms at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Judges
and attorneys were named.
Transparency of a fair process is not meted behind the closed doors of “attorney-only conferences” of Bill G., “lack of credible evidence” in the case of Margarita Walter, the “case-fixing” of an Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters, Judge Jacqueline Silbermann, in the Debra Weissman divorce matter, and lack of judicial consistency in the custodial matter of ‘Deepest Heart’. Last time one looked, the transparency and accountability and productivity of this New York State Court’s judiciary was behind thick, slick, opaque and shut doors, not glass ones open to public scrutiny.
Pay judges and attorneys for doing their job? Sure! But only if, and when, “the job” is performed. So many are still waiting.
Name Withheld
In Our Opinion...
Justice Department Must Revisit Yonkers For Upcoming Mayor’s Race
Now that Phil Amicone, Mayor of Yonkers, has seen fit to pull Guilio Cavallo, as well as Nick Spano, and his mob, into City Government and the election process, one thing is certain; federal monitors and marshals will absolutely be needed to keep the outcome of the mayoral contest honest. There is no dispute regarding the shameful fact that Westchester’s county-wide, municipal, legislative, and judicial contests have frequently been fixed, altered, and/or otherwise defrauded over the past several years.
For example, in 2004, incumbent 35th District State Senator Nicholas Spano was actually defeated by then-County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins by some 350 votes. Nevertheless, the combined effort and conspiracy involving Appellate Division Judge Robert Spolzino,
Nassau Supreme Court Justice Warshawsky, DA Jeanine Pirro, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Election Commissioners Reggie LaFayette and Carolee Sunderland, the County Executive’s Office, particularly Larry Schwartz, and Nick Spano’s legal team of John Ciampoli, David Lewis, and admitted election fraudster Anthony Mangone, as well as three so called “good men” from the County Police Department (by no means the complete list), managed, over three months, to “wrestle” victory by 18 votes for Nicky from the jaws of defeat.
No reasonable observer of Andrea’s victory in 2006 can deny the importance the Justice Department’s presence and oversight played in bringing about that outcome. In 2005 the race for District Attorney between Tony Castro and Janet DiFiore produced, to be polite, very unusual voting patterns in several dozen election districts in Yonkers, not to mention a call from the Republican candidate, DiFiore, three days before the election, to have the machines impounded, a highly unusual and improper request, nevertheless granted by Chief Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai. Some three hundred machines from the City of Yonkers’ election districts were all stored in the usual warehouse facility on Saw Mill River Road in Yonkers, and “guarded” by Yonkers Police, a department that had endorsed DiFiore.
Castro’s first run for District Attorney, in 2001, against Jeanine Pirro, was the county-wide election, that complicit media for years thereafter would refer to as the “Non-Aggression Pact.” That race was flat-out fixed to return all of the incumbents - County Executive Andy Spano, DA Jeanine Pirro, and County Clerk, Len Spano - to office. The fix was arranged by Larry Schwartz, for Andy; David Hebert for Jeanine; and Nick Spano for his father Len.
Fallout from that charade continues to rain down on Westchester. Larry Horowitz, compelled recently to step down from his Supreme Court position for inappropriate conduct, in fact, was appointed to a County Court judgeship in 2002 from which to run for the Supremes,
in return for having agreed to be a “stand-in” Republican mannequin in the race for County Executive against Andy Spano.
In that same county-wide election, let us not forget Democrat Lisa Copeland, appointed City Clerk of Mount Vernon, who eagerly agreed to replace Bill Giacomo, who had been nominated by the County Democratic Committee to run for County Clerk against Len Spano. Larry Schwartz, mindful of his commitments to Jeanine Pirro and Len Spano, decided that a ticket of Andy Spano, Tony Castro, and Bill Giacomo, might just be too strong, and the Democrats could sweep. Naturally, putting up Lisa Copeland, a Black woman, virtually unknown throughout the County, and pulling down Bill Giacomo, was just the move that would assure the success of Schwartz’ diabolical election scheme. Interestingly, Giacomo was also promised a Supreme Court nomination for cooperating and accepting the embarrassment of removal, at the last minute, from the ticket. However, unlike the Horowitz Affair, for more than two years Larry Schwartz was not willing to honor his agreement, and, ultimately, it took the persistent efforts of Tony Castro, who virtually took him everywhere, to elect Giacomo.
Such has been the sordid tale of recent elections in Westchester, and particularly in the City of Yonkers. Given that history, We believe that the race for Mayor of Yonkers, pitting incumbent Republican Phil Amicone, and every undesirable political creature he can muster, against Independent Nader Sayegh, and Democrat Dennis Robertson, is a contest that will require the utmost attention of the Voters’ Rights Division of the Justice Department, and the provision of sufficient observers and enforcement personnel to protect the integrity of the outcome.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Up-Coming Nominations For State Supreme Court: A Good Test Of Westchester County Republican Party’s Credibility
The resignation of Republican State Supreme Court Justice Larry Horowitz, under a cloud of judicial misconduct, within the last several
days, brings to three the number of Supreme Court Seats to be contested in the up-coming races in the Ninth Judicial District. That advent
now sets up an excellent opportunity for the Westchester Republican Committee to demonstrate that it is capable of being taken seriously
by separating itself from the corrupt nominating practices of the past that visited upon their constituents such inferior and undeserving jurists as Horowitz and Joseph Alessandro, both products of scandalous fixed election deals.
Particularly, given the ‘changing of the guard’, with the stepping down of Rosemarie Panio, the opportunity exists to breath integrity,
indeed, new life into the Republican Party by rejecting the ways of the past; the anointing of totally inappropriate and inexperienced
political hacks with judicial nominations. What good purpose, after all, was served when Larry Horowitz, having agreed to stand-in as
a Republican “faker” against Andy Spano for County Executive in 2001, was then rewarded with an appointment to the County Court so
that he might then run, with robes on, for State Supreme Court?
If Doug Colety is foolish enough to ignore the ever-increasing public outcry over rampant judicial misconduct, particularly in Westchester State Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part, not to mention ongoing federal scrutiny of the Criminal Part, and fails to propose candidates for nomination who possess both the experience and temperament to perform competently and fairly, his party will surely pay the price at
the polls.
Two of the seats that will be contested come from Rockland Judges William Sherwood, who has announced his intention to seek another four-teen year term, and Alfred Weiner who has reached the mandatory retirement age. The third seat, however, is the one vacated by Larry Horowitz. That seat offers the Westchester Republican Committee a wonderful opportunity to redeem itself by not nominating another politically-connected “Horror Show.” What is called for is a Republican County Court Judge with proven dedication, and experience; a jurist whose record and reputation the party can be proud of, and motivated to go out and work for. And, given the voter registration statistics in Westchester, what is needed is a proven campaigner, one who has demonstrated “cross-over appeal” to Democrats.
County Court, and Acting Supreme Court Justice Rory J. Bellantoni, fills the bill in every way. Having graduated from Fordham University
Suma Cum Laude, and Phi Beta Kappa, in 1991, Bellantoni went on to Fordham Law, graduating on the Dean’s List in 1995. He went
to work in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. And, from there he went on to become a Senior Assistant District Attorney in Rockland County.
In final preparation for his career as a jurist, he served as Law Clerk, and Court Attorney to the Hon. Sam Walker. Presently presiding
over the Westchester County Sex Offender Court, Bellantoni has served as County Court Judge presiding over the most serious felony
cases. Rounding out his experience, he served two years as an Acting Family Court Judge. The Westchester Bar Association found him “well qualified” to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Rory J. Bellantoni is someone whose life’s ambition has always been to do exactly what he has been doing for the past several years. Nominating him for State Supreme Court will be a great service not only to the Republican Party of Westchester, but to the People of the Ninth Judicial District.
Richard Blassberg
Up-Coming Nominations For State Supreme Court: A Good Test Of Westchester County Republican Party’s Credibility
The resignation of Republican State Supreme Court Justice Larry Horowitz, under a cloud of judicial misconduct, within the last several
days, brings to three the number of Supreme Court Seats to be contested in the up-coming races in the Ninth Judicial District. That advent
now sets up an excellent opportunity for the Westchester Republican Committee to demonstrate that it is capable of being taken seriously
by separating itself from the corrupt nominating practices of the past that visited upon their constituents such inferior and undeserving jurists as Horowitz and Joseph Alessandro, both products of scandalous fixed election deals.
Particularly, given the ‘changing of the guard’, with the stepping down of Rosemarie Panio, the opportunity exists to breath integrity,
indeed, new life into the Republican Party by rejecting the ways of the past; the anointing of totally inappropriate and inexperienced
political hacks with judicial nominations. What good purpose, after all, was served when Larry Horowitz, having agreed to stand-in as
a Republican “faker” against Andy Spano for County Executive in 2001, was then rewarded with an appointment to the County Court so
that he might then run, with robes on, for State Supreme Court?
If Doug Colety is foolish enough to ignore the ever-increasing public outcry over rampant judicial misconduct, particularly in Westchester State Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part, not to mention ongoing federal scrutiny of the Criminal Part, and fails to propose candidates for nomination who possess both the experience and temperament to perform competently and fairly, his party will surely pay the price at
the polls.
Two of the seats that will be contested come from Rockland Judges William Sherwood, who has announced his intention to seek another four-teen year term, and Alfred Weiner who has reached the mandatory retirement age. The third seat, however, is the one vacated by Larry Horowitz. That seat offers the Westchester Republican Committee a wonderful opportunity to redeem itself by not nominating another politically-connected “Horror Show.” What is called for is a Republican County Court Judge with proven dedication, and experience; a jurist whose record and reputation the party can be proud of, and motivated to go out and work for. And, given the voter registration statistics in Westchester, what is needed is a proven campaigner, one who has demonstrated “cross-over appeal” to Democrats.
County Court, and Acting Supreme Court Justice Rory J. Bellantoni, fills the bill in every way. Having graduated from Fordham University
Suma Cum Laude, and Phi Beta Kappa, in 1991, Bellantoni went on to Fordham Law, graduating on the Dean’s List in 1995. He went
to work in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. And, from there he went on to become a Senior Assistant District Attorney in Rockland County.
In final preparation for his career as a jurist, he served as Law Clerk, and Court Attorney to the Hon. Sam Walker. Presently presiding
over the Westchester County Sex Offender Court, Bellantoni has served as County Court Judge presiding over the most serious felony
cases. Rounding out his experience, he served two years as an Acting Family Court Judge. The Westchester Bar Association found him “well qualified” to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Rory J. Bellantoni is someone whose life’s ambition has always been to do exactly what he has been doing for the past several years. Nominating him for State Supreme Court will be a great service not only to the Republican Party of Westchester, but to the People of the Ninth Judicial District.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Riding High In February, Shot Down In November
United States Federal District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, June 26th, Defendant Terrence D. Chalk, 44, appeared in Federal District Court before Judge Stephen C. Robinson for what can best be described as a Status and Bail Reduction Hearing. Mr. Chalk, who was named “Businessperson Of The Year,” in February, 2006, and inducted into the Hall of Fame of the Westchester Business Council, was indicted, arrested, and thrown into jail by the United States Attorney, for the Southern District of New York, Michael J. Garcia, in November.
Chalk was charged, together with a nephew, Damon T. Chalk, free on bail, and also present in court, with Conspiracy to Influence Financial Institutions By Making False Statements On Applications For Loans, Lines Of Credit, and Credit Cards. He was also charged with Credit Card Fraud. Mr. Chalk, although a federal prisoner, has been locked up in the Westchester County Jail for some eight months, unable to make a bail bond set at $250,000, requiring two co-signers, and a cash bail of $10,000. Judge Robinson opened the hearing inquiring of Assistant United States Attorney Eugene Ingoglia, “Let me ask you what’s happening?” Ingoglia, who has been prosecuting the case from its inception, responded, “The Government has produced voluminous discovery. There is more than a million files on the hard-drive, forty-five thousand e-mails, thirty-five thousand other documents, and, four spread sheets. We’ve produced it and given it to Defense Counsel in its entirety.”
Turning to Defense Attorney Mayo Bartlett, Robinson asked, “Do you have a sense of how long it will take to get your arms around the
discovery material?”
Attorney Mayo responded, “In the form in which the material was given to us, it is as though it were in a locked safe.”
Called upon by the Judge, Mr. Eggar, the attorney for Damon Chalk responded, “We would echo Mr. Bartlett’s comments.”
Robinson then said, “I’m obviously willing to give the Defendants all of the time you will need.”
Questioned by Robinson as to the location of the hard-drive, Prosecutor Ingoglia responded, “The hard-drive is still with the computer. We
have made an image.”
The Judge then declared, “You have given the Defendants something that will require an expert who can access material on the hard-dive. It’s
not helpful to give the Defendants something they have no ability to access. It’s a hard kind of discovery.”
Then, responding to a request from Mr. Bartlett for specific assistance from the Government, Judge Robinson said, “The Government can help you, but they are not likely to do it for you.” Then proceeding, first to restate Bartlett’s locked vault analogy, he then asked the Defense Attorneys for a time frame, in order to establish a date for the next hearing. Having been offered “Two months,” Robinson set September 6th.
With the date established, Robinson then asked if there were any other matters requiring his attention. Mr. Bartlett, taking his cue, launched upon his objections to FBI Special Agent John Flanagan’s alleged inappropriate harassment of individuals who had offered to come forward as co-signers for his client Terrence Chalk, including Chalk’s own mother, and a Mr. Tom Clark, declaring, “He crossed the line from asking probative questions to attempting to dissuade Mr. Clark from being a co-signer.” Bartlett went on, “He asked Clark, “Have you spoken to Mr. Chalk’s wife?”
Bartlett went further to describe a phone call that was made by Agent Flanagan to discourage Mr. Chalk’s own mother from co-signing, and putting up cash for her son’s release. Prosecutor Ingoglia, quickly responded, “The phone call to Mr. Chalk’s mother was a rightful role of government.”
Bartlett and Robinson then engaged in a dialogue about the possibility of reducing the bail and/or co-signer obligation in order to facilitate
Terrence Chalk’s emergence from the County Jail, “in order to assist in his own defense.” As the requirements stood, his client needed to have two co-signers to cover a $250,000 bond, and was also required to post $10,000 in cash.
After trading ideas back and forth for a few minutes Robinson, attempting to be reasonable, and apparently recognizing how long Chalk
had already languished in jail, said, “Here’s what I’ll suggest, Mr. Bartlett. I’ll allow you to modify the $250,000 bond to $100,000, with two co-signers.”
Then he added, “By the time of our next hearing the Defendant will have spent almost one year in jail, so I will waive the next two months
from the “Speedy Trial” requirement.”
Analysis:
The Guardian has learned that Defendant Terrence Chalk, who, until his arrest by the FBI, had founded and was apparently successfully
operating Compulinx, a Westchester-based computer management firm, since 1990, is, in fact, the twin brother of Todd Chalk, an FBI agent who does not get along with him. The significance of that fact may become more apparent over time given what appears to be a concerted effort by both FBI agent John Flanagan, and the United States Attorney’s Office to keep Mr. Chalk incarcerated, and unavailable to counsel.
By Richard Blassberg
Riding High In February, Shot Down In November
United States Federal District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, June 26th, Defendant Terrence D. Chalk, 44, appeared in Federal District Court before Judge Stephen C. Robinson for what can best be described as a Status and Bail Reduction Hearing. Mr. Chalk, who was named “Businessperson Of The Year,” in February, 2006, and inducted into the Hall of Fame of the Westchester Business Council, was indicted, arrested, and thrown into jail by the United States Attorney, for the Southern District of New York, Michael J. Garcia, in November.
Chalk was charged, together with a nephew, Damon T. Chalk, free on bail, and also present in court, with Conspiracy to Influence Financial Institutions By Making False Statements On Applications For Loans, Lines Of Credit, and Credit Cards. He was also charged with Credit Card Fraud. Mr. Chalk, although a federal prisoner, has been locked up in the Westchester County Jail for some eight months, unable to make a bail bond set at $250,000, requiring two co-signers, and a cash bail of $10,000. Judge Robinson opened the hearing inquiring of Assistant United States Attorney Eugene Ingoglia, “Let me ask you what’s happening?” Ingoglia, who has been prosecuting the case from its inception, responded, “The Government has produced voluminous discovery. There is more than a million files on the hard-drive, forty-five thousand e-mails, thirty-five thousand other documents, and, four spread sheets. We’ve produced it and given it to Defense Counsel in its entirety.”
Turning to Defense Attorney Mayo Bartlett, Robinson asked, “Do you have a sense of how long it will take to get your arms around the
discovery material?”
Attorney Mayo responded, “In the form in which the material was given to us, it is as though it were in a locked safe.”
Called upon by the Judge, Mr. Eggar, the attorney for Damon Chalk responded, “We would echo Mr. Bartlett’s comments.”
Robinson then said, “I’m obviously willing to give the Defendants all of the time you will need.”
Questioned by Robinson as to the location of the hard-drive, Prosecutor Ingoglia responded, “The hard-drive is still with the computer. We
have made an image.”
The Judge then declared, “You have given the Defendants something that will require an expert who can access material on the hard-dive. It’s
not helpful to give the Defendants something they have no ability to access. It’s a hard kind of discovery.”
Then, responding to a request from Mr. Bartlett for specific assistance from the Government, Judge Robinson said, “The Government can help you, but they are not likely to do it for you.” Then proceeding, first to restate Bartlett’s locked vault analogy, he then asked the Defense Attorneys for a time frame, in order to establish a date for the next hearing. Having been offered “Two months,” Robinson set September 6th.
With the date established, Robinson then asked if there were any other matters requiring his attention. Mr. Bartlett, taking his cue, launched upon his objections to FBI Special Agent John Flanagan’s alleged inappropriate harassment of individuals who had offered to come forward as co-signers for his client Terrence Chalk, including Chalk’s own mother, and a Mr. Tom Clark, declaring, “He crossed the line from asking probative questions to attempting to dissuade Mr. Clark from being a co-signer.” Bartlett went on, “He asked Clark, “Have you spoken to Mr. Chalk’s wife?”
Bartlett went further to describe a phone call that was made by Agent Flanagan to discourage Mr. Chalk’s own mother from co-signing, and putting up cash for her son’s release. Prosecutor Ingoglia, quickly responded, “The phone call to Mr. Chalk’s mother was a rightful role of government.”
Bartlett and Robinson then engaged in a dialogue about the possibility of reducing the bail and/or co-signer obligation in order to facilitate
Terrence Chalk’s emergence from the County Jail, “in order to assist in his own defense.” As the requirements stood, his client needed to have two co-signers to cover a $250,000 bond, and was also required to post $10,000 in cash.
After trading ideas back and forth for a few minutes Robinson, attempting to be reasonable, and apparently recognizing how long Chalk
had already languished in jail, said, “Here’s what I’ll suggest, Mr. Bartlett. I’ll allow you to modify the $250,000 bond to $100,000, with two co-signers.”
Then he added, “By the time of our next hearing the Defendant will have spent almost one year in jail, so I will waive the next two months
from the “Speedy Trial” requirement.”
Analysis:
The Guardian has learned that Defendant Terrence Chalk, who, until his arrest by the FBI, had founded and was apparently successfully
operating Compulinx, a Westchester-based computer management firm, since 1990, is, in fact, the twin brother of Todd Chalk, an FBI agent who does not get along with him. The significance of that fact may become more apparent over time given what appears to be a concerted effort by both FBI agent John Flanagan, and the United States Attorney’s Office to keep Mr. Chalk incarcerated, and unavailable to counsel.
What Kind Of A Man Would Stoop To Claim Credit for Saving A Life He Didn’t Save?
A Man Who Would:
Take the endorsement of Nick Spano, a fallen, crooked politician, and create taxpayer-funded jobs for his mob;
Bring Giulio Cavallo, a political prostitute who sells cross endorsements for cash, into the election process;
Run on a party line whose chairman, Zehy Jereis, is an election fraudster and a convicted drug dealer.
Given the controversy surrounding Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone’s claim to have saved the life of a choking victim at Spiga, a restaurant
on Central Avenue in Scarsdale, a few weeks ago, The Guardian decided to conduct its own field investigation. Based upon accounts from individuals present at the incident, we have concluded that, other than shaking the victim’s hand, after the food matter, a chunk of chicken, was ejected from his mouth, Mr. Amicone had no other physical contact with him, no Heimlich maneuver, nor any other lifesaving intervention, actually performed by another man present.
Why the Mayor would seize upon the opportunity to falsely cloak himself with heroics is anybody’s guess. But, candidates for high public
office have been known to make false claims. Military bravery, scholastic achievement, both easily verifiable, have often been attempted
by desperate office seekers. One thing for certain, it doesn’t speak well for Phil Amicone’s character, especially in light of his betrayal of the
People of Yonkers, bringing the likes of Nick Spano’s hacks onto the public payroll, and doing business with slime like Cavallo and Jereis.
A Man Who Would:
Take the endorsement of Nick Spano, a fallen, crooked politician, and create taxpayer-funded jobs for his mob;
Bring Giulio Cavallo, a political prostitute who sells cross endorsements for cash, into the election process;
Run on a party line whose chairman, Zehy Jereis, is an election fraudster and a convicted drug dealer.
Given the controversy surrounding Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone’s claim to have saved the life of a choking victim at Spiga, a restaurant
on Central Avenue in Scarsdale, a few weeks ago, The Guardian decided to conduct its own field investigation. Based upon accounts from individuals present at the incident, we have concluded that, other than shaking the victim’s hand, after the food matter, a chunk of chicken, was ejected from his mouth, Mr. Amicone had no other physical contact with him, no Heimlich maneuver, nor any other lifesaving intervention, actually performed by another man present.
Why the Mayor would seize upon the opportunity to falsely cloak himself with heroics is anybody’s guess. But, candidates for high public
office have been known to make false claims. Military bravery, scholastic achievement, both easily verifiable, have often been attempted
by desperate office seekers. One thing for certain, it doesn’t speak well for Phil Amicone’s character, especially in light of his betrayal of the
People of Yonkers, bringing the likes of Nick Spano’s hacks onto the public payroll, and doing business with slime like Cavallo and Jereis.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice
Part 2
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Issues Which The Assembly Requested be Addressed
The Assembly wanted to know what the primary causes of wrongful convictions were. I weighed in on this subject. Because I have written
extensively in previous issues of The Guardian, I will not go overly in depth on these points, but instead will summarize:
(Note: All statistics utilized are in reference to DNA-based exonerations, and do not factor in exonerations achieved by other means, such
as discovery of suppressed evidence, and witness recantations, real perpetrators coming forward to confess.)
a) False confessions were responsible for 25% of the wrongful convictions as established by DNA. Videotaping interrogations, while not a cure-all, could help cut down the rate by providing an objective recount of who said, and did what, when, and in what context. This requirement would prevent police from leaving out details that they would rather the world did not know they engaged in, and it would
simultaneously protect police from false claims of coercion.
b) Misidentification caused 75% of all wrongful convictions.
c) Deficient Representation by Public Defenders. The skill level of those who represent the public as opposed to those that the rich can
afford, is like night and day. Additionally, even those who are not worn down and jaded by the system, have built-in handicaps, such as
an uneven economic playing field. Wherein the prosecution has an almost unlimited budget, the public defender has a very limited budget
and often must resort to asking for discretionary funding from a judge, the granting of which is risky. Another problem confronting legal aid
attorneys is the representation of too many cases at once. Stephani Bench, of the New York State Defenders Association, echoed the sentiment that the state of public defense is in shambles, and advocated for a centralized state-wide system which would lend itself to more oversight. As reinforcement, she referenced the Spangenberg Group’s Report, a study commissioned by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, whose findings were that the state of public defense in new York was, indeed, in shambles. Bench advocated for the centralization of public defense, wherein all public defense would be done on a state-wide basis, as part of one big organization, allowing for more oversight and review.
d) Incentivized Witnessing was involved in 25% of the wrongful convictions, wherein people are given a reward for testifying, sometimes
literally in the form of cash, “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of ” a perpetrator of a crime. And then there is the
incentive offered to those in a desperate legal position to make deals to have charges dropped against them or to receive a lighter sentence
for information. Such individuals, when lacking legitimate information, often resort to making up stories consistent with what prosecutors
are looking for.
The Assembly Committee persons asked whether the present procedures for the collection, cataloguing, and preservation of evidence
are sufficient. Alan Newton, who served 21 years for a rape he did not commit, weighed in on this subject, explaining clearly how the present
system is not sufficient, detailing the struggle he endured, in which for 12 of the 21 years he served, the police claimed that they could not
find the evidence, which, when located, proved through DNA that he had been innocent all along.
They asked whether the current compensation statute on the books was sufficient. I explained that it was deficient in two ways:
Firstly, that in order to receive compensation one must litigate, which is a process that takes between 2-7 years, and that the exonerated
are released with simply the clothes on their backs, and that the remedy for this would be to immediately award $15,000 for every year
of wrongful imprisoned in order to cover such basics as cost of housing, cost of living, mental health services, and educational pursuits, and
that this should be in addition to a lawsuit.
Secondly, there is bad case law on the books, which states that if one contributes to their own wrongful conviction, they are entitled to
nothing. For example, it will be the state’s claim that I contributed to my wrongful conviction by falsely confessing, whereas it is my position that I did not contribute because the confession was coerced and involuntary. In any event, it is absurd that anybody should have to overcome such an obstacle in receiving financial compensation, because the idea that someone will purposely get themselves arrested and wrongfully convicted, to then exonerate themselves to then be in a position to sue for compensation, is ridiculous.
Other Noteworthy Things
Discussed At The Hearing Prof. Ben Gershman recounted, both with nostalgia and wistfulness, a time gone by when he worked as a prosecutor, when a defendant was found not guilty, the District Attorney would call a meeting and want to know whether or not the office
had prosecuted an innocent man, because his office had no business prosecuting the innocent, and how far away the system had come from
that. After he said that, I sadly wished that this attitude had been the case in all jurisdictions, never to have fallen out of practice, and that it had been the case during all of the years in which I had fought to establish my innocence during my appeals process, and when I was requesting further DNA testing, with DA Jeanine Pirro fighting tooth and nail against me, which wound up costing me all of those years.
Prof. Gershman also advocated for a internal review program within the District Attorney’s of-fice itself, in which cases would be examined voluntarily, as something wholly apart from litigation, to ensure that only the guilty were in prison. I thought that this was a great idea, and would further shore up the idea that it is not the job of the prosecutor to do everything possible to win a conviction and then doggedly
fight to preserved it, no matter what, but instead to be a true seeker of truth as a court officer, dedicated to protecting the public, of whom
innocent defendants are a part.
Lonnie Soury, of Soury Com-munications, spoke at length of the corruption going on in the Marty Tankleff case, in which Marty is
currently serving a 50 year prison sentence based on a false confession obtained from him under circumstances very similar to mine. And,
how the discovery by a retired police detective, of 25 witnesses, all putting the puzzle together, proved who really committed the murder, as well as a host of improprieties by Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, such as previously representing people involved in the Tankleff murder while still prosecuting the case and representing the detective who was found by a commission of investigation to have perjured himself in a prior murder case; still has not proven to be enough for the prosecutor or the courts to either acknowledge that a wrongful conviction occurred or at the very least to grant Marty a new trial.
The topic of having an Office of Wrongful Convictions was also discussed. Its purpose would be to study wrongful convictions, determining
what went wrong, and what lessons might be learned in order to prevent reoccurrence. The discussion centered on whether it should be within the Governor’s cabinet or outside of it. One of the Assemblymen mentioned that the Governor would like it to be within his office. William Hellerstein gave the point of view that the office should be outside of the Governor’s office in order to keep the office objective and free from in-fluence. His point was that that since the Governor has a background of being a prosecutor and attorney general, an in-house office would lend itself to more access and inclination to prosecutors and police than to defense counsel, and that relationships and trust that naturally form over time could impact upon objectivity.
Scott Christianson, Ph.D, author of the book Innocent: Inside New York Wrongful Convictions, which is the only book dedicated specifically to the subject, includes some cases wherein the defendant was still incarcerated at the time but would go on to be cleared after
the book’s publication. He recounted how one of the problems with wrongful convictions and the difficulty of undoing them is the unwillingness of those in power to acknowledge when a miscarriage of justice had taken place. He mentioned how an unnamed official
once bragged about how, in their county, there was a 100% conviction rate, and that there were no wrongful convictions in New York.
All in all, I was pleased that everybody who spoke was against the one-year time limit for the bringing of 440.10 appeals, and that so many
people were concerned enough that they came. I was disappointed, however, that there was not similar universal support for the expansion of the DNA Databank. I had hoped for the expansion of the databank, and the adoption of other changes spoken of and long-championed by The Innocence Project.
I came away with the sense that the one-year time limit, changed on the hearing day to three years, would not pass because the assemblymen
and women realized the lack of wisdom inherent in such a law, and how it ignores the hard-learned lessons of history about such matters,
gleaned on the backs and sufferings of those who had been wrongly convicted and served lengthy prison sentences.
Part 2
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Issues Which The Assembly Requested be Addressed
The Assembly wanted to know what the primary causes of wrongful convictions were. I weighed in on this subject. Because I have written
extensively in previous issues of The Guardian, I will not go overly in depth on these points, but instead will summarize:
(Note: All statistics utilized are in reference to DNA-based exonerations, and do not factor in exonerations achieved by other means, such
as discovery of suppressed evidence, and witness recantations, real perpetrators coming forward to confess.)
a) False confessions were responsible for 25% of the wrongful convictions as established by DNA. Videotaping interrogations, while not a cure-all, could help cut down the rate by providing an objective recount of who said, and did what, when, and in what context. This requirement would prevent police from leaving out details that they would rather the world did not know they engaged in, and it would
simultaneously protect police from false claims of coercion.
b) Misidentification caused 75% of all wrongful convictions.
c) Deficient Representation by Public Defenders. The skill level of those who represent the public as opposed to those that the rich can
afford, is like night and day. Additionally, even those who are not worn down and jaded by the system, have built-in handicaps, such as
an uneven economic playing field. Wherein the prosecution has an almost unlimited budget, the public defender has a very limited budget
and often must resort to asking for discretionary funding from a judge, the granting of which is risky. Another problem confronting legal aid
attorneys is the representation of too many cases at once. Stephani Bench, of the New York State Defenders Association, echoed the sentiment that the state of public defense is in shambles, and advocated for a centralized state-wide system which would lend itself to more oversight. As reinforcement, she referenced the Spangenberg Group’s Report, a study commissioned by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, whose findings were that the state of public defense in new York was, indeed, in shambles. Bench advocated for the centralization of public defense, wherein all public defense would be done on a state-wide basis, as part of one big organization, allowing for more oversight and review.
d) Incentivized Witnessing was involved in 25% of the wrongful convictions, wherein people are given a reward for testifying, sometimes
literally in the form of cash, “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of ” a perpetrator of a crime. And then there is the
incentive offered to those in a desperate legal position to make deals to have charges dropped against them or to receive a lighter sentence
for information. Such individuals, when lacking legitimate information, often resort to making up stories consistent with what prosecutors
are looking for.
The Assembly Committee persons asked whether the present procedures for the collection, cataloguing, and preservation of evidence
are sufficient. Alan Newton, who served 21 years for a rape he did not commit, weighed in on this subject, explaining clearly how the present
system is not sufficient, detailing the struggle he endured, in which for 12 of the 21 years he served, the police claimed that they could not
find the evidence, which, when located, proved through DNA that he had been innocent all along.
They asked whether the current compensation statute on the books was sufficient. I explained that it was deficient in two ways:
Firstly, that in order to receive compensation one must litigate, which is a process that takes between 2-7 years, and that the exonerated
are released with simply the clothes on their backs, and that the remedy for this would be to immediately award $15,000 for every year
of wrongful imprisoned in order to cover such basics as cost of housing, cost of living, mental health services, and educational pursuits, and
that this should be in addition to a lawsuit.
Secondly, there is bad case law on the books, which states that if one contributes to their own wrongful conviction, they are entitled to
nothing. For example, it will be the state’s claim that I contributed to my wrongful conviction by falsely confessing, whereas it is my position that I did not contribute because the confession was coerced and involuntary. In any event, it is absurd that anybody should have to overcome such an obstacle in receiving financial compensation, because the idea that someone will purposely get themselves arrested and wrongfully convicted, to then exonerate themselves to then be in a position to sue for compensation, is ridiculous.
Other Noteworthy Things
Discussed At The Hearing Prof. Ben Gershman recounted, both with nostalgia and wistfulness, a time gone by when he worked as a prosecutor, when a defendant was found not guilty, the District Attorney would call a meeting and want to know whether or not the office
had prosecuted an innocent man, because his office had no business prosecuting the innocent, and how far away the system had come from
that. After he said that, I sadly wished that this attitude had been the case in all jurisdictions, never to have fallen out of practice, and that it had been the case during all of the years in which I had fought to establish my innocence during my appeals process, and when I was requesting further DNA testing, with DA Jeanine Pirro fighting tooth and nail against me, which wound up costing me all of those years.
Prof. Gershman also advocated for a internal review program within the District Attorney’s of-fice itself, in which cases would be examined voluntarily, as something wholly apart from litigation, to ensure that only the guilty were in prison. I thought that this was a great idea, and would further shore up the idea that it is not the job of the prosecutor to do everything possible to win a conviction and then doggedly
fight to preserved it, no matter what, but instead to be a true seeker of truth as a court officer, dedicated to protecting the public, of whom
innocent defendants are a part.
Lonnie Soury, of Soury Com-munications, spoke at length of the corruption going on in the Marty Tankleff case, in which Marty is
currently serving a 50 year prison sentence based on a false confession obtained from him under circumstances very similar to mine. And,
how the discovery by a retired police detective, of 25 witnesses, all putting the puzzle together, proved who really committed the murder, as well as a host of improprieties by Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, such as previously representing people involved in the Tankleff murder while still prosecuting the case and representing the detective who was found by a commission of investigation to have perjured himself in a prior murder case; still has not proven to be enough for the prosecutor or the courts to either acknowledge that a wrongful conviction occurred or at the very least to grant Marty a new trial.
The topic of having an Office of Wrongful Convictions was also discussed. Its purpose would be to study wrongful convictions, determining
what went wrong, and what lessons might be learned in order to prevent reoccurrence. The discussion centered on whether it should be within the Governor’s cabinet or outside of it. One of the Assemblymen mentioned that the Governor would like it to be within his office. William Hellerstein gave the point of view that the office should be outside of the Governor’s office in order to keep the office objective and free from in-fluence. His point was that that since the Governor has a background of being a prosecutor and attorney general, an in-house office would lend itself to more access and inclination to prosecutors and police than to defense counsel, and that relationships and trust that naturally form over time could impact upon objectivity.
Scott Christianson, Ph.D, author of the book Innocent: Inside New York Wrongful Convictions, which is the only book dedicated specifically to the subject, includes some cases wherein the defendant was still incarcerated at the time but would go on to be cleared after
the book’s publication. He recounted how one of the problems with wrongful convictions and the difficulty of undoing them is the unwillingness of those in power to acknowledge when a miscarriage of justice had taken place. He mentioned how an unnamed official
once bragged about how, in their county, there was a 100% conviction rate, and that there were no wrongful convictions in New York.
All in all, I was pleased that everybody who spoke was against the one-year time limit for the bringing of 440.10 appeals, and that so many
people were concerned enough that they came. I was disappointed, however, that there was not similar universal support for the expansion of the DNA Databank. I had hoped for the expansion of the databank, and the adoption of other changes spoken of and long-championed by The Innocence Project.
I came away with the sense that the one-year time limit, changed on the hearing day to three years, would not pass because the assemblymen
and women realized the lack of wisdom inherent in such a law, and how it ignores the hard-learned lessons of history about such matters,
gleaned on the backs and sufferings of those who had been wrongly convicted and served lengthy prison sentences.
Our Readers Respond...
A Father’s Desperate Plight
Dear Editor:
I’m a parent of two young daughters, 6 and 8, one of whom is in the first grade. Their mother and I are divorced, and she has remarried and
has been granted residential custody. I recently received the following note from my daughter’s first grade teacher:
“Right now I am just trying to get her to stay ‘in this world’ without aliens, nightmares etc. Children are shying away again and she’s not in
a good place. That’s just my thought. If something changes, I’ll let you know.”What would you do if a teacher with over 20 years experience wrote this to you about your child?
What if you were powerless to help your child or the teacher? If the school sent notes home to you saying that your 6-year-old
child was spitting at, and hitting children on the school bus, what would you do?
If you received notice that there was an attempted abduction of your child from a school gym by a man in a black ski mask and your child
struggled to break free, what would you do? If your 6-year-old child came home and said that two first grade boys threatened to cut her throat with a razor blade the following day at recess, what would you do?
If you learned that your ex-spouse and her partner began hitting your child when she was 3 years old child with a wooden spoon as punishment for not coming to the dinner table on time, what would you do? Would you call CPS (Child Protective Services), go to court, call the police? What would you do if your child was subjected to over 20 interviews between the ages of 4 and 6 by just about every agency imaginable, DSS, CPS, doctors, forensic doctors, nurses, detectives, state troopers? Would you put your child into therapy? What if I were to tell you that I had four charges lodged against me by my ex-spouse, all of which were determined to be unfounded?
If you would like the answers to these questions you’ll have to ask the following people in the Westchester Court System: Ken Bunting, James Montagnino, Judge Edlitz, Judge Donovan, Gregory Salant, Rhona Bork, John Ruti, John Rubin, Judge Ratner, Judge Cooney, Judge Leibowitz, Sal Lagonia, Joan Iacono, Harriet Weinberger and others.
For four years my children and I have endured absolute horror at the hands of the Westchester Supreme Court - Matrimonial Part. I have
sat in court and endured Law Guardian Ken Bunting and former Referee James Montagnino making jokes about my children being hit. I have
been coerced, manipulated, and abused. I have watched witness tampering, forgery of court-subpoenaed documents. I have been denied counsel and forced into bankruptcy. I am on the verge of losing my home, the marital home. This is the home my children were born into.
I have spent two years trying to get my children back into therapy that was ordered by the Supreme Court. The accuser, their mother, refuses to bring my children to the therapist. After retaining yet another lawyer, John Rubin, at a cost of over $7,500 merely to fend off more absurd allegations by my ex-spouse, I once again tried to secure therapy for my children before Family Court Judge Edlitz. As a result, another “attorney-only conference” was held and another ludicrous decision with regard to my children’s welfare was generated.
Bill G.
More Kudos
Dear Editor:
Keep up the good work! Joe Pulitzer’s climbing out of the grave and coming over with a prize for the publication’s outstanding value as reporting Justice and its lack thereof.
Richard Gosselin, Jackson Heights
Editor’s Note: Thank you!
The Battle of Mount Vernon
Dear Editor:
Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! That’s all you get from corrupt Ernie Davis and cronies like Joan K. Battle who wrote the latter in the June 14 edition. Hey, Battle, if Ernie Davis isn’t corrupt why is the U.S. District Attorney and the FBI investigating him for taking federal money? Answer that.
Oh, I’m sure you go along with Davis’ excuse that the U.S. District Attorney and the FBI are conducting a political witchhunt. The investigation is the best thing the federal government can do for the people of Mount Vernon to clean out all of the corrupt politicians who enslave and oppress the people with high taxes, high crime, dirty streets, poor schools, no future for the youth. They grab everything for themselves, their families, their cronies – cronyism and nepotism is rampant.
This Battle person said she was an Assistant Property Manager for Levister Towers. I bet she had no experience. She probably got this as a no-show job because she was politically connected to Davis and Serapher Con Halevi. What a disgrace that the poor residents of Levister Towers had to pay high rents for her no-show salary. Her payback? Write a letter for Davis and Con Halevi. No more excuses. They all need to be in handcuffs.
Concerned Resident, Mount Vernon
Reader Responds to Judge Lange’s Column
Dear Editor:
Your paper has been a much-needed breath of fresh air ever since the first issue. I enjoy your features, including the informative articles by retired Judge Kenneth Lange.
But in his otherwise fascinating coverage of the September 21, 1938 hurricane, he states incorrectly that “Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia” on September 22nd. It’s true that most people’s attention was distracted from the hurricane by the threat of a new war in Europe, but September 22nd is significant only because the Munich conference began on that date. It ran for a week, and ended with Britain and France (Czechoslovakia wasn’t even represented!) giving in to Hitler’s threats and recognizing Germany’s “right” to annex Czechoslovakia’s mostly
German-speaking Sudeten border area.
In effect, Czechoslovakia was abandoned, and had to agree to Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland, which took place on October 1st without armed resistance. By March 15, 1939, Czechoslovakia--- already gravely weakened by the loss of the Sudetenland, the Munich pact’s requirement that she demobilize most of her armed forces, and the desertion of her main allies, Britain and France---was helpless to resist Hitler’s demand that she allow Germany to “protectively” occupy her two western provinces, Bohemia and Moravia.
That occupation took place on March 15th, again with no armed resistance. So I don’t think it can be said that Hitler ever invaded
Czechoslovakia, and in any case not on September 22, 1938.
Al Raymond,
Croton on-Hudson
In Our Opinion...
Anybody Seen George Pataki Lately?
We haven’t heard anything lately from George Pataki. Wasn’t he running for President? We seem to recall an exploratory committee and fundraising effort headquartered in Virginia. And, didn’t he open an office, with great fanfare, in downtown Peekskill sometime back in December? A check with the phone company revealed no number at either location. A Yale graduate, with a law degree from Columbia, George seemed to offer such promise when he moved into the Governor’s Mansion, having defeated three-term Governor Mario Cuomo. He entered with the promise that, unlike Mario, he would only serve two terms. It would be eight years before the People of New York would discover how hollow that commitment was. But, there were harbingers very early on that his performance would fall far short of his rhetoric.
That’s not to suggest that he didn’t keep any of his promises. He brought back the Death Penalty as promised, and eliminated vocational and college education in the penal system. However, he did parole some inmates early; those whose father’s contributed five million dollars. He balanced his budget, as promised, albeit on the backs of the physically and mentally disabled and the elderly infirm. After all, he needed to make cuts somewhere, didn’t he?
In 2002, after he had been governor for two terms, Andrew Cuomo decided to run against him, even though Carl McCall was the Democratic Party’s favorite. Cuomo, taking some bad advice from his campaign director Josh Isay, attacked Pataki for how little he had done in response to the World Trade Center disaster, characterizing the Governor as having, “held Giuliani’s coat.” Perhaps Andy might of fared better had he, instead of pointing to what Pataki hadn’t done, pointed to all the wrong he had done.
George Pataki distinguished himself amongst governors of New York State, by bringing a new dimension -well, maybe not an entirely new dimension - to state government, but clearly, a lot more of it: Corruption. From Day One George made no secret about the kinds of characters he would be appointing to high state office, and giving sweet deals to. For five years, until he was convicted of massive tax fraud in Federal Court, in June 2000; Al Pirro was repeatedly referred to, by Pataki, as his “best friend and fundraiser.”
Pirro, in his capacity as a lobbyist, walked away with numerous sweetheart deals for himself and his clients, as did many other Pataki insiders. At the same time, Pataki had a penchant for appointing some of the most criminal, and scandalous individuals, many of them Peekskill cronies, such as Robert Boyle who, together with Al Pirro, had ripped of the Hudson Valley Hospital Center, and who was forced from office in disgrace over the Javits Center Scandal while he was Chairman of the Port Authority.
Then there was Jack Gaffney, former Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, and father-inlaw of Kieran Mahoney, Pataki’s campaign director. Gaffney, appointed to a $138,000- a-year position as Chairman of the State Bridge Authority, first investigated by the State Inspector General, was ultimately indicted and prosecuted, and forced from office by Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams, for some $188,000 in over-charges, charges for personal travel, and false charges for compensatory time.
As time went on the rampant corruption, and blatant failures of the Pataki Administration; the World Trade Center paralysis, the starved up-state economy, the inability to pass a budget on time, and run-away taxes, highest in the nation, came to be viewed as the Pataki Legacy by most New Yorkers. The notion that he could seriously suggest he was seeking higher office, the Presidency, seemed ludicrous, even more so than his ‘comb-over.’ Nevertheless, there were numerous trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, states with early presidential primaries, to “test the waters.”
All that presidential campaign talk has somehow faded to silence. Nobody has seen, much less heard from, George Elmer Pataki in months. Maybe, just maybe, his pollsters discovered that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and elsewhere decided that, if elected President, he might do for them what he did for New York.
A Father’s Desperate Plight
Dear Editor:
I’m a parent of two young daughters, 6 and 8, one of whom is in the first grade. Their mother and I are divorced, and she has remarried and
has been granted residential custody. I recently received the following note from my daughter’s first grade teacher:
“Right now I am just trying to get her to stay ‘in this world’ without aliens, nightmares etc. Children are shying away again and she’s not in
a good place. That’s just my thought. If something changes, I’ll let you know.”What would you do if a teacher with over 20 years experience wrote this to you about your child?
What if you were powerless to help your child or the teacher? If the school sent notes home to you saying that your 6-year-old
child was spitting at, and hitting children on the school bus, what would you do?
If you received notice that there was an attempted abduction of your child from a school gym by a man in a black ski mask and your child
struggled to break free, what would you do? If your 6-year-old child came home and said that two first grade boys threatened to cut her throat with a razor blade the following day at recess, what would you do?
If you learned that your ex-spouse and her partner began hitting your child when she was 3 years old child with a wooden spoon as punishment for not coming to the dinner table on time, what would you do? Would you call CPS (Child Protective Services), go to court, call the police? What would you do if your child was subjected to over 20 interviews between the ages of 4 and 6 by just about every agency imaginable, DSS, CPS, doctors, forensic doctors, nurses, detectives, state troopers? Would you put your child into therapy? What if I were to tell you that I had four charges lodged against me by my ex-spouse, all of which were determined to be unfounded?
If you would like the answers to these questions you’ll have to ask the following people in the Westchester Court System: Ken Bunting, James Montagnino, Judge Edlitz, Judge Donovan, Gregory Salant, Rhona Bork, John Ruti, John Rubin, Judge Ratner, Judge Cooney, Judge Leibowitz, Sal Lagonia, Joan Iacono, Harriet Weinberger and others.
For four years my children and I have endured absolute horror at the hands of the Westchester Supreme Court - Matrimonial Part. I have
sat in court and endured Law Guardian Ken Bunting and former Referee James Montagnino making jokes about my children being hit. I have
been coerced, manipulated, and abused. I have watched witness tampering, forgery of court-subpoenaed documents. I have been denied counsel and forced into bankruptcy. I am on the verge of losing my home, the marital home. This is the home my children were born into.
I have spent two years trying to get my children back into therapy that was ordered by the Supreme Court. The accuser, their mother, refuses to bring my children to the therapist. After retaining yet another lawyer, John Rubin, at a cost of over $7,500 merely to fend off more absurd allegations by my ex-spouse, I once again tried to secure therapy for my children before Family Court Judge Edlitz. As a result, another “attorney-only conference” was held and another ludicrous decision with regard to my children’s welfare was generated.
Bill G.
More Kudos
Dear Editor:
Keep up the good work! Joe Pulitzer’s climbing out of the grave and coming over with a prize for the publication’s outstanding value as reporting Justice and its lack thereof.
Richard Gosselin, Jackson Heights
Editor’s Note: Thank you!
The Battle of Mount Vernon
Dear Editor:
Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! That’s all you get from corrupt Ernie Davis and cronies like Joan K. Battle who wrote the latter in the June 14 edition. Hey, Battle, if Ernie Davis isn’t corrupt why is the U.S. District Attorney and the FBI investigating him for taking federal money? Answer that.
Oh, I’m sure you go along with Davis’ excuse that the U.S. District Attorney and the FBI are conducting a political witchhunt. The investigation is the best thing the federal government can do for the people of Mount Vernon to clean out all of the corrupt politicians who enslave and oppress the people with high taxes, high crime, dirty streets, poor schools, no future for the youth. They grab everything for themselves, their families, their cronies – cronyism and nepotism is rampant.
This Battle person said she was an Assistant Property Manager for Levister Towers. I bet she had no experience. She probably got this as a no-show job because she was politically connected to Davis and Serapher Con Halevi. What a disgrace that the poor residents of Levister Towers had to pay high rents for her no-show salary. Her payback? Write a letter for Davis and Con Halevi. No more excuses. They all need to be in handcuffs.
Concerned Resident, Mount Vernon
Reader Responds to Judge Lange’s Column
Dear Editor:
Your paper has been a much-needed breath of fresh air ever since the first issue. I enjoy your features, including the informative articles by retired Judge Kenneth Lange.
But in his otherwise fascinating coverage of the September 21, 1938 hurricane, he states incorrectly that “Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia” on September 22nd. It’s true that most people’s attention was distracted from the hurricane by the threat of a new war in Europe, but September 22nd is significant only because the Munich conference began on that date. It ran for a week, and ended with Britain and France (Czechoslovakia wasn’t even represented!) giving in to Hitler’s threats and recognizing Germany’s “right” to annex Czechoslovakia’s mostly
German-speaking Sudeten border area.
In effect, Czechoslovakia was abandoned, and had to agree to Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland, which took place on October 1st without armed resistance. By March 15, 1939, Czechoslovakia--- already gravely weakened by the loss of the Sudetenland, the Munich pact’s requirement that she demobilize most of her armed forces, and the desertion of her main allies, Britain and France---was helpless to resist Hitler’s demand that she allow Germany to “protectively” occupy her two western provinces, Bohemia and Moravia.
That occupation took place on March 15th, again with no armed resistance. So I don’t think it can be said that Hitler ever invaded
Czechoslovakia, and in any case not on September 22, 1938.
Al Raymond,
Croton on-Hudson
In Our Opinion...
Anybody Seen George Pataki Lately?
We haven’t heard anything lately from George Pataki. Wasn’t he running for President? We seem to recall an exploratory committee and fundraising effort headquartered in Virginia. And, didn’t he open an office, with great fanfare, in downtown Peekskill sometime back in December? A check with the phone company revealed no number at either location. A Yale graduate, with a law degree from Columbia, George seemed to offer such promise when he moved into the Governor’s Mansion, having defeated three-term Governor Mario Cuomo. He entered with the promise that, unlike Mario, he would only serve two terms. It would be eight years before the People of New York would discover how hollow that commitment was. But, there were harbingers very early on that his performance would fall far short of his rhetoric.
That’s not to suggest that he didn’t keep any of his promises. He brought back the Death Penalty as promised, and eliminated vocational and college education in the penal system. However, he did parole some inmates early; those whose father’s contributed five million dollars. He balanced his budget, as promised, albeit on the backs of the physically and mentally disabled and the elderly infirm. After all, he needed to make cuts somewhere, didn’t he?
In 2002, after he had been governor for two terms, Andrew Cuomo decided to run against him, even though Carl McCall was the Democratic Party’s favorite. Cuomo, taking some bad advice from his campaign director Josh Isay, attacked Pataki for how little he had done in response to the World Trade Center disaster, characterizing the Governor as having, “held Giuliani’s coat.” Perhaps Andy might of fared better had he, instead of pointing to what Pataki hadn’t done, pointed to all the wrong he had done.
George Pataki distinguished himself amongst governors of New York State, by bringing a new dimension -well, maybe not an entirely new dimension - to state government, but clearly, a lot more of it: Corruption. From Day One George made no secret about the kinds of characters he would be appointing to high state office, and giving sweet deals to. For five years, until he was convicted of massive tax fraud in Federal Court, in June 2000; Al Pirro was repeatedly referred to, by Pataki, as his “best friend and fundraiser.”
Pirro, in his capacity as a lobbyist, walked away with numerous sweetheart deals for himself and his clients, as did many other Pataki insiders. At the same time, Pataki had a penchant for appointing some of the most criminal, and scandalous individuals, many of them Peekskill cronies, such as Robert Boyle who, together with Al Pirro, had ripped of the Hudson Valley Hospital Center, and who was forced from office in disgrace over the Javits Center Scandal while he was Chairman of the Port Authority.
Then there was Jack Gaffney, former Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, and father-inlaw of Kieran Mahoney, Pataki’s campaign director. Gaffney, appointed to a $138,000- a-year position as Chairman of the State Bridge Authority, first investigated by the State Inspector General, was ultimately indicted and prosecuted, and forced from office by Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams, for some $188,000 in over-charges, charges for personal travel, and false charges for compensatory time.
As time went on the rampant corruption, and blatant failures of the Pataki Administration; the World Trade Center paralysis, the starved up-state economy, the inability to pass a budget on time, and run-away taxes, highest in the nation, came to be viewed as the Pataki Legacy by most New Yorkers. The notion that he could seriously suggest he was seeking higher office, the Presidency, seemed ludicrous, even more so than his ‘comb-over.’ Nevertheless, there were numerous trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, states with early presidential primaries, to “test the waters.”
All that presidential campaign talk has somehow faded to silence. Nobody has seen, much less heard from, George Elmer Pataki in months. Maybe, just maybe, his pollsters discovered that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and elsewhere decided that, if elected President, he might do for them what he did for New York.
Janet Difiore.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Pirro-Gate: No One Is Above The Law
As with another power-hungry wrongdoer, who severely abused the authority entrusted by those who elected him, Richard Nixon, tape recording her own misconduct, and that of her co-conspirators, may very well contribute to the ultimate complete exposure and successful prosecution of Jeanine Pirro. And, more importantly, may provide new evidence helpful in the exoneration of numerous victims of her extreme prosecutorial misconduct, and that of many of her assistant DAs, as well as others under her control, operating under the color of law.
The continued existence of tapes that Pirro had ordered destroyed by one of her investigators, was brought to light only recently in connection with the Anthony DiSimone case. DiSimone, who was released from Greenhaven State Prison a few months ago by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on a habeas corpus petition, had compelled District Attorney Janet DiFiore to reveal the existence of 376 pages, and 52 boxes of exhibits, all Brady material, exculpatory evidence, clearly pointing to the fact, from the outset, that DiSimone
was not the murderer of Louis Balancio. DA DiFiore was also compelled to reveal to his defense attorneys that there was even “more Brady
material,” a box filled with secretly recorded tapes that, amongst other things, contained conversations between Pirro, her top level deputies Clement Patti, and Steven Bender, in telephone communication with a top level Assistant United States Attorney, with regard to the Balancio murder and prosecution.
It was no coincidence that at least one of those taped conversations occurred on December 18, 1997. In fact, in December of 1997 then-United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, cleverly “leaked” to Al and Jeanine Pirro the fact that they were both under investigation by her office for a massive, joint, ten-year tax fraud scheme. Whether it was merely a precautionary move, in light of the tip, or more likely, an affirmative attempt to entangle White’s Office in her prosecutorial misconduct, for possible later use as a bargaining tool in dealing with the federal prosecution she feared she and Al might soon face, the recently re-elected Westchester DA
wasn’t letting any control opportunity pass her by.
Not unlike Richard Nixon, who had won his second term by a landslide against George Mc Govern, Pirro, in December, 1997, had just been re-elected to a second term by a two-to-one plurality, albeit, in a fixed race. She was entering her fifth year as DA, at the top of her game, the center of the cabal in total control of Westchester, having already sent numerous innocent indi-viduals to prison for crimes that she knew very well they had not committed, including Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, convicted only weeks earlier for Depraved Indifference Murder, having saved his middle-aged father’s life from a bat-wielding violent assailant with a long criminal record. Emboldened by her conviction of Officer DiGuglielmo as the result of extreme prosecutorial misconduct, she was now convinced that she could not only
“indict a ham sandwich,” but also convict it. Constitutional rights, the Rule of Law, to Pirro, were mere technicalities. Even a confession from the actual killer of Louis Balancio, six days after his brutal stabbing by Albanian youth, Nick Djonovic, in February of 1994, wouldn’t stop her from inventing a scenario more politically useful, to prosecute an Italian, preferably someone, somehow, connected to Organized Crime.
She would not be deterred from her evil mission, not even by more than two dozen witnesses, young men and women who were present inside and outside the bar, the murder scene, who refused to lie for her. She would send many of them to prison on trumped-up charges, as she pursued that someone, amongst the crowd, having been involved in the rumble on the sidewalk outside the “bucket of blood” - the Strike Zone Bar - in the Tanglewood Shopping Center, Central Avenue, Yonkers. One way or another Jeanine Pirro was out to establish that she could prosecute Organized Crime. And, the fact that the Assistant United States Attorney she was tape recording was telling her, and two of her top deputies, that there was significant evidence that Balancio was murdered by Nick Djonovic, who had escaped to Albania, was not going to alter her plans.
We know there are many tapes, and that not all that was recorded by Pirro necessarily involved criminal investigations. Several current, and former, public office holders, including many judges, as well as political operatives such as Giulio Cavallo, Larry Schwartz, Anthony Mangone, and numerous other co-conspirators had routine telephone access to her. They are now experiencing high anxiety knowing that they were taped, and that those tapes have fallen into the hands of federal investigators.
The Feds have good reason to be very upset with former DA Pirro. After all, she swindled the FBI into putting Nick and Darren Mazzarella, two multiple murderers, who were in federal custody, into the Witness Protection Program in exchange for Darren’s perjured testimony against Anthony DiSimone. Hopefully, they will diligently investigate not only her transgressions against them, but also her horrific prosecutorial misconduct against scores of innocent individuals, conduct, compared to which Michael Nifong was a “choirboy.”
It is understandable that Pirro has very likely already been indicted by sealed indictment, and that the Government is in no particular rush to reveal their hand to other possible targets by unsealing it. Still, for those who languish in prison cells, convicted of crimes they did not commit, and for those who have already done their ‘hard time’ and emerged, the announcement of Mrs. Pirro’s indictment cannot come soon enough. They know that 376 pages, and 52 boxes, of withheld and concealed Brady material was not the exception under DA Pirro, but the rule. Pirro and many of her top assistants, much like Nixon, Haldeman, Erlichman, and crew, simply did not play by the rules.
Given the existence of the Pirro tapes; numerous tapes; in the interest of Justice, the United States Attorney’s Office has a clear obligation to turn copies of them over to defense counsel whose clients are engaged in the appeals process, as relevant discovery, if called upon to do so. It is fair to say that Michael Garcia had no idea as to the scope and depth of the corruption and the injustice that would emerge in response to his ‘tip line,’ 1-877-363-4723. However, having secured additional staff, Mr. Garcia, must now proceed full throttle to aggressively apprehend and prosecute all who have committed crime, and, particularly those who have violated the civil rights of innocent individuals
under the color of law.
Jeanine Pirro, and her henchmen, and co-conspirators, must come to understand what Richard Nixon and his pack learned more than thirty years ago. No one is above the law!
Richard Blassberg
Pirro-Gate: No One Is Above The Law
As with another power-hungry wrongdoer, who severely abused the authority entrusted by those who elected him, Richard Nixon, tape recording her own misconduct, and that of her co-conspirators, may very well contribute to the ultimate complete exposure and successful prosecution of Jeanine Pirro. And, more importantly, may provide new evidence helpful in the exoneration of numerous victims of her extreme prosecutorial misconduct, and that of many of her assistant DAs, as well as others under her control, operating under the color of law.
The continued existence of tapes that Pirro had ordered destroyed by one of her investigators, was brought to light only recently in connection with the Anthony DiSimone case. DiSimone, who was released from Greenhaven State Prison a few months ago by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on a habeas corpus petition, had compelled District Attorney Janet DiFiore to reveal the existence of 376 pages, and 52 boxes of exhibits, all Brady material, exculpatory evidence, clearly pointing to the fact, from the outset, that DiSimone
was not the murderer of Louis Balancio. DA DiFiore was also compelled to reveal to his defense attorneys that there was even “more Brady
material,” a box filled with secretly recorded tapes that, amongst other things, contained conversations between Pirro, her top level deputies Clement Patti, and Steven Bender, in telephone communication with a top level Assistant United States Attorney, with regard to the Balancio murder and prosecution.
It was no coincidence that at least one of those taped conversations occurred on December 18, 1997. In fact, in December of 1997 then-United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, cleverly “leaked” to Al and Jeanine Pirro the fact that they were both under investigation by her office for a massive, joint, ten-year tax fraud scheme. Whether it was merely a precautionary move, in light of the tip, or more likely, an affirmative attempt to entangle White’s Office in her prosecutorial misconduct, for possible later use as a bargaining tool in dealing with the federal prosecution she feared she and Al might soon face, the recently re-elected Westchester DA
wasn’t letting any control opportunity pass her by.
Not unlike Richard Nixon, who had won his second term by a landslide against George Mc Govern, Pirro, in December, 1997, had just been re-elected to a second term by a two-to-one plurality, albeit, in a fixed race. She was entering her fifth year as DA, at the top of her game, the center of the cabal in total control of Westchester, having already sent numerous innocent indi-viduals to prison for crimes that she knew very well they had not committed, including Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, convicted only weeks earlier for Depraved Indifference Murder, having saved his middle-aged father’s life from a bat-wielding violent assailant with a long criminal record. Emboldened by her conviction of Officer DiGuglielmo as the result of extreme prosecutorial misconduct, she was now convinced that she could not only
“indict a ham sandwich,” but also convict it. Constitutional rights, the Rule of Law, to Pirro, were mere technicalities. Even a confession from the actual killer of Louis Balancio, six days after his brutal stabbing by Albanian youth, Nick Djonovic, in February of 1994, wouldn’t stop her from inventing a scenario more politically useful, to prosecute an Italian, preferably someone, somehow, connected to Organized Crime.
She would not be deterred from her evil mission, not even by more than two dozen witnesses, young men and women who were present inside and outside the bar, the murder scene, who refused to lie for her. She would send many of them to prison on trumped-up charges, as she pursued that someone, amongst the crowd, having been involved in the rumble on the sidewalk outside the “bucket of blood” - the Strike Zone Bar - in the Tanglewood Shopping Center, Central Avenue, Yonkers. One way or another Jeanine Pirro was out to establish that she could prosecute Organized Crime. And, the fact that the Assistant United States Attorney she was tape recording was telling her, and two of her top deputies, that there was significant evidence that Balancio was murdered by Nick Djonovic, who had escaped to Albania, was not going to alter her plans.
We know there are many tapes, and that not all that was recorded by Pirro necessarily involved criminal investigations. Several current, and former, public office holders, including many judges, as well as political operatives such as Giulio Cavallo, Larry Schwartz, Anthony Mangone, and numerous other co-conspirators had routine telephone access to her. They are now experiencing high anxiety knowing that they were taped, and that those tapes have fallen into the hands of federal investigators.
The Feds have good reason to be very upset with former DA Pirro. After all, she swindled the FBI into putting Nick and Darren Mazzarella, two multiple murderers, who were in federal custody, into the Witness Protection Program in exchange for Darren’s perjured testimony against Anthony DiSimone. Hopefully, they will diligently investigate not only her transgressions against them, but also her horrific prosecutorial misconduct against scores of innocent individuals, conduct, compared to which Michael Nifong was a “choirboy.”
It is understandable that Pirro has very likely already been indicted by sealed indictment, and that the Government is in no particular rush to reveal their hand to other possible targets by unsealing it. Still, for those who languish in prison cells, convicted of crimes they did not commit, and for those who have already done their ‘hard time’ and emerged, the announcement of Mrs. Pirro’s indictment cannot come soon enough. They know that 376 pages, and 52 boxes, of withheld and concealed Brady material was not the exception under DA Pirro, but the rule. Pirro and many of her top assistants, much like Nixon, Haldeman, Erlichman, and crew, simply did not play by the rules.
Given the existence of the Pirro tapes; numerous tapes; in the interest of Justice, the United States Attorney’s Office has a clear obligation to turn copies of them over to defense counsel whose clients are engaged in the appeals process, as relevant discovery, if called upon to do so. It is fair to say that Michael Garcia had no idea as to the scope and depth of the corruption and the injustice that would emerge in response to his ‘tip line,’ 1-877-363-4723. However, having secured additional staff, Mr. Garcia, must now proceed full throttle to aggressively apprehend and prosecute all who have committed crime, and, particularly those who have violated the civil rights of innocent individuals
under the color of law.
Jeanine Pirro, and her henchmen, and co-conspirators, must come to understand what Richard Nixon and his pack learned more than thirty years ago. No one is above the law!
Janet Difiore.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Hendrick Hudson High Seniors Arraigned on Felony Charges
Cortlandt Town Court, Cortlandt Manor
Town Justice Gerald Klein Presiding
Last Monday morning 19 seniors from Hendrick Hudson High School in Montrose appeared in Cortlandt Town Court for arraignment before Town Justice Gerald Klein, the result of a ‘senior prank’ that somehow garnered a more harsh reaction from the school administration, and police, than the kids had anticipated. The prank, involved some 67 inexpensive wind-up, butterfly shaped, alarm clocks that were all set to ring at the same time, the previous Monday morning. They had been planted all over the high school, on walls, and in lockers, held in place with duct tape, by students who had gotten into the school late Sunday night, June 10th. Picked up on motion detectors, their activity quickly brought police with bomb sniffing canines to the school. The youngsters, all charged with 240.61 of the Penal Law, Placing A False Bomb or Hazardous Substance, a Felony, were accompanied to court by their attorneys, their parents and other family members, as well as several uncharged schoolmates, who had come to support them.
Despite the large turnout, Justice Klein managed to quickly complete the arraignment proceedings for all but two of the youngsters, who had failed to bring legal representation, and, who required assigned counsel. Following the arraignment, a group of six seniors, young men and women who had come to support their classmates, told The Guardian, “Nobody could have taken the butterfly alarm clocks seriously. They weren’t made up to look like bombs, or anything dangerous. They were just supposed to ring at the same time.”
A mother of one of the charged students, who had just come from the courtroom, seemed to express the sentiments of several parents, declaring, “They’re not punishing the kids; they’re punishing us. We had to go out and hire lawyers, and lose time from work. They’re over-reacting to what they, (the kids) did.”
White Plains Attorney Peter Goodrich, a former Westchester Assistant District Attorney, who represents one of the charged students, told The Guardian, “It was a total over-reaction to have charged these youngsters with a felony once they discovered they were harmless clocks. They knew there was no malicious intent, just a senior prank.”
Proceeding to the high school, The Guardian met with Youth Resource Officer Velez, a New York State Trooper, who indicated that he knew the students. He told us, “They are good kids. They just made a poor decision.”
Analysis
Most observers are in agreement that the youngsters involved in the Hendrick Hudson High senior prank have been over-charged and dealt
with too severely. Given the fact that there was never any attempt to imply that there were bombs, or any explosive devices, but merely to have the alarm clocks all going off simultaneously on Monday morning, it is apparent that there was really no malicious intent. Furthermore, the fact that those involved voluntarily turned themselves in and, also, that classes were conducted Monday morning, June 11th, without interruption, should have mitigated for a lesser charge.
The students involved will not be allowed to attend their graduation ceremony, a painful consequence in itself. Perhaps a better course of action might have been to couple their absence from their graduation with a mandated forty hours, or so, of community service.
Hopefully, District Attorney Janet DiFiore may be persuaded to reconsider the impact that having been charged with a felony will have upon the future prospects of so many basically decent kids, and will opt for the more constructive, and reasonable, community service approach. Surely, no good purpose can be served by causing so much more in the way of judicial, prosecutorial, and parental resources, to be expended, than has already been, should the District Attorney’s Office persist in its pursuit of felony charges against these youngsters.
After all, had the same prank been attempted just six years ago, prior to 9/11 and, prior to some of the high school and college incidents that
have spawned the hyper-reactive mentality with which many now approach any departure from routine at any public gathering place, these
kids, now facing felony charges, and 1½ to 4 years in prison, would merely be experiencing the embarrassment of having had their senior prank foiled, and the pain of missing graduation.
By Richard Blassberg
Hendrick Hudson High Seniors Arraigned on Felony Charges
Cortlandt Town Court, Cortlandt Manor
Town Justice Gerald Klein Presiding
Last Monday morning 19 seniors from Hendrick Hudson High School in Montrose appeared in Cortlandt Town Court for arraignment before Town Justice Gerald Klein, the result of a ‘senior prank’ that somehow garnered a more harsh reaction from the school administration, and police, than the kids had anticipated. The prank, involved some 67 inexpensive wind-up, butterfly shaped, alarm clocks that were all set to ring at the same time, the previous Monday morning. They had been planted all over the high school, on walls, and in lockers, held in place with duct tape, by students who had gotten into the school late Sunday night, June 10th. Picked up on motion detectors, their activity quickly brought police with bomb sniffing canines to the school. The youngsters, all charged with 240.61 of the Penal Law, Placing A False Bomb or Hazardous Substance, a Felony, were accompanied to court by their attorneys, their parents and other family members, as well as several uncharged schoolmates, who had come to support them.
Despite the large turnout, Justice Klein managed to quickly complete the arraignment proceedings for all but two of the youngsters, who had failed to bring legal representation, and, who required assigned counsel. Following the arraignment, a group of six seniors, young men and women who had come to support their classmates, told The Guardian, “Nobody could have taken the butterfly alarm clocks seriously. They weren’t made up to look like bombs, or anything dangerous. They were just supposed to ring at the same time.”
A mother of one of the charged students, who had just come from the courtroom, seemed to express the sentiments of several parents, declaring, “They’re not punishing the kids; they’re punishing us. We had to go out and hire lawyers, and lose time from work. They’re over-reacting to what they, (the kids) did.”
White Plains Attorney Peter Goodrich, a former Westchester Assistant District Attorney, who represents one of the charged students, told The Guardian, “It was a total over-reaction to have charged these youngsters with a felony once they discovered they were harmless clocks. They knew there was no malicious intent, just a senior prank.”
Proceeding to the high school, The Guardian met with Youth Resource Officer Velez, a New York State Trooper, who indicated that he knew the students. He told us, “They are good kids. They just made a poor decision.”
Analysis
Most observers are in agreement that the youngsters involved in the Hendrick Hudson High senior prank have been over-charged and dealt
with too severely. Given the fact that there was never any attempt to imply that there were bombs, or any explosive devices, but merely to have the alarm clocks all going off simultaneously on Monday morning, it is apparent that there was really no malicious intent. Furthermore, the fact that those involved voluntarily turned themselves in and, also, that classes were conducted Monday morning, June 11th, without interruption, should have mitigated for a lesser charge.
The students involved will not be allowed to attend their graduation ceremony, a painful consequence in itself. Perhaps a better course of action might have been to couple their absence from their graduation with a mandated forty hours, or so, of community service.
Hopefully, District Attorney Janet DiFiore may be persuaded to reconsider the impact that having been charged with a felony will have upon the future prospects of so many basically decent kids, and will opt for the more constructive, and reasonable, community service approach. Surely, no good purpose can be served by causing so much more in the way of judicial, prosecutorial, and parental resources, to be expended, than has already been, should the District Attorney’s Office persist in its pursuit of felony charges against these youngsters.
After all, had the same prank been attempted just six years ago, prior to 9/11 and, prior to some of the high school and college incidents that
have spawned the hyper-reactive mentality with which many now approach any departure from routine at any public gathering place, these
kids, now facing felony charges, and 1½ to 4 years in prison, would merely be experiencing the embarrassment of having had their senior prank foiled, and the pain of missing graduation.
Lesnick Access Concept Moves Forward With Ridge Hill Task Force Appointment Mary Ann Crotty, Director of Operations & Policy Management Under Former Gov. Mario Cuomo, Hired As Manager
Last Monday, June 18, members of the inter-municipal Ridge Hill Task Force gathered on the southbound shoulder of the Sprain Brook Parkway, just south of Jackson Ave., site of the proposed access ramp to the Ridge Hill development to announce the appointment of Mary
Ann Crotty as Manager. Under the terms of agreement between the Town of Greenburgh, the Villages of Ardsley and Hastings-on-Hudson and the municipal and corporate entities engaged in the development of Ridge Hill Village, a Task Force consisting of representatives of each of the villages, the Town of Greenburgh, the City of Yonkers, and developer Forest City Ratner, were charged with employing a manager to assist with the investigation of a potential Sprain Brook Parkway access as well as the obtaining of the necessary local, state and federal
approvals. Ms. Crotty, with more than 25 years’ experience in the public and private sectors, at one time serving as the New York State Assistant Secretary of Transportation involved with funding, additionally brings a decade of experience with a major engineering rm where she worked on implementation of global transportation projects.
Yonkers City Council President Chuck Lesnick, who has advocated for the Sprain Brook Parkway access right along, expressed his delight with Crotty’s appointment, declaring, “I worked with Mary Ann Crotty on several New York State Transportation Bond Act projects during Governor Cuomo’s administration and, if anyone can identify funding sources, and coordinate among governmental agencies, utilities
and engineers, she can.”
Not too coincidentally, former Governor Mario Cuomo has simultaneously been retained, at no fee, to serve as a Special Advisor to the Task
Force. Mary Jane Shimsky, Task Force member and community activist from the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, expressed her delight with Cuomo’s involvement, stating, “He would not get involved with the project unless it was important to the region and had a reasonable likelihood of success.”
The project, which has encountered some frustration in negotiations with the County regarding access over County parkland, despite recent disparaging remarks by Larry Schwartz, would nevertheless appear closer to fruition in light of comments by County Executive Andrew Spano, who said, “I look forward to working with Mary Ann Crotty and Governor Cuomo to reach a consensus on a plan that bene ts all citizens of Westchester County.”
Last Monday, June 18, members of the inter-municipal Ridge Hill Task Force gathered on the southbound shoulder of the Sprain Brook Parkway, just south of Jackson Ave., site of the proposed access ramp to the Ridge Hill development to announce the appointment of Mary
Ann Crotty as Manager. Under the terms of agreement between the Town of Greenburgh, the Villages of Ardsley and Hastings-on-Hudson and the municipal and corporate entities engaged in the development of Ridge Hill Village, a Task Force consisting of representatives of each of the villages, the Town of Greenburgh, the City of Yonkers, and developer Forest City Ratner, were charged with employing a manager to assist with the investigation of a potential Sprain Brook Parkway access as well as the obtaining of the necessary local, state and federal
approvals. Ms. Crotty, with more than 25 years’ experience in the public and private sectors, at one time serving as the New York State Assistant Secretary of Transportation involved with funding, additionally brings a decade of experience with a major engineering rm where she worked on implementation of global transportation projects.
Yonkers City Council President Chuck Lesnick, who has advocated for the Sprain Brook Parkway access right along, expressed his delight with Crotty’s appointment, declaring, “I worked with Mary Ann Crotty on several New York State Transportation Bond Act projects during Governor Cuomo’s administration and, if anyone can identify funding sources, and coordinate among governmental agencies, utilities
and engineers, she can.”
Not too coincidentally, former Governor Mario Cuomo has simultaneously been retained, at no fee, to serve as a Special Advisor to the Task
Force. Mary Jane Shimsky, Task Force member and community activist from the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, expressed her delight with Cuomo’s involvement, stating, “He would not get involved with the project unless it was important to the region and had a reasonable likelihood of success.”
The project, which has encountered some frustration in negotiations with the County regarding access over County parkland, despite recent disparaging remarks by Larry Schwartz, would nevertheless appear closer to fruition in light of comments by County Executive Andrew Spano, who said, “I look forward to working with Mary Ann Crotty and Governor Cuomo to reach a consensus on a plan that bene ts all citizens of Westchester County.”
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
We Must Keep Child Protection Laws From Becoming Tools of Family Harrassment
Editor’s Note: In a County and State already heavily encumbered with social legislation, at times apparently intended to protect us from ourselves, it is essential that those entrusted with such authority employ
reasonableness and common sense in sufficient measure if well-meant laws are not to become vehicles of harrassment and wrongful prosecution. Likewise, such legislation must anticipate misuse and contain the necessary preventative safeguards.
Assemblywoman Paulin’s Bill on Child Abuse Passes Assembly and Senate
A bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin to improve the procedure for reporting child abuse passed both the Senate and the Assembly and is now awaiting the signature of Governor Spitzer.
“This legislation strives to make the process as efficient as possible,” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “The person most directly observing the abuse, or its results, is the most able person to report the claim.”
This new bill, if signed into law, will amend the current Social Service Law by requiring teachers and other professionals who interact directly with children to report suspicions of child abuse, mistreatment or neglect, directly to the state agency. After the report has been made, the reporter must inform his or her supervisor and both the reporter and the supervisor will be listed as contacts for the State’s investigation.
In the past, teachers were required to report suspicions to their principals and it was left to the discretion of the principal as to whether or not the State Central Registry was contacted.
“In attending public hearings all over the state I learned that teachers were reporting suspicions of child abuse to their supervisors but the supervisors were not necessarily reporting these incidents to the State Central Registry.” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “With this new legislation teachers who have suspicions of abuse call the State directly; they see something, they report it.”
Additionally, this legislation protects professionals who report a claim under the New York State Labor Law from having retaliatory action taken against them. Also, the bill clarifies the list of professionals who would be responsible to report such claims. It specifies “school officials” to include teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists or social workers, school nurses, and administrators. Other responsible professionals outside the school district include physicians, mental health care providers, police officers, and various care givers.
Dr. Barbara Bernstein, Co-Chair of the Westchester Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, has been a strong supporter for this bill. “Mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect play a powerful role in protecting vulnerable children. By bringing to light situations of abuse, these circumstances can be investigated, and where appropriate, services and protections put into place for children. This task force has advocated for legislation to clarify the roles and responsibilities of mandated reporters and we are delighted that this bill does so while also protecting reporters. These changes should ease the process of reporting, which in the long run, will serve our children.”
A New York Mets Fan
A little boy in the Irvington school district just turned seven years old. Most seven-year-olds jump, flip, run and fall, and never worry about the outcome. However, this little boy, although physically able to, has a stress most of
us will never know. The Irvington School District has singled him out. Let me explain. Joey loves the Mets - he knows a great deal about the Mets and can easily hold his own in any conversation about them. Other than his outspoken love for the Mets he is a quiet, shy and playful child.
It all started a few months ago when Joey was playing with me (his mom), and his sisters. I went to grab for him and scratched his face accidentally. A few days later Joey told me that his teacher asked him, as he was getting on the school bus to come home, how he had gotten that scratch. He innocently replied, “Oh, my mom scratched me” and proceeded to get on the bus. Child Protective Services was soon at my home. While I was very upset, I, nevertheless, allowed them full entry and full range in speaking with all my children. I have four children who are all in the Irvington School System.
I went to the school that evening and spoke with the principal, Mr. Joseph Rodriguez. I asked what happened and why the matter was handled so poorly. His explanation was that it was a judgment call on the teacher’s part. I cried, and asked him how someone with little knowledge about my child or my family could determine abuse. It was only the beginning of the school year. They never asked Joey to explain what happened and never asked how it happened. He didn’t lie. I did do it, but purely accidentally. The shocker is that the teacher at the time, Ms. Dempsey, reported to Child Protective Services, “Joey was smacked so hard by his mother that it left open wounds on his face.” The only mark was a scratch the size of a pea, no bruising, no swelling, no welts, just a small scratch.
This was an outright lie and an absurd exaggeration by an inexperienced teacher. When I spoke with Mr. Rodriguez, I explained that I am not comfortable with Joey’s teacher. She accused me of harming my child without any facts to back it up. I wanted Joey out of her class. Mr. Rodriguez, understanding my position, switched Joey the next day to Ms. Warager. After a two month investigation, it was noted that the complaint was “unfounded” and it was dismissed. Time went by, and all through the year Joey would come home and say his
teacher would ask him questions about other scratches or booboos he had. How naive was I to think that the harassment would stop even with a new teacher? It was soon to be his 7th birthday and to no one’s surprise it was going to be a Mets theme. He wore a large Mets tattoo on his face that covered his whole right cheek.
He fussed when I told him he could not go to school with the tattoo. But, because it was his birthday, I gave in and let him wear it one more day. He went to school with it on and the teacher, as well as all of his classmates, could not have missed it. After all, if they can see a small scratch on his face, they simply could not miss this huge Mets tattoo. That day he came home from school and he was asked to wash it off and he did. He used a towel, wet the end and started scrubbing it off. He rubbed so hard he reddened his skin. It looked almost like rug burn on his cheek. When I came home from work, I asked him what happened and he said, “I scrubbed off my tattoo.” My response was “With what, sandpaper”? He said, “No, mom a towel.” I asked if it hurt. He said no and our night went on.
The next day I was at work and I received a phone call from Child Protective Services. They said they needed to come to my home again because of the mark on Joey’s face. Upon receiving this phone call I immediately called to speak with Mr. Rodriguez, the principal. I asked, “How could you do this to my child and my family again?” I was being profiled and harassed. His explanation was “a judgment call.” I asked, “Based on what? When Joey was asked about the mark what did he say?” The principal admitted Joey had told him he washed a tattoo off with a towel. So what was the problem? He also told the teacher the same thing. Are they calling Joey a liar?
Mr. Rodriguez said he didn’t see Joey the day before so he didn’t know if the tattoo was there. I replied, “Well his teacher was there. She saw it. Common sense would prove Joey’s story.” Mr. Rodriguez replied “Well I didn’t question Ms. Warager about that.” This is another example of poor communication and bad judgment on the part of both the teacher and principal. I hung up with him, finished my day of work stressed and upset, and went to pick up Joey.
Joey seemed upset when I picked him up from the after-school program. He said his teacher asked him what happened again and again, and even sent him to the principal’s office so he could see it. He told me he does not like to be sent to the principal’s office. He said he told his teacher that he washed his tattoo off with a towel but she kept asking him over and over. Child Protective Services came again that day and were allowed to go through the entire house, open every door in the home, interview every family member and again the complaint was “unfounded”.
Children and the elderly are often at risk for abuse. I am all for protecting children from harm. However, there are other factors that go into abuse and neglect. The Irvington School District and Principal Joseph Rodriguez
missed a few things. They should be mandated to routinely send inexperienced staff to attend classes on how to identify certain “flags” of child abuse. The school has a psychologist on staff. Why was she not consulted on this matter? She is a professional. Joey was never sent to see her once during the year. If it is suspected that Joey is being abused he should be sent to the psychologist for a professional opinion. This is blatant, unfounded harassment, bad judgment calls, and sheer lies. I would like an investigation that would reveal how many calls are placed by the Irvington School District, Dows Lane specifically, and what the odds are of one family being targeted twice within a few months of each other? Are other families visited when their child appears with bruises or scrapes? I have seen many children at the school with either stitches, casts or a brace. Was CPS called on these children as well?
If this is indeed the school’s policy, then the records will have to show multiple cases of abuse being reported. We cannot believe that Joey is the only 7-year-old child with a cut and scrape on his body. If the policy is to ask the child what happened and, even after the child states he did it, three times, to still report it to officials, there must be multiple records indicating this. How can the teachers decide which child is telling the truth and which child is not? They are only mandated to report, not to make a determination. So, therefore, every bruise should be reported. How do they determine which parents are abusive? Do they go by which parent they see all the time? Maybe they go by who volunteers more. Either way it’s a failing system. Either way people are given power to falsely accuse others and lie outright with no repercussions for their lies.
It’s not like Joey’s scrapes were so ‘out there’ that it should have even been considered suspicious. I believe the teachers are not trained to determine who is - so all injuries should be reported. This can be easily proven. Most importantly, what about little Joey? I watched the other day when he was at bat with his friends. He hit the ball and, while running to first base, fell and scraped his knee. He brushed it off as most 7-year-olds do. The following day it was time for school and when I took out his clothes he became upset. He refused to wear the shorts I had taken out for him. He began to cry and said he did not feel well enough to go to school. Only after a lengthy conversation did I find out he was scared that his teacher would question him and send him to the principal’s office.
He was afraid “they” (CPS) would come back and question him again and ask him if his mom hurts him. Joey said, “Why would a mommy hurt their kid? That’s so dumb. I don’t like them thinking that you hit me. You’re the best mommy.” The very system that was designed to protect children is causing them unnecessary pain and fear. I have requested a meeting with school officials because of the fear they have inflicted on Joey. You would think at the very least the school would be concerned enough to extend a phone call to the family to bridge the gap. At the very least the principal and teachers that saw fit to disrupt an entire family’s life twice would be concerned enough to follow up with a phone call or letter. How the principal and teacher are unable to make the connection that the interaction between school and family is vital to a child’s well-being and success is of great concern to us.
They have succeeded in Joey’s no longer liking school and being afraid to play because he might fall down. He worries about things like, “If I fall down and hurt myself my teacher is going to blame my mommy.”
Do you have a young child or grandchild? Just do a quick look over their bodies and ask yourself how you would like strangers coming into your home at dinner time, interrogating your entire family because inexperienced staff want to be heroes. The school’s actions have proven twice to be dysfunctional, false and not in the best interest of the child.
Natasha Clewell, Irvington
Richard Blassberg
We Must Keep Child Protection Laws From Becoming Tools of Family Harrassment
Editor’s Note: In a County and State already heavily encumbered with social legislation, at times apparently intended to protect us from ourselves, it is essential that those entrusted with such authority employ
reasonableness and common sense in sufficient measure if well-meant laws are not to become vehicles of harrassment and wrongful prosecution. Likewise, such legislation must anticipate misuse and contain the necessary preventative safeguards.
Assemblywoman Paulin’s Bill on Child Abuse Passes Assembly and Senate
A bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin to improve the procedure for reporting child abuse passed both the Senate and the Assembly and is now awaiting the signature of Governor Spitzer.
“This legislation strives to make the process as efficient as possible,” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “The person most directly observing the abuse, or its results, is the most able person to report the claim.”
This new bill, if signed into law, will amend the current Social Service Law by requiring teachers and other professionals who interact directly with children to report suspicions of child abuse, mistreatment or neglect, directly to the state agency. After the report has been made, the reporter must inform his or her supervisor and both the reporter and the supervisor will be listed as contacts for the State’s investigation.
In the past, teachers were required to report suspicions to their principals and it was left to the discretion of the principal as to whether or not the State Central Registry was contacted.
“In attending public hearings all over the state I learned that teachers were reporting suspicions of child abuse to their supervisors but the supervisors were not necessarily reporting these incidents to the State Central Registry.” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “With this new legislation teachers who have suspicions of abuse call the State directly; they see something, they report it.”
Additionally, this legislation protects professionals who report a claim under the New York State Labor Law from having retaliatory action taken against them. Also, the bill clarifies the list of professionals who would be responsible to report such claims. It specifies “school officials” to include teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists or social workers, school nurses, and administrators. Other responsible professionals outside the school district include physicians, mental health care providers, police officers, and various care givers.
Dr. Barbara Bernstein, Co-Chair of the Westchester Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, has been a strong supporter for this bill. “Mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect play a powerful role in protecting vulnerable children. By bringing to light situations of abuse, these circumstances can be investigated, and where appropriate, services and protections put into place for children. This task force has advocated for legislation to clarify the roles and responsibilities of mandated reporters and we are delighted that this bill does so while also protecting reporters. These changes should ease the process of reporting, which in the long run, will serve our children.”
A New York Mets Fan
A little boy in the Irvington school district just turned seven years old. Most seven-year-olds jump, flip, run and fall, and never worry about the outcome. However, this little boy, although physically able to, has a stress most of
us will never know. The Irvington School District has singled him out. Let me explain. Joey loves the Mets - he knows a great deal about the Mets and can easily hold his own in any conversation about them. Other than his outspoken love for the Mets he is a quiet, shy and playful child.
It all started a few months ago when Joey was playing with me (his mom), and his sisters. I went to grab for him and scratched his face accidentally. A few days later Joey told me that his teacher asked him, as he was getting on the school bus to come home, how he had gotten that scratch. He innocently replied, “Oh, my mom scratched me” and proceeded to get on the bus. Child Protective Services was soon at my home. While I was very upset, I, nevertheless, allowed them full entry and full range in speaking with all my children. I have four children who are all in the Irvington School System.
I went to the school that evening and spoke with the principal, Mr. Joseph Rodriguez. I asked what happened and why the matter was handled so poorly. His explanation was that it was a judgment call on the teacher’s part. I cried, and asked him how someone with little knowledge about my child or my family could determine abuse. It was only the beginning of the school year. They never asked Joey to explain what happened and never asked how it happened. He didn’t lie. I did do it, but purely accidentally. The shocker is that the teacher at the time, Ms. Dempsey, reported to Child Protective Services, “Joey was smacked so hard by his mother that it left open wounds on his face.” The only mark was a scratch the size of a pea, no bruising, no swelling, no welts, just a small scratch.
This was an outright lie and an absurd exaggeration by an inexperienced teacher. When I spoke with Mr. Rodriguez, I explained that I am not comfortable with Joey’s teacher. She accused me of harming my child without any facts to back it up. I wanted Joey out of her class. Mr. Rodriguez, understanding my position, switched Joey the next day to Ms. Warager. After a two month investigation, it was noted that the complaint was “unfounded” and it was dismissed. Time went by, and all through the year Joey would come home and say his
teacher would ask him questions about other scratches or booboos he had. How naive was I to think that the harassment would stop even with a new teacher? It was soon to be his 7th birthday and to no one’s surprise it was going to be a Mets theme. He wore a large Mets tattoo on his face that covered his whole right cheek.
He fussed when I told him he could not go to school with the tattoo. But, because it was his birthday, I gave in and let him wear it one more day. He went to school with it on and the teacher, as well as all of his classmates, could not have missed it. After all, if they can see a small scratch on his face, they simply could not miss this huge Mets tattoo. That day he came home from school and he was asked to wash it off and he did. He used a towel, wet the end and started scrubbing it off. He rubbed so hard he reddened his skin. It looked almost like rug burn on his cheek. When I came home from work, I asked him what happened and he said, “I scrubbed off my tattoo.” My response was “With what, sandpaper”? He said, “No, mom a towel.” I asked if it hurt. He said no and our night went on.
The next day I was at work and I received a phone call from Child Protective Services. They said they needed to come to my home again because of the mark on Joey’s face. Upon receiving this phone call I immediately called to speak with Mr. Rodriguez, the principal. I asked, “How could you do this to my child and my family again?” I was being profiled and harassed. His explanation was “a judgment call.” I asked, “Based on what? When Joey was asked about the mark what did he say?” The principal admitted Joey had told him he washed a tattoo off with a towel. So what was the problem? He also told the teacher the same thing. Are they calling Joey a liar?
Mr. Rodriguez said he didn’t see Joey the day before so he didn’t know if the tattoo was there. I replied, “Well his teacher was there. She saw it. Common sense would prove Joey’s story.” Mr. Rodriguez replied “Well I didn’t question Ms. Warager about that.” This is another example of poor communication and bad judgment on the part of both the teacher and principal. I hung up with him, finished my day of work stressed and upset, and went to pick up Joey.
Joey seemed upset when I picked him up from the after-school program. He said his teacher asked him what happened again and again, and even sent him to the principal’s office so he could see it. He told me he does not like to be sent to the principal’s office. He said he told his teacher that he washed his tattoo off with a towel but she kept asking him over and over. Child Protective Services came again that day and were allowed to go through the entire house, open every door in the home, interview every family member and again the complaint was “unfounded”.
Children and the elderly are often at risk for abuse. I am all for protecting children from harm. However, there are other factors that go into abuse and neglect. The Irvington School District and Principal Joseph Rodriguez
missed a few things. They should be mandated to routinely send inexperienced staff to attend classes on how to identify certain “flags” of child abuse. The school has a psychologist on staff. Why was she not consulted on this matter? She is a professional. Joey was never sent to see her once during the year. If it is suspected that Joey is being abused he should be sent to the psychologist for a professional opinion. This is blatant, unfounded harassment, bad judgment calls, and sheer lies. I would like an investigation that would reveal how many calls are placed by the Irvington School District, Dows Lane specifically, and what the odds are of one family being targeted twice within a few months of each other? Are other families visited when their child appears with bruises or scrapes? I have seen many children at the school with either stitches, casts or a brace. Was CPS called on these children as well?
If this is indeed the school’s policy, then the records will have to show multiple cases of abuse being reported. We cannot believe that Joey is the only 7-year-old child with a cut and scrape on his body. If the policy is to ask the child what happened and, even after the child states he did it, three times, to still report it to officials, there must be multiple records indicating this. How can the teachers decide which child is telling the truth and which child is not? They are only mandated to report, not to make a determination. So, therefore, every bruise should be reported. How do they determine which parents are abusive? Do they go by which parent they see all the time? Maybe they go by who volunteers more. Either way it’s a failing system. Either way people are given power to falsely accuse others and lie outright with no repercussions for their lies.
It’s not like Joey’s scrapes were so ‘out there’ that it should have even been considered suspicious. I believe the teachers are not trained to determine who is - so all injuries should be reported. This can be easily proven. Most importantly, what about little Joey? I watched the other day when he was at bat with his friends. He hit the ball and, while running to first base, fell and scraped his knee. He brushed it off as most 7-year-olds do. The following day it was time for school and when I took out his clothes he became upset. He refused to wear the shorts I had taken out for him. He began to cry and said he did not feel well enough to go to school. Only after a lengthy conversation did I find out he was scared that his teacher would question him and send him to the principal’s office.
He was afraid “they” (CPS) would come back and question him again and ask him if his mom hurts him. Joey said, “Why would a mommy hurt their kid? That’s so dumb. I don’t like them thinking that you hit me. You’re the best mommy.” The very system that was designed to protect children is causing them unnecessary pain and fear. I have requested a meeting with school officials because of the fear they have inflicted on Joey. You would think at the very least the school would be concerned enough to extend a phone call to the family to bridge the gap. At the very least the principal and teachers that saw fit to disrupt an entire family’s life twice would be concerned enough to follow up with a phone call or letter. How the principal and teacher are unable to make the connection that the interaction between school and family is vital to a child’s well-being and success is of great concern to us.
They have succeeded in Joey’s no longer liking school and being afraid to play because he might fall down. He worries about things like, “If I fall down and hurt myself my teacher is going to blame my mommy.”
Do you have a young child or grandchild? Just do a quick look over their bodies and ask yourself how you would like strangers coming into your home at dinner time, interrogating your entire family because inexperienced staff want to be heroes. The school’s actions have proven twice to be dysfunctional, false and not in the best interest of the child.
Natasha Clewell, Irvington
Our Readers Respond...
Facts of War
Dear Editor:
Nations, including mid-Eastern countries, have been sending their young, uneducated and unemployed men to wars throughout history so they wouldn’t be rioting and starting revolutions at home.
Now the radical Islamic countries, funded by oil-rich billionaires, are using their young men and women as suicide bombers against the “decadent” West, especially the United States. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslims throughout the world seem paralyzed by these murderers who kill in the name of Allah while living among the moderates.
A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims, released on May 22, 2007, stated that 22 percent of them supported violence and suicide bombings. Muslim leaders do speak against these extremists but the
networks must give them access on a regular basis to denounce the use of violence, using Islam as an excuse.
This “holy war” didn’t start with the war in Iraq or on 9/11. There were attacks against the West since the 1980s but the U.S. retaliation had been mediocre and feeble. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not, the Bush administration decided it was time to - ght these Islamic radicals outside the United States and in
their own countries. When the troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the murderers will follow them to the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
The Iraqis were given the opportunity for freedom and an elected government with laws, an open court system, and an economy based on contracts but they chose corruption and sectarian slaughter. Millions of Iraqi men are leaving their country instead of fighting for a new way of life. Some are attending college in the West while Americans are dying in Iraq.
Americans are at a distinct disadvantage in Iraq. e U.S. hasn’t won a war since World War II* and, although victory will be claimed, success doesn’t seem achievable, according to the generals in charge.
Young Americans, in order to get a college education, will sell their “pound of flesh” to Shylock (the military) possibly after viewing a “peace-keeping, feel-good” commercial. Unfortunately, during their first day of training, these recruits find out the primary mission of the military is to kill the enemy. ey also aren’t told about the possible loss of limbs, eyes, and brain functioning, followed by inadequate medical care with long waiting periods at under-staffed Veterans Administration hospitals.
All wars end in larger governments and a greater, permanent loss of economic and personal freedoms, including illegal “stops and searches” of innocent citizens, bag searches in subways, the military with machine guns on trains and at stations, and extensive, personal humiliation at airports. Still, the public clamors for more “security.”
The solution might be an 85 percent turnout in the 2008 election, as the French recently achieved, and a vote for candidates who swear to starve this dinosaur government by cutting its food supply – TAXES.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
* Editor’s Note: e United States, in fact, accomplished its limited objective, winning the war (or Police Action, if you prefer) in Korea, having pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel.
Reader Responds to Advocate Column
Dear Editor:
Richard Blassberg asks, ‘what other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances?’ He clearly did have another choice: Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, having just subdued Charles Campbell, should have attempted to subdue him again, instead of firing three shots into his chest. They were able to wrestle him to the ground once, they should have wrestled him to the ground again.
Richard Blassberg does a disservice to Officer DiGuglielmo with such biased and emotional account of an event
he did not witness. By killing Charles Campbell, Officer DiGuglielmo took the law in his own hands and applied
the punishment that he deemed appropriate.
He’s a convicted murderer and deserves to spend a long time behind bars.
Robert Brisbane
New York City
Editor’s Note: Mr. Brisbane is clearly entitled to his opinion, and we welcome it. However, he would do well
to consider that Officer DiGuglielmo’s response was precisely what he was trained to do for 12 years as a police
officer, under the circumstances.
To suggest, as he does, that Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, “were able to wrestle him to the ground
once,” and should have done that again, is to lose sight of the fact that, now, Campbell was in the act of using
a deadly weapon and, based upon the bullet entry points, as revealed at trial, was swinging at his victim when shot.
Clearly the jury that heard the case could not bring themselves to convict Officer DiGuglielmo of Intentional
Murder, or even Assault. His conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder was not supported by any evidence of that crime.
A Reader’s Well-Deserved Tribute To Doris L. Sassower
Dear Editor:
Flag Day, in which we Americans celebrate truth, honor and justice for all, was also the 16th anniversary of
the suspension of the license to practice law of Doris L. Sassower. Her contention that the Judicial Nominating
Convention as a method of choosing judges was fundamentally corrupt, has been validated as New York State must, this year, change from that method. I believe it has been deemed unconstitutional.
We have read several articles in The Westchester Guardian which detail corruption in the courts, particularly
as it pertains to women and Domestic Relations. The same is true of Putnam County.
Doris L. Sassower began her crusade to help women during her early years of law practice when she first saw
women devastated by former husbands who corrupted the process of divorce.
She later saw these same women become victims of corrupt judges, and said women, according to your articles,
suffer irreparable harm. They are continuing to suffer such harm. However, they no longer have the courageous
and ethical Doris L. Sassower to practice law on their behalf.
Ms. Sassower has been honored too many times over the years to mention. She was recently honored with the
Giraffe Award, and has been honored in the book Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1965.
Whereas, I am fully aware that many are too fearful to openly support her fight, I am also fully aware that
Doris L. Sassower is deserving of recognition for her long battle on behalf of women, ethics, and honor. Isn’t it
time we begin to redress the grievous wrongs that she has suffered? Might The Westchester Guardian honor her
achievements in some small way? To those of us who consider her a legend, and feel her life is a lesson in the
struggle for truth and honor, it would be deeply appreciated.
Eileen Redmond-White, Esq.
Facts of War
Dear Editor:
Nations, including mid-Eastern countries, have been sending their young, uneducated and unemployed men to wars throughout history so they wouldn’t be rioting and starting revolutions at home.
Now the radical Islamic countries, funded by oil-rich billionaires, are using their young men and women as suicide bombers against the “decadent” West, especially the United States. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslims throughout the world seem paralyzed by these murderers who kill in the name of Allah while living among the moderates.
A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims, released on May 22, 2007, stated that 22 percent of them supported violence and suicide bombings. Muslim leaders do speak against these extremists but the
networks must give them access on a regular basis to denounce the use of violence, using Islam as an excuse.
This “holy war” didn’t start with the war in Iraq or on 9/11. There were attacks against the West since the 1980s but the U.S. retaliation had been mediocre and feeble. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not, the Bush administration decided it was time to - ght these Islamic radicals outside the United States and in
their own countries. When the troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the murderers will follow them to the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
The Iraqis were given the opportunity for freedom and an elected government with laws, an open court system, and an economy based on contracts but they chose corruption and sectarian slaughter. Millions of Iraqi men are leaving their country instead of fighting for a new way of life. Some are attending college in the West while Americans are dying in Iraq.
Americans are at a distinct disadvantage in Iraq. e U.S. hasn’t won a war since World War II* and, although victory will be claimed, success doesn’t seem achievable, according to the generals in charge.
Young Americans, in order to get a college education, will sell their “pound of flesh” to Shylock (the military) possibly after viewing a “peace-keeping, feel-good” commercial. Unfortunately, during their first day of training, these recruits find out the primary mission of the military is to kill the enemy. ey also aren’t told about the possible loss of limbs, eyes, and brain functioning, followed by inadequate medical care with long waiting periods at under-staffed Veterans Administration hospitals.
All wars end in larger governments and a greater, permanent loss of economic and personal freedoms, including illegal “stops and searches” of innocent citizens, bag searches in subways, the military with machine guns on trains and at stations, and extensive, personal humiliation at airports. Still, the public clamors for more “security.”
The solution might be an 85 percent turnout in the 2008 election, as the French recently achieved, and a vote for candidates who swear to starve this dinosaur government by cutting its food supply – TAXES.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
* Editor’s Note: e United States, in fact, accomplished its limited objective, winning the war (or Police Action, if you prefer) in Korea, having pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel.
Reader Responds to Advocate Column
Dear Editor:
Richard Blassberg asks, ‘what other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances?’ He clearly did have another choice: Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, having just subdued Charles Campbell, should have attempted to subdue him again, instead of firing three shots into his chest. They were able to wrestle him to the ground once, they should have wrestled him to the ground again.
Richard Blassberg does a disservice to Officer DiGuglielmo with such biased and emotional account of an event
he did not witness. By killing Charles Campbell, Officer DiGuglielmo took the law in his own hands and applied
the punishment that he deemed appropriate.
He’s a convicted murderer and deserves to spend a long time behind bars.
Robert Brisbane
New York City
Editor’s Note: Mr. Brisbane is clearly entitled to his opinion, and we welcome it. However, he would do well
to consider that Officer DiGuglielmo’s response was precisely what he was trained to do for 12 years as a police
officer, under the circumstances.
To suggest, as he does, that Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, “were able to wrestle him to the ground
once,” and should have done that again, is to lose sight of the fact that, now, Campbell was in the act of using
a deadly weapon and, based upon the bullet entry points, as revealed at trial, was swinging at his victim when shot.
Clearly the jury that heard the case could not bring themselves to convict Officer DiGuglielmo of Intentional
Murder, or even Assault. His conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder was not supported by any evidence of that crime.
A Reader’s Well-Deserved Tribute To Doris L. Sassower
Dear Editor:
Flag Day, in which we Americans celebrate truth, honor and justice for all, was also the 16th anniversary of
the suspension of the license to practice law of Doris L. Sassower. Her contention that the Judicial Nominating
Convention as a method of choosing judges was fundamentally corrupt, has been validated as New York State must, this year, change from that method. I believe it has been deemed unconstitutional.
We have read several articles in The Westchester Guardian which detail corruption in the courts, particularly
as it pertains to women and Domestic Relations. The same is true of Putnam County.
Doris L. Sassower began her crusade to help women during her early years of law practice when she first saw
women devastated by former husbands who corrupted the process of divorce.
She later saw these same women become victims of corrupt judges, and said women, according to your articles,
suffer irreparable harm. They are continuing to suffer such harm. However, they no longer have the courageous
and ethical Doris L. Sassower to practice law on their behalf.
Ms. Sassower has been honored too many times over the years to mention. She was recently honored with the
Giraffe Award, and has been honored in the book Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1965.
Whereas, I am fully aware that many are too fearful to openly support her fight, I am also fully aware that
Doris L. Sassower is deserving of recognition for her long battle on behalf of women, ethics, and honor. Isn’t it
time we begin to redress the grievous wrongs that she has suffered? Might The Westchester Guardian honor her
achievements in some small way? To those of us who consider her a legend, and feel her life is a lesson in the
struggle for truth and honor, it would be deeply appreciated.
Eileen Redmond-White, Esq.
In Our Opinion...
We are surely living through a very interesting time, a period in which some of the most fundamental principles of our democracy are being overridden daily; as one overrides, when a computer does not follow a command,
indicating that a certain desired action does not conform to established rules. On the federal level much of what is passing for “okay” is driven by, and camou aged with, the so-called “War On Terror.” We are told that it is okay to detain and imprison United States citizens, and non-citizens alike, without bringing formal charges, or indictment against them.
We are told that the use of torture, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, as pertains even to those who are labeled “enemy combatants,” is also okay. And, if it’s inconvenient, or too conspicuous to carry out torture here at home, we simply export the operation to foreign soil. In short, “ e ends justify the means.” e staunchest advocate on behalf of such unconstitutional behavior, of course, is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Here in New York we have a Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, who is now threatening to file suit, presumably against the State Legislature for not legislating pay raises for judges. Judges are taking bribes and going to prison. The
Matrimonial Part of the State Supreme Court is a scandal, with judges, law clerks, attorneys, law guardians, and forensic experts wringing every penny they possibly can out of the process, for the most part, catering to the spouse with the deepest pockets. “ The best interests of the children” be damned.
Cross the courthouse to the Criminal Part, and discover years of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of statutes such as the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, Brady violations and malicious prosecutions, unchecked,
and unpunished. Nevertheless, Judge Kaye’s focus remains on those pay raises. Imagine threatening to go to court to sue? Pray tell, what court would not be in con ict of interest in hearing such an action?
We are surely living through a very interesting time, a period in which some of the most fundamental principles of our democracy are being overridden daily; as one overrides, when a computer does not follow a command,
indicating that a certain desired action does not conform to established rules. On the federal level much of what is passing for “okay” is driven by, and camou aged with, the so-called “War On Terror.” We are told that it is okay to detain and imprison United States citizens, and non-citizens alike, without bringing formal charges, or indictment against them.
We are told that the use of torture, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, as pertains even to those who are labeled “enemy combatants,” is also okay. And, if it’s inconvenient, or too conspicuous to carry out torture here at home, we simply export the operation to foreign soil. In short, “ e ends justify the means.” e staunchest advocate on behalf of such unconstitutional behavior, of course, is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Here in New York we have a Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, who is now threatening to file suit, presumably against the State Legislature for not legislating pay raises for judges. Judges are taking bribes and going to prison. The
Matrimonial Part of the State Supreme Court is a scandal, with judges, law clerks, attorneys, law guardians, and forensic experts wringing every penny they possibly can out of the process, for the most part, catering to the spouse with the deepest pockets. “ The best interests of the children” be damned.
Cross the courthouse to the Criminal Part, and discover years of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of statutes such as the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, Brady violations and malicious prosecutions, unchecked,
and unpunished. Nevertheless, Judge Kaye’s focus remains on those pay raises. Imagine threatening to go to court to sue? Pray tell, what court would not be in con ict of interest in hearing such an action?
The Court Report
Richard Blassberg
Family Court and Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part
Judges Must Reconcile The Inequities Inherent In The Monied Litigant v. The Pro Se Litigant
Westchester County Family Court, White Plains Support Magistrate Rosa Cabanillas-Thompson Presiding
Wednesday June 13th Marc Warnock, and Suzanne Stephans, formerly Mrs. Suzanne Warnock, both of Irvington, appeared in Westchester County Family Court, White Plains, with regard to an Order To Show Cause filed by Mr. Warnock’s attorney, Clifford George Kleinbaum of White Plains. The purpose of the filing was to initiate compliance by Stephans with regard to child support payments she must now make to Mr. Warnock for their three children, ages 6,7, and 11, who are no longer in her “residential, joint legal and physical custody,” as of May 1, 2007.
The children who had resided with Stephans, their mother, for some five years, following Mr. Warnock’s departure from the marital household, and subsequent divorce, attend school in Irvington. Their residential, and joint legal and physical custody was taken from their mother, and given to their father who has remarried, as “sole legal and physical custody”, following a recent 13-day trial before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo. Giacomo who had initially stated from the bench, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy, and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids,” apparently had no problem, however, tearing them away from that “someone,” their mother, to accommodate the questionable
agenda of appointed Law Guardian Theresa Malach.
That mother, Suzanne Stephans, charged, “Malach did not have the best interest of the children, or their relationship with their father, and mother in mind when she wrongfully charged their mother with parental alienation.”
She added, “This has devastated our children.” According to Stephans the law guardian came to court with, and left with, her former husband, held private meetings with him outside the courtroom during their trial, and acted
as though she was Mr. Warnock’s private attorney, treating Stephans as the “enemy,” rather than maintaining neutrality between the opposing parents while working in the interest of the children.
Stephans, who appeared pro se, (representing herself) no longer having funds to retain an attorney, came out of last Wednesday’s court session concerned because the child support formula to which she will be held, for at
least two months before the next scheduled hearing, is outdated and inaccurate as pertains to her actual income. It was obvious to this reporter that Mr. Warnock’s high-powered attorney was behaving aggressively, almost belligerently, toward the mother of his client’s children, scarcely allowing her the opportunity to respond to his allegations. At one point when Ms. Stephans, who is employed full-time, attempted to inform the Court of the fact that she actually presently earns approximately $40,000, and not the $60,000, including bonuses, that she had once earned more than a year ago, Mr. Kleinbaum told the Court, “Perhaps she’s under-employed.”
Magistrate Cabanillas-Thompson acknowledged the financial hardship to Stephans that she was about to set in motion, but expressed her powerlessness to rectify so recent an order imposed by Supreme Court Judge William Giacomo, declaring, “I don’t have the jurisdiction or the authority to alter it.”
Richard Blassberg
Family Court and Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part
Judges Must Reconcile The Inequities Inherent In The Monied Litigant v. The Pro Se Litigant
Westchester County Family Court, White Plains Support Magistrate Rosa Cabanillas-Thompson Presiding
Wednesday June 13th Marc Warnock, and Suzanne Stephans, formerly Mrs. Suzanne Warnock, both of Irvington, appeared in Westchester County Family Court, White Plains, with regard to an Order To Show Cause filed by Mr. Warnock’s attorney, Clifford George Kleinbaum of White Plains. The purpose of the filing was to initiate compliance by Stephans with regard to child support payments she must now make to Mr. Warnock for their three children, ages 6,7, and 11, who are no longer in her “residential, joint legal and physical custody,” as of May 1, 2007.
The children who had resided with Stephans, their mother, for some five years, following Mr. Warnock’s departure from the marital household, and subsequent divorce, attend school in Irvington. Their residential, and joint legal and physical custody was taken from their mother, and given to their father who has remarried, as “sole legal and physical custody”, following a recent 13-day trial before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo. Giacomo who had initially stated from the bench, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy, and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids,” apparently had no problem, however, tearing them away from that “someone,” their mother, to accommodate the questionable
agenda of appointed Law Guardian Theresa Malach.
That mother, Suzanne Stephans, charged, “Malach did not have the best interest of the children, or their relationship with their father, and mother in mind when she wrongfully charged their mother with parental alienation.”
She added, “This has devastated our children.” According to Stephans the law guardian came to court with, and left with, her former husband, held private meetings with him outside the courtroom during their trial, and acted
as though she was Mr. Warnock’s private attorney, treating Stephans as the “enemy,” rather than maintaining neutrality between the opposing parents while working in the interest of the children.
Stephans, who appeared pro se, (representing herself) no longer having funds to retain an attorney, came out of last Wednesday’s court session concerned because the child support formula to which she will be held, for at
least two months before the next scheduled hearing, is outdated and inaccurate as pertains to her actual income. It was obvious to this reporter that Mr. Warnock’s high-powered attorney was behaving aggressively, almost belligerently, toward the mother of his client’s children, scarcely allowing her the opportunity to respond to his allegations. At one point when Ms. Stephans, who is employed full-time, attempted to inform the Court of the fact that she actually presently earns approximately $40,000, and not the $60,000, including bonuses, that she had once earned more than a year ago, Mr. Kleinbaum told the Court, “Perhaps she’s under-employed.”
Magistrate Cabanillas-Thompson acknowledged the financial hardship to Stephans that she was about to set in motion, but expressed her powerlessness to rectify so recent an order imposed by Supreme Court Judge William Giacomo, declaring, “I don’t have the jurisdiction or the authority to alter it.”
Article on Nader Sayegh:
“My Candidacy For Mayor of Yonkers Is Not About Politics, But About People”
– Dr. Nader Sayegh, Principal, PS 13
Nader Sayegh, who hopes to occupy the Mayor’s office in Yonkers City Hall this coming January, standing outside Public School 13 last thursday afternoon, declared, “My candidacy for Mayor of Yonkers is not about
politics, but about people,” as he tossed his hat into the ring.
Responding to reporters’ questions as to why he had decided to run for mayor, given his long and distinguished career in public education, Sayegh said, “Our children must respect education and law enforcement.
We must turn a new page, rejecting corruption and the politics that has been all about the highest bidder. We must refocus our priorities, recognizing that education is the key to our childrens’ future as well as the future
of our great city.”
Two years ago, the Rotary Club of East Yonkers, in bestowing the “Leadership In Education Award” upon Nader Sayegh, Principal of Public School 13, said, “Dr. Nader Sayegh, an outstanding administrator and a dedicated professional, has clearly demonstrated an incredible passion and commitment to empowerment through education. roughout his 32-year professional career as an educator and public school administrator, Dr. Sayegh’s understanding of the importance and value of a sound education has been his primary focus and motivation for the articulation of the District’s educational programs and its emphasis on curriculum and instructional
improvement.”
They went on to say, “Challenged by the diverse needs of the student population in this district, Dr. Sayegh displays a hard-driving, charismatic leadership. He is an urban educator who truly enjoys the challenges of an urban education. For Dr. Sayegh, every complex problem has a solution; triumph, in the face of adversity, is
the name of his game. Dr. Sayegh’s leadership focuses on constructive ways to solve problems inherent in every concern and issue.”
Rotary recognized Sayegh as a “proactive leader in many community based organizations,” including:
• The Spanish Foundation as a Trustee for more than 25 years;
• Helped in establishing the Yonkers Anti-Crime Initiative;
• Implementer of Drug-Free Zone policy in school communities;
• Planning the DARE program;
• Continuing Education Initiative for Adults;
• Parks Board Member over 15 years;
• Chairman of the City’s Parking Authority for 5 years;
• Member of Board of Directors, Yonkers General Hospital;
• Awarded by e March of Dimes for his service;
• Awarded by e American Red Cross for his service;
• Recognized by the Yonkers branch of the NAACP.
“My Candidacy For Mayor of Yonkers Is Not About Politics, But About People”
– Dr. Nader Sayegh, Principal, PS 13
Nader Sayegh, who hopes to occupy the Mayor’s office in Yonkers City Hall this coming January, standing outside Public School 13 last thursday afternoon, declared, “My candidacy for Mayor of Yonkers is not about
politics, but about people,” as he tossed his hat into the ring.
Responding to reporters’ questions as to why he had decided to run for mayor, given his long and distinguished career in public education, Sayegh said, “Our children must respect education and law enforcement.
We must turn a new page, rejecting corruption and the politics that has been all about the highest bidder. We must refocus our priorities, recognizing that education is the key to our childrens’ future as well as the future
of our great city.”
Two years ago, the Rotary Club of East Yonkers, in bestowing the “Leadership In Education Award” upon Nader Sayegh, Principal of Public School 13, said, “Dr. Nader Sayegh, an outstanding administrator and a dedicated professional, has clearly demonstrated an incredible passion and commitment to empowerment through education. roughout his 32-year professional career as an educator and public school administrator, Dr. Sayegh’s understanding of the importance and value of a sound education has been his primary focus and motivation for the articulation of the District’s educational programs and its emphasis on curriculum and instructional
improvement.”
They went on to say, “Challenged by the diverse needs of the student population in this district, Dr. Sayegh displays a hard-driving, charismatic leadership. He is an urban educator who truly enjoys the challenges of an urban education. For Dr. Sayegh, every complex problem has a solution; triumph, in the face of adversity, is
the name of his game. Dr. Sayegh’s leadership focuses on constructive ways to solve problems inherent in every concern and issue.”
Rotary recognized Sayegh as a “proactive leader in many community based organizations,” including:
• The Spanish Foundation as a Trustee for more than 25 years;
• Helped in establishing the Yonkers Anti-Crime Initiative;
• Implementer of Drug-Free Zone policy in school communities;
• Planning the DARE program;
• Continuing Education Initiative for Adults;
• Parks Board Member over 15 years;
• Chairman of the City’s Parking Authority for 5 years;
• Member of Board of Directors, Yonkers General Hospital;
• Awarded by e March of Dimes for his service;
• Awarded by e American Red Cross for his service;
• Recognized by the Yonkers branch of the NAACP.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice.
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Introduction
Part 1
I had heard that there was going to be a hearing on strengthening the state DNA Database, and also that there was some sort of compromise in the works that would limit 440.10 motions to one year following conviction.
Such motions are intended to bring to the Court information that was unavailable at the time of trial and conviction, which, if known, would likely have influenced the verdict. I was concerned about the one-year limit, and the limitations that it would place on other people who are currently wrongfully convicted and who are attempting to establish their innocence. I therefore decided to attend the hearing before the Assembly Codes Committee, in order to both observe what was going on, and participate in the hearing by testifying from my own personal experience about the deficiencies and cracks in the system whereby the Innocent can be wrongfully convicted and have to overcome tremendous obstacles and difficulties undoing such convictions.
I often view myself as speaking on behalf of those whom I metaphorically left behind, but who remain in prison
wrongfully, unable to speak for themselves. I viewed this opportunity as an extension of that principle. There were a variety of different proposed changes in the way the code of criminal procedure works that were under consideration, as well as a variety of other related matters that the Assembly invited commentary on.
As part of Governor Spitzer’s proposal to expand the DNA Databank, those convicted of nonviolent isdemeanor crimes would be required to submit a DNA sample. I felt that this was a welcome change which could only increase the chances of freeing the wrongfully convicted. The reason is DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice that when someone who is wrongfully
convicted requests a DNA test to compare DNA found at a crime scene with the databank, the larger the pool to compare against, the better the chances of a match, and thereby simultaneously demonstrating the innocence of the wrongfully accused, and the guilt of the real perpetrator.
When I was in prison, and was dreaming about having the DNA in my case compared against the databank,
hoping for a match, I realized just how much of a long shot it might be that the person who really committed the crime would have their sample in the Databank. I therefore wanted my lawyer to push to have the DNA not merely compared to those who were in New York’s databank, but also to those in the databanks of other
states, as well as the federal databank. My reasoning was that I wish to cast as large a net as possible to maximize my chances.
The strengthening of the DNA databank by increasing the samples available is a natural extension of this rationale. Additionally, strengthening the database can prevent wrongful convictions by increasing the chances that the real perpetrator will be arrested originally. Surprisingly, the expansion of the databank was not welcomed by all. Robert Newman, testifying on behalf of The Legal Aid Society Of New York City, although stating that including profiles from all persons convicted of crimes “would enhance to some degree the crime-solving capacity of law enforcement,” then continued, “However, we feel that in practice, this additional expansion of the Databank, following so quickly upon last year’s substantial expansion, would divert resources away from other crime-prevention efforts that promise more substantial benefits.”
My response was that anything, anything at all, which can aid in the proving of innocence as well as the prevention of a wrongful conviction, must be done. If it only saves one life, I think that, in and of itself, is well worth it. What price can we place on a man or woman’s freedom? To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to say
to someone who is wrongfully convicted, “You must stay in prison, unable to prove your innocence, because we are unwilling to spend the money needed to include samples from those convicted of misdemeanors, which could prove your innocence, because we don’t think it is worth it financially. But you understand, right?’
Also in opposition to expansion of the DNA Database was Professor Harvey Levine, of Queens College Graduate Center. His objection was two-fold: Firstly, that the nonviolent misdemeanors, most often consisting of smoking marijuana, represented crime at its lowest levels; and, secondly that African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be arrested for non violent misdemeanors and therefore it would be mostly their DNA which
would be collected, and that therefore it’s a racist outcome.
As I see it, Levine’s arguments fail. Those who break the law and start out with low-level crimes often go
on to bigger and more serious ones. Marijuana is known as a gateway drug which can lead its users to more serious drugs, such as crack and heroin, which may then cause them to commit more serious crimes in order to support their habit. Use of the more serious drugs may cause them to commit crimes while in an altered state of mind. Steven Cunningham, for example, the perpetrator of the crime I served 16 years wrongfully for, was, in fact, a known crack user who said that he was high at the time he killed the victim. Therefore, the idea that all those who commit low level crimes are harmless and, by implication, that their samples are worthless is simply not true. Additionally, the implementation of the collection of DNA from all of those who are convicted of
nonviolent misdemeanors, is not racist because it calls for the taking of the samples from anybody, regardless of
race or ethnicity.
Robert Perry, representing the New York Civil Liberties Union, was also against the expansion of the DNA Databank. He argued that because human beings collect and analyze the samples, and because humans are fallible, the databank should not be expanded. If the crime lab does not use correct safety protocols to ensure that cross-contamination does not occur, or if mislabeling of the sample happens, this can lead to errors and false positives. He noted a couple of cases where issues such as contamination and mislabeling led to wrongful convictions, and felt therefore that if even more samples were obtained this would increase the error rate. There
are a variety of responses to this. While I agree that scientific protocols must be observed in order to obtain accurate results, this is true of any science. The occurrence, and correction I might add, through additional DNA Tests down the line which corrected the wrongful convictions, does not disprove the general theory. It merely shows that a safety feature could be built in requiring confirmatory tests by different labs in order to ensure the accuracy of results when DNA is used to prosecute defendants, just as third and sometimes fourth tests are utilized before anybody is released based on a negative showing.
Additionally, although there have been a few rare instances of false positives, there has never been a case of a
false negative, nor has there ever been a case in which defense witnesses testify to an exclusion while the prosecution testified to a match. In those couple of cases of wrongful convictions based on initial inaccurate readings, when the error was discovered, the accurate readout was confirmed by experts for the prosecution
so that there was agreement by both sides.
To not expand the DNA Databank because of a few rare false positives is to also say that DNA should never be used at all, which would have had the result of not obtaining the 2002 exonerations that have been achieved nationwide, including the approximately 30% of cases wherein DNA has not only shown innocence but has also shown the guilt of the correct party, often accompanied by admissions of guilt by the accused.
Further, if the idea to not use technology because there is a human element to it and therefore it is not perfect were applied across the board, there would be no invention or advancement ever used in any aspect of life.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of The Innocence Project, which nationwide has helped clear 2002 wrongfully convicted people through DNA, stated, “Anytime lawmakers are weighing bills on DNA and the criminal justice system, the bottom line question is whether the reforms can prevent wrongful convictions, help people prove their
innocence more quickly, and improve public safety. Legislation introduced in the Assembly meets that test far better than the Senate proposal does. These are serious problems that demand serious action, and New York’s criminal justice system will best be served by the Assembly reforms.”
Shortcomings Of The Bill Unfortunately, there were other provisions in the bill which were very objectionable. For example, there was a one-year time limit provision, modified to three years by the time of the day of
the hearing, in which defendants would be able to file a post-conviction motion known as a 440.10, after which they would be time-barred. This rule was to apply to all non-DNA or newly discovered evidence claims. This rule is inconsistent with justice, truth, guilt and innocence. Everybody who spoke was against
this rule. Consider the following:
• In cases wherein there is misconduct by a prosecutor, a defendant would only have one year to bring this
issue forward;
• When it is discovered that a previous attorney knew about evidence but either did no investigation or else failed
to bring this to the court’s attention, such evidence would not be considered newly discovered because the prior attorney knew about it or the defendant knew about it, and therefore if the one or three years had passed, it would be too late.
• A defendant who discovers, more than a year after conviction, that the police or the prosecutor withheld evidence that by law they were supposed to disclose to the defense (Brady material), they would no longer be able to raise the issue.
• Sometimes The Court of Appeals adopts a new rule and decides that justice requires that it be applied retroactively to cases already in the system. A defendant who has already exhausted his appeals or has progressed beyond the state level, would no longer be able to raise the issue in court, thereby denying
him the benefit of the new rule.
With regard to the proposed time limit, I addressed several points before the Committee. I spoke of how being
time barred could lead to injustice, recounting how then-Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro had urged
the federal court to time bar me because my legal paperwork arrived 4 days too late, and how the court’s adopting of this position led to my continued incarceration.
I pointed out that it should make no difference how much time it has taken a defendant with scarce resources
and little, if any, legal representation to uncover that the prosecutor has illegally held back information which, by law, she should have turned over to the Defense. I then cited the case of Anthony DiSimone, who had
52 boxes of exhibits and 376 pages of statements from various witnesses indicating that another man committed
the crime other than he, would not have had a legal leg to stand on, since this was uncovered years later. I mentioned that the proposed rule was an example of putting procedure over fairness, truth, justice, guilt and innocence. Professor Bennett Gershman, of Pace University Law School, highly regarded former prosecutor, and author of the book Prosecutorial Misconduct, which is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject, and frequent media commentator, speaking from his heart and with passion flowing from his voice, expressed how the inclusion of this time-limiting provision in a bill designed to strengthen DNA testing and access was undoubtedly the result of a compromise reached by the Governor with some prosecutors. Jonathan Gradess, of the group New York State Defenders Association, which provides research information to public defenders
who request it, when asked by the Assembly if such a time limit proposal has any place in a DNA expansion bill,
replied that it did not.
An additional problem with the bill as proposed was that it would limit defendants to the filing of only one 440.10, and that any additional motions filed would automatically have to be denied by courts without even looking at the merits of the issue. This would create several pitfalls inconsistent with justice.
First off, defendants have no right to a lawyer when filing a 440.10, therefore a lot of them have been prepared without benefit of a lawyer to argue and prepare them correctly. Defendants who have no means and are incarcerated, having no lawyer, often resort to filing petitions on their own, out of desperation. Often these
petitions are not argued correctly. If that same defendant then somehow manages to obtain a lawyer at a later date, that lawyer would be barred from filing a properly argued 440.10.
In addition, if a lawyer provided inadequate representation on a 440.10, this would kill the opportunity for a subsequent lawyer to file a new motion. Lastly, as Prof. Hellerstein, the director of The Second Look Program, which works to clear those wrongfully convicted who do not have a DNA issue, pointed out, the provision would make no distinction between frivolous and non-frivolous 440.10 motions. In other words, it would not matter how compelling the new facts or legal arguments in the second motion were, they would not even be looked at or considered by the court. Assemblyman Lentol, who chaired the hearing, chimed in, speaking to the absurdity of the rule, stated that the message being sent to those of scant legal and financial resources, if such a rule was adopted, was “You have one year, so hurry up.”
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Introduction
Part 1
I had heard that there was going to be a hearing on strengthening the state DNA Database, and also that there was some sort of compromise in the works that would limit 440.10 motions to one year following conviction.
Such motions are intended to bring to the Court information that was unavailable at the time of trial and conviction, which, if known, would likely have influenced the verdict. I was concerned about the one-year limit, and the limitations that it would place on other people who are currently wrongfully convicted and who are attempting to establish their innocence. I therefore decided to attend the hearing before the Assembly Codes Committee, in order to both observe what was going on, and participate in the hearing by testifying from my own personal experience about the deficiencies and cracks in the system whereby the Innocent can be wrongfully convicted and have to overcome tremendous obstacles and difficulties undoing such convictions.
I often view myself as speaking on behalf of those whom I metaphorically left behind, but who remain in prison
wrongfully, unable to speak for themselves. I viewed this opportunity as an extension of that principle. There were a variety of different proposed changes in the way the code of criminal procedure works that were under consideration, as well as a variety of other related matters that the Assembly invited commentary on.
As part of Governor Spitzer’s proposal to expand the DNA Databank, those convicted of nonviolent isdemeanor crimes would be required to submit a DNA sample. I felt that this was a welcome change which could only increase the chances of freeing the wrongfully convicted. The reason is DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice that when someone who is wrongfully
convicted requests a DNA test to compare DNA found at a crime scene with the databank, the larger the pool to compare against, the better the chances of a match, and thereby simultaneously demonstrating the innocence of the wrongfully accused, and the guilt of the real perpetrator.
When I was in prison, and was dreaming about having the DNA in my case compared against the databank,
hoping for a match, I realized just how much of a long shot it might be that the person who really committed the crime would have their sample in the Databank. I therefore wanted my lawyer to push to have the DNA not merely compared to those who were in New York’s databank, but also to those in the databanks of other
states, as well as the federal databank. My reasoning was that I wish to cast as large a net as possible to maximize my chances.
The strengthening of the DNA databank by increasing the samples available is a natural extension of this rationale. Additionally, strengthening the database can prevent wrongful convictions by increasing the chances that the real perpetrator will be arrested originally. Surprisingly, the expansion of the databank was not welcomed by all. Robert Newman, testifying on behalf of The Legal Aid Society Of New York City, although stating that including profiles from all persons convicted of crimes “would enhance to some degree the crime-solving capacity of law enforcement,” then continued, “However, we feel that in practice, this additional expansion of the Databank, following so quickly upon last year’s substantial expansion, would divert resources away from other crime-prevention efforts that promise more substantial benefits.”
My response was that anything, anything at all, which can aid in the proving of innocence as well as the prevention of a wrongful conviction, must be done. If it only saves one life, I think that, in and of itself, is well worth it. What price can we place on a man or woman’s freedom? To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to say
to someone who is wrongfully convicted, “You must stay in prison, unable to prove your innocence, because we are unwilling to spend the money needed to include samples from those convicted of misdemeanors, which could prove your innocence, because we don’t think it is worth it financially. But you understand, right?’
Also in opposition to expansion of the DNA Database was Professor Harvey Levine, of Queens College Graduate Center. His objection was two-fold: Firstly, that the nonviolent misdemeanors, most often consisting of smoking marijuana, represented crime at its lowest levels; and, secondly that African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be arrested for non violent misdemeanors and therefore it would be mostly their DNA which
would be collected, and that therefore it’s a racist outcome.
As I see it, Levine’s arguments fail. Those who break the law and start out with low-level crimes often go
on to bigger and more serious ones. Marijuana is known as a gateway drug which can lead its users to more serious drugs, such as crack and heroin, which may then cause them to commit more serious crimes in order to support their habit. Use of the more serious drugs may cause them to commit crimes while in an altered state of mind. Steven Cunningham, for example, the perpetrator of the crime I served 16 years wrongfully for, was, in fact, a known crack user who said that he was high at the time he killed the victim. Therefore, the idea that all those who commit low level crimes are harmless and, by implication, that their samples are worthless is simply not true. Additionally, the implementation of the collection of DNA from all of those who are convicted of
nonviolent misdemeanors, is not racist because it calls for the taking of the samples from anybody, regardless of
race or ethnicity.
Robert Perry, representing the New York Civil Liberties Union, was also against the expansion of the DNA Databank. He argued that because human beings collect and analyze the samples, and because humans are fallible, the databank should not be expanded. If the crime lab does not use correct safety protocols to ensure that cross-contamination does not occur, or if mislabeling of the sample happens, this can lead to errors and false positives. He noted a couple of cases where issues such as contamination and mislabeling led to wrongful convictions, and felt therefore that if even more samples were obtained this would increase the error rate. There
are a variety of responses to this. While I agree that scientific protocols must be observed in order to obtain accurate results, this is true of any science. The occurrence, and correction I might add, through additional DNA Tests down the line which corrected the wrongful convictions, does not disprove the general theory. It merely shows that a safety feature could be built in requiring confirmatory tests by different labs in order to ensure the accuracy of results when DNA is used to prosecute defendants, just as third and sometimes fourth tests are utilized before anybody is released based on a negative showing.
Additionally, although there have been a few rare instances of false positives, there has never been a case of a
false negative, nor has there ever been a case in which defense witnesses testify to an exclusion while the prosecution testified to a match. In those couple of cases of wrongful convictions based on initial inaccurate readings, when the error was discovered, the accurate readout was confirmed by experts for the prosecution
so that there was agreement by both sides.
To not expand the DNA Databank because of a few rare false positives is to also say that DNA should never be used at all, which would have had the result of not obtaining the 2002 exonerations that have been achieved nationwide, including the approximately 30% of cases wherein DNA has not only shown innocence but has also shown the guilt of the correct party, often accompanied by admissions of guilt by the accused.
Further, if the idea to not use technology because there is a human element to it and therefore it is not perfect were applied across the board, there would be no invention or advancement ever used in any aspect of life.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of The Innocence Project, which nationwide has helped clear 2002 wrongfully convicted people through DNA, stated, “Anytime lawmakers are weighing bills on DNA and the criminal justice system, the bottom line question is whether the reforms can prevent wrongful convictions, help people prove their
innocence more quickly, and improve public safety. Legislation introduced in the Assembly meets that test far better than the Senate proposal does. These are serious problems that demand serious action, and New York’s criminal justice system will best be served by the Assembly reforms.”
Shortcomings Of The Bill Unfortunately, there were other provisions in the bill which were very objectionable. For example, there was a one-year time limit provision, modified to three years by the time of the day of
the hearing, in which defendants would be able to file a post-conviction motion known as a 440.10, after which they would be time-barred. This rule was to apply to all non-DNA or newly discovered evidence claims. This rule is inconsistent with justice, truth, guilt and innocence. Everybody who spoke was against
this rule. Consider the following:
• In cases wherein there is misconduct by a prosecutor, a defendant would only have one year to bring this
issue forward;
• When it is discovered that a previous attorney knew about evidence but either did no investigation or else failed
to bring this to the court’s attention, such evidence would not be considered newly discovered because the prior attorney knew about it or the defendant knew about it, and therefore if the one or three years had passed, it would be too late.
• A defendant who discovers, more than a year after conviction, that the police or the prosecutor withheld evidence that by law they were supposed to disclose to the defense (Brady material), they would no longer be able to raise the issue.
• Sometimes The Court of Appeals adopts a new rule and decides that justice requires that it be applied retroactively to cases already in the system. A defendant who has already exhausted his appeals or has progressed beyond the state level, would no longer be able to raise the issue in court, thereby denying
him the benefit of the new rule.
With regard to the proposed time limit, I addressed several points before the Committee. I spoke of how being
time barred could lead to injustice, recounting how then-Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro had urged
the federal court to time bar me because my legal paperwork arrived 4 days too late, and how the court’s adopting of this position led to my continued incarceration.
I pointed out that it should make no difference how much time it has taken a defendant with scarce resources
and little, if any, legal representation to uncover that the prosecutor has illegally held back information which, by law, she should have turned over to the Defense. I then cited the case of Anthony DiSimone, who had
52 boxes of exhibits and 376 pages of statements from various witnesses indicating that another man committed
the crime other than he, would not have had a legal leg to stand on, since this was uncovered years later. I mentioned that the proposed rule was an example of putting procedure over fairness, truth, justice, guilt and innocence. Professor Bennett Gershman, of Pace University Law School, highly regarded former prosecutor, and author of the book Prosecutorial Misconduct, which is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject, and frequent media commentator, speaking from his heart and with passion flowing from his voice, expressed how the inclusion of this time-limiting provision in a bill designed to strengthen DNA testing and access was undoubtedly the result of a compromise reached by the Governor with some prosecutors. Jonathan Gradess, of the group New York State Defenders Association, which provides research information to public defenders
who request it, when asked by the Assembly if such a time limit proposal has any place in a DNA expansion bill,
replied that it did not.
An additional problem with the bill as proposed was that it would limit defendants to the filing of only one 440.10, and that any additional motions filed would automatically have to be denied by courts without even looking at the merits of the issue. This would create several pitfalls inconsistent with justice.
First off, defendants have no right to a lawyer when filing a 440.10, therefore a lot of them have been prepared without benefit of a lawyer to argue and prepare them correctly. Defendants who have no means and are incarcerated, having no lawyer, often resort to filing petitions on their own, out of desperation. Often these
petitions are not argued correctly. If that same defendant then somehow manages to obtain a lawyer at a later date, that lawyer would be barred from filing a properly argued 440.10.
In addition, if a lawyer provided inadequate representation on a 440.10, this would kill the opportunity for a subsequent lawyer to file a new motion. Lastly, as Prof. Hellerstein, the director of The Second Look Program, which works to clear those wrongfully convicted who do not have a DNA issue, pointed out, the provision would make no distinction between frivolous and non-frivolous 440.10 motions. In other words, it would not matter how compelling the new facts or legal arguments in the second motion were, they would not even be looked at or considered by the court. Assemblyman Lentol, who chaired the hearing, chimed in, speaking to the absurdity of the rule, stated that the message being sent to those of scant legal and financial resources, if such a rule was adopted, was “You have one year, so hurry up.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
