The facts and the law behind New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s successful prosecution of Donald Trump could be argued at length. But as a government prosecutor for 30 years, I have been most interested in the ethics of prosecuting that case.
Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Trump said, “This was a disgrace.” That echoes comments made over the year since his indictment in the case in which Trump repeatedly claimed the prosecution was “political persecution.”
There’s merit to his point.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a press conference to discuss his indictment of former President Donald Trump on April 4, 2023.Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
No one better outlined the important ethical standards that have enabled state and federal prosecutors to maintain an image of integrity and honesty than Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. In a speech to the nation’s federal prosecutors on April 1, 1940, he noted that prosecutors should select cases where the offense is “most flagrant and the public harm the greatest,” while warning that the prosecutor’s ability to choose defendants is the “most dangerous power.”
Choosing defendants, Jackson said, requires judgment. It is a power that can be abused.
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone,” Jackson said. In certain cases, he said, “it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”
It is when the prosecutor “picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies,” Jackson warned.
For years, as a federal prosecutor, I had been proud to stand up before the juries and announce, “Ron Sievert for the United States.” I believed that the majority of those in the courtroom understood that the federal government traditionally prosecuted cases that were the “most flagrant.” These were cases where, as Jackson said, “the public harm” was “the greatest.”
We prosecutors preserved our reputation of not prosecuting cases for political reasons by only pursuing cases where there were real victims, in the sense of bodily harm or financial loss. The U.S. Department of Justice had an unwritten but long-understood policy of never indicting and trying a politician for a nonviolent crime within one year of an election.
New York’s prosecution of Donald Trump can be, and has been, characterized long before today by some as a “political prosecution” because of the strong belief that a case on an allegedly false record would never have been brought if Trump were not running for president.
Justice Jackson warned that such a case, without an apparent victim, could undermine the public’s perception of the prosecution’s legitimacy. This prosecution may have upset Trump, but the real question is: Will it damage the good faith – both in the United States and internationally – that has been earned for decades by American public prosecutors?
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Donald Trump leaves the Manhattan courtroom after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial on May 30, 2024. Justin Lane-Pool/Getty Images
After the May 30, 2024, conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York, what comes next?
Trump’s legal team will likely appeal the verdict. “We will fight for our Constitution,” Trump said following the jury’s announcement. “This is long from over.” A sentencing hearing for Trump is set for July 11.
The Conversation U.S.‘ politics and society editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Gabriel J. Chin, a scholar of criminal law and procedure, to better understand the verdict.
A courtroom sketch depicts Judge Juan Merchan, Donald Trump, prospective jurors and other court and legal personnel.Christine Cornell via AP Pool
1. Why were there so many different felony counts in this case?
The essence of the offenses Trump was convicted of is falsifying documents or records. Accordingly, each check, invoice or other document that the jury found had been falsified was a separate offense, which can be the basis of a separate count and punished separately. The prosecution wanted to make sure that the jury saw the full scope of the scheme it alleged had occurred – which is that Trump covered up the fact that he paid hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels by disguising the payment as a legal fee to his lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen then allegedly used Trump’s money to pay Daniels to stop her from talking about her alleged affair with Trump.
2. What is most important for people to understand about this conviction?
It is historic and groundbreaking for a former or future president to be convicted of felonies in the United States. There will be debate, and people will have to judge whether this prosecution is an example of the principle that no person is above the law, or whether this is an example of political persecution.
As a technical legal matter, this conviction has a significant effect on all of Trump’s other criminal and civil cases. At a minimum, it means that if Trump takes the stand to testify in any case, opposing lawyers will be able to attack his credibility with this conviction. Lawyers can argue that any witness with a felony conviction might well be lying.
Practically speaking, this verdict also means that Trump – who is registered to vote in Florida – cannot vote there until completion of his sentence. Under federal law, he cannot possess a firearm. But he can still run for president and serve in office, because nothing in the Constitution disqualifies people with convictions – or who are in prison – from running for, or serving as, president.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a news conference about former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on April 4, 2023.Kena Betancur/Getty Images
3. What can we know, if anything, about what his sentence might look like?
New York judge Juan Merchan will decide the sentence alone, without a jury.
It is not surprising that sentencing has been set for July, rather than sooner. As in other cases, the probation office will prepare a report that lays out Trump’s background and history, and the facts and circumstances of this case. Trump has no criminal record, which is generally a favorable sentencing factor. On the other hand, he does have negative results from lawsuits, including a civil finding in 2023 that determined he committed sexual assault. One issue to look out for is whether the prosecution or the probation department argues that Trump’s other criminal charges and civil cases should be considered in sentencing.
One sentencing factor which sometimes comes into play is lack of remorse; it is often a reason judges impose a more severe sentence. It certainly does not seem that Trump has in any way acknowledged that he did something regrettable, or committed a crime. Trump’s violation of the gag orders in this case, which the judge has already punished him for, could also be a factor used to argue for or impose a higher sentence.
4. Given this verdict, is it likely that Trump will serve time in prison?
The offense of falsifying business records is deemed a “Class E” felony in New York state – and each felony has a potential sentence of up to four years. Probation is available instead of incarceration, or probation plus a short term of incarceration. Sentences may be imposed concurrently or consecutively, so theoretically Trump could get a sentence of 136 years if maximum sentences on all counts are imposed consecutively. But, while the sentence is up to the judge, based on past practice it is reasonable to speculate that Trump will not be sentenced to a long prison term, and may well receive no incarceration time at all.
A not-guilty verdict would have been final because of the Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy – meaning a person cannot be convicted, acquitted or punished more than once for the same offense.
This conviction will undoubtedly be challenged for years, and the appeals process could have at least two chances to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether this case was appropriately tried in state court will also be an issue – federal authority over federal elections and election crimes is likely to be examined on appeal.
In other words, this case is not over by a long shot. It is likely that even were Trump sentenced to incarceration, he would be allowed to remain free, pending appeal. This practice is not uncommon in complex and high-profile cases, at least where there are reasonable legal claims of error.
5. What made the evidence so strong in this case that it persuaded jurors?
It is in part the breadth of the New York law which, unlike the law in many states, criminalizes falsifying internal business records even when they are private and not used to cheat the tax system or defraud anyone. But even in New York, generally falsifying private business records is a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if, as the jury found here, the actions are used to cover up or conceal a crime.
In this case, the jury may well have been persuaded by the prosecution’s argument that the crime covered up was essentially a scheme to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
Because Trump was alleged to have deceived voters, perhaps the jury was unwilling to simply shrug this off as business as usual. Another factor is the remarkable investigation that went into preparing this case. The prosecution had so many witnesses and documents that it could tell the story in highly specific detail.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Much of the so-called Black-on-Black crime is directly related to centuries of institutionalized racism and racist policy that still persists today! Prior to the Supreme Court Decision of Brown v. Board of Education and Civil Rights legislation that resulted from the Civil Rights Movement, racism was overt and racists were direct. However, since racism is now technically illegal, it is practiced more covertly.
Covert racism is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. Concealed in the fabric of society, covert racism discriminates against individuals through often evasive or seemingly passive methods.Covert, racially biased forms of discrimination are often hidden or rationalized with an explanation that society is more willing to accept. These racial biases cause a variety of problems that work to empower the suppressors while diminishing the rights and powers of the oppressed. It creates major obsticles which make if nearly impossible for some to escape generations of poverty. One example is how public education is funded based on property taxes. Well off communities tend to have better schools because more tax money is invested, however, students in poor communities often get trapped in underfunded and usually underperforming schools. Covert racism can't be easily proved or disproved and it can't be criminalize or deem unconstitutional and usually fall outside the bounds of the law. In fact, victims of covert racism often feels uneasy, excluded, ignored, silenced, rejected, marginalized, or exploited without necessarily knowing why.
The term Black on Black Crime is a form of covert racism. People commit crimes where they live, whom do you suppose is committing crimes in China or Russia? Racialized terms can be misleading. Since the United States is for the most part segregated, crime in black communities is most often commited by black people, for example, (90% of black murder victims are killed by black perpetrators) vs. White on White Crime (83% of white murder victims are killed by white perpetrators). However, with that said, because of the horrible legacy of racism, which includes psycological damage, homicide is the leading cause of death among young Black men.
Racist individuals and groups didn't simply fade away because civil rights legislation and Supreme Court decisions made racial discrimination illegal, they changed their strategies. Unfortunately, every major institution including banking/finance, education, government, health care, media, medicine, and most glaringly law enforcement have elements of covert racism that negatively impact African-Americans and other oppressed groups. In 2006, the FBI Reported how white supremacist had inflitrated law enforcement. Ten years later, in 2016, the FBI still could not determine whether racial bias in policing was an epidemic, even though common sense indicates it is. We can easily assume white supremacist have infiltrated each of society's major institutions. Therefore, I am often cautious about the covert intentions of so-called solutions, but I must admit that idea mentioned in the article below seems like it would have a positive impact.
MAIN ARTICLE
by Thaddeus L. Johnson, Georgia State University and Natasha N. Johnson, Georgia State University
President Joe Biden greets police chiefs from across the country at the White House on Feb. 28, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Image
After a historic spike in homicides in 2020, murder rates in most U.S. cities appear to be returning to pre-pandemic levels. This drop has sparked some public attention, as demonstrated during a meeting of police chiefs in February 2024 at the White House.
During the meeting, President Joe Biden lauded investments made in law enforcement and community anti-violence initiatives during his administration. In 2023, Biden said, the U.S. “had one of the lowest rates of all violent crime in more than 50 years.”
But the most striking fact about homicide in the U.S. has been largely overlooked during such meetings – Black Americans are murdered at nearly eight times the rate of white Americans.
This grave reality does not mean Black people are inherently violent. Instead, it largely reflects their disproportionate experience of systemic barriers such as poverty and limited access to quality education, good jobs and affordable housing – all factors that research shows contribute to neighborhood violence.
More people walking around with weapons raises the risks for minor disputes escalating into deadly encounters. Studies revealing a connection between increased gun carrying and a rise in gun-related fatalities highlight the dangers of ready access to guns.
Limits of tough-on-crime policies
To be clear, keeping Americans safe requires arresting and locking up dangerous offenders. But the problem of street violence transcends punishment strategies that emphasize more police, more enforcement of petty crimes and, ultimately, more incarcerations.
Such traditional, tough-on-crime responses fail to address deeper social issues and unwritten rules like the “street code” and the elusive American dream dictating daily life in many inner cities.
This street code discourages police cooperation and glorifies guns and violence as ways to resolve conflicts and gain respect. At the same time, the code encourages intimidation and swift retaliation against perceived threats or insults.
For many people in underserved communities, generational poverty and limited opportunities for upward mobility make crime a viable alternative to a system that seems rigged against them. When people are presented with few legitimate economic prospects, studies show that some turn to crimes such as drug-dealing and theft.
Despite being classified as nonviolent offenses, those involved frequently use violence to establish dominance or settle disagreements.
As scholars of criminal justice – one of us is also a former police officer of 10 years – we have found that one way to reduce crime and its harmful effects on communities is to develop strategies for at-risk individuals that offer a range of mental health and other professional services, including a monthly stipend.
It is no coincidence that young Black males, who are most at risk of gun violence, also have the lowest chance of escaping poverty.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 54% of Black men born in the poorest households end up in the lowest earnings bracket between the ages of 28 to 35, compared with 22% of white men, 29% of white women and 34% of Black women.
Such grim prospects, along with the relatively small group of offenders driving community violence, highlight the importance of targeted, holistic interventions.
Cash incentives
There is one approach that cities can consider – cash allowances for young Black men at greatest risk of committing gun violence.
Community-based initiatives like Advance Peace, a nonprofit agency focused on anti-gun violence, are addressing the economic pressures behind street violence and demonstrate the potential of providing people with guaranteed payments each month.
Advance Peace members gather for a meeting in Sacramento, Calif., on Oct. 26, 2018.x
Launched in Richmond, California, in 2009, Advance Peace receives its funding from city contracts, federal grants and private donations.
Its programs offer participants as much as US$1,000 monthly for up to nine months. This stipend is conditional on meeting goals intended to steer them away from crime and violence, such as completing educational courses or finding jobs.
To address underlying emotional and behavioral issues, participants are also connected with round-the-clock mentorship by staff counselors for at least 18 months. Other services include cognitive behavioral therapy to help manage aggressive and impulsive tendencies associated with violence.
In addition, gang rivals are paired together during sponsored trips to foster dialogue and humanize one another.
In California cities implementing Advance Peace, such as Richmond, Sacramento and Stockton, shootings decreased from 2018 to 2021, and the overwhelming majority of participants have avoided both gun violence and new arrests.
Research on these California cities shows that neighborhoods with Advance Peace programs saw a 5% to 52% decrease in the number of victims of gun violence in 2021 compared with 2018.
Black men under 35 also were involved in 15% to 42% fewer shootings across the three cities.
Solutions that address root causes
Opponents of the monthly stipend, including former Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, have criticized the idea of paying people to obey the law as “cash for criminals.” They contend that this approach suggests compliance requires monetary incentives rather than personal accountability. While understandable, we believe these criticisms are misguided.
The objective is not to pay off potential offenders but rather to stabilize tumultuous lives and open avenues for personal and professional growth. It is challenging to develop these initiatives without stigmatizing recipients or creating dependency. But the harsh truth is that we either pay now or pay later.
Besides the loss of life and the trauma caused by gun violence, its massive economic burden extends beyond victims and their families. Recent estimates reveal that the financial toll of gun violence in the U.S. amounts to a staggering $557 billion annually, surpassing the gross domestic products of countries such as South Africa and Denmark.
These costs include immediate and long-term medical bills, legal expenses and lost earnings from victims’ death or disability.
To this point, another analysis found the potential shootings prevented by Advance Peace programs saved cities $67 million to $268 million in associated costs in 2022. But direct payments to participants offer only temporary relief.
To effectively break the cycle of violence, comprehensive efforts are needed to improve access to quality education, jobs, housing, health care and community development in inner cities. Initiatives that address community violence without tackling its underlying causes is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the root causes of a disease.
Strategically investing in equal opportunities for upward mobility can create a society in which young Black men are less likely to turn to guns for empowerment and self-preservation. We view this investment as a small price to pay for the promise of safer cities.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
There was a lot of press attention paid to the Trump immunity hearing at the Supreme Court building on April 25, 2024. Mandel NGAN / AFP/Getty Images
Following the nearly three-hour oral argument about presidential immunity in the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, many commentators were aghast. The general theme, among legal and political experts alike, was a hand-over-the-mouth, how-dare-they assessment of the mostly conservative justices’ questioning of the attorneys who appeared before them in the case known as Trump v. United States.
Rather than a laser-focused, deep dive into the details of Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election, virtually all of the nine justices instead raised larger questions, peppered with hypotheticals – hello again, Seal Team Six! – about the reach of executive power, the intent of the nation’s founders and the best way to promote a stable democracy.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s “I’m not focused on the here and now of this case” and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s “We are writing a rule for the ages” drew particular fire.
The headline and subheadline on the New York Times analysis by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak complained that the court had taken “Trump’s immunity arguments in unexpected direction” with “very little about the President’s conduct.” And the story itself fumed that the justices had responded to Trump’s claim that he should not face charges as a “weighty and difficult question.”
Slate’s Amicus podcast decried the court for failing to focus on the “narrow question” the case presented, instead going “off the rails” and “bouncing all over the map” with various legal arguments. A guest on NPR’s 1A program lamented that the court had “injected new questions” into the oral argument to “slow-walk” the case and prevent Trump from facing trial before the election.
But here’s what the pundits seem to have forgotten: What happened that day in the court should have surprised no one, especially those constitutional scholars like me familiar with Supreme Court procedure.
Donald Trump’s attorneys told the Supreme Court that the actions of a president should be immune from criminal prosecution.Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images
Five words ‘change everything’
Trump’s case stemmed from his prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump claimed he, as president, was immune from prosecution, and he took his case to the Supreme Court.
When parties appeal their case to the court, they must tell the justices what specific legal question or questions they want the justices to answer. As a colleague and I have explored in a recent academic journal article, the court generally accepts what is called the “Questions Presented” as given, agreeing to hear a case without making any adjustments to its legal framing.
Sometimes, however, the court will alter the legal question in some way. Why it does this is an issue that scholars like myself are just beginning to explore. And because it is that question – not the one the litigant initially asked – that frames the legal analysis, the justices can exert real control over both the case itself and the development of the law.
Trump v. United States is a classic example. When attorneys for the former president filed their request with the court, the question presented by them was “Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts.”
When it granted the petition in late February 2024, the court changed this language to “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Five of those additional words – “if so to what extent” – changed everything. They sent a clear-as-day signal that the court would move well beyond the simple yes-or-no of whether Trump could be prosecuted.
With their reformulation of the question, the justices would instead be determining how, when and for what acts any president could ever be held criminally responsible.
That is a much larger inquiry, one that necessarily involves formulating a legal test to draw a line between what is constitutionally permissible and what is not. That the justices spent oral argument trying do exactly that is not a problem, much less an outrage: It’s just the court, the highest appellate court in the land, doing its job.
The scope of the argument, the expansiveness of the coming opinions and the time suck for the justices to write them and the possible vanishing of Trump’s prosecution are not at all shocking. The court signaled it would address the broader question months ago when it took the case; the time to fault the court for making the case about more than just Donald Trump was then, not now.
But perhaps commentators’ response to the oral argument can be a good lesson. Americans are told to take Trump at his word, expecting his second term to contain all the extremes he gleefully says it will.
When the Supreme Court indicates what legal question it will answer, the smart response is to do the same thing – pay attention and believe. This may not make the ultimate outcome any less distasteful to many, but at least it won’t be quite as disturbing.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation .
Though Hollywood movies about courtroom dramas often glamorize the closing arguments given by lawyers, in reality the opening statement is likely the most important single event of a trial.
Lawyers in the hush money case involving former President Donald Trump and alleged payments to porn star Stormy Daniels presented their opening statements on April 22, 2024, in New York.
In this case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged the former president with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an effort to influence voters’ knowledge about him before the 2016 presidential election. Trump entered a plea of not guilty.
Academic psychologists tell us that between 65% and 75% of jurors make up their minds about a case after the opening statement. What’s even more incredible is that 85% of those jurors maintain the position they formed after the opening statement once all evidence is received and the trial is closed.
More often than not, it is too late by closing arguments to win over the jury.
This phenomenon comes as no surprise to veteran trial lawyers. They are aware of two theories that define how jurors – indeed, people generally – process information: the concepts of primacy and recency
These ideas suggest that jurors best remember what they hear first and what they hear last. It is vitally important, then, for lawyers on both sides to start their opening arguments with a bang.
The psychology of jurors
I have taught a course on trial advocacy for the past two decades at the Harvard Law School. Part of my curriculum is to teach budding lawyers how to deliver effective opening statements.
If the idea is to win over the jury by the end of the lawyer’s opening statement, how, in practice, is that done?
Trial lawyers steeped in the research know that juries respond to a well-considered theory of the case, punctuated by a pithy theme.
A theory of the case is a brief, three- to five-sentence statement akin to what is known as an “elevator pitch.” The theme is a short, pithy summary of the theory of the case that is easy for a juror to remember. Often the theme is the first sentence out of the lawyer’s mouth, followed by a fuller description of the theory.
Indeed, in my class at Harvard, the very first skill I teach is how to develop theories and themes. In order to effectively convey a theory in a case, many lawyers start their opening statements with “This is a case about …” and then fill in the specific details.
For example, the prosecution in a murder case may start their opening like this:
“Members of the jury, this is a case about the death of an innocent young woman, witnessed by concerned citizens, who all identify the only person with a motive to kill her, the defendant.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a news conference about former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on April 4, 2023.Kena Betancur/Getty Images
In stark contrast, the defense might start with something that is the complete opposite of the prosecution’s opening statement:
“Members of the jury, this is a case about a jealous ex-lover who shot a woman in cold blood, fled the country and left my client to take the fall.”
In each example, the jury is given enough information to frame the evidence they will hear throughout the trial.
After both sides have finished their openings, data shows that more than two-thirds of the jury will have come to a decision that will persist through the remainder of the trial.
Why do juries tend to behave this way?
Research also has taught trial lawyers that if you connect the jury with your theory of a case, at the beginning of the trial, jurors will process all the rest of the evidence – whether potentially helpful to the prosecution or to the defense – through the prism of that theory.
The importance of opening statements cannot be overstated. They set the tone and offer the jury a framework to understand the upcoming months of testimony they are about to hear.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
by Clare Pastore, University of Southern California
A homeless person near an elementary school in Fruitdale Park in Grants Pass, Ore. AP Photo/Jenny Kane
On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could radically change how cities respond to the growing problem of homelessness. It also could significantly worsen the nation’s racial justice gap.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson began when a small city in Oregon with just one homeless shelter began enforcing a local anti-camping law against people sleeping in public using a blanket or any other rudimentary protection against the elements – even if they had nowhere else to go. The court must now decide whether it is unconstitutional to punish homeless people for doing in public things that are necessary to survive, such as sleeping, when there is no option to do these acts in private.
The case raises important questions about the scope of the Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment clause and the limits of cities’ power to punish involuntary conduct. As a specialist in poverty law, civil rights and access to justice who has litigated many cases in this area, I know that homelessness in the U.S. is a function of poverty, not criminality, and is strongly correlated with racial inequality. In my view, if cities get a green light to continue criminalizing inevitable behaviors, these disparities can only increase.
Western states strongly criticize the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings against criminalizing homelessness, but other states argue that local governments have better options.
A national crisis
Homelessness in the United States is a massive problem. The number of people without homes held steady during the COVID-19 pandemic largely because of eviction moratoriums and the temporary availability of expanded public benefits, but it has risen sharply since 2022.
The latest data from the federal government’s annual “Point-in-Time” homeless count found 653,000 people homeless across the U.S. on a single night in 2023 – a 12% increase from 2022 and the highest number reported since the counts began in 2007. Of the people counted, nearly 300,000 were living on the street or in parks, rather than indoors in temporary shelters or safe havens.
The survey also shows that all homelessness is not the same. About 22% of homeless people are deemed chronically homeless, meaning they are without shelter for a year or more, while most experience a temporary or episodic lack of shelter. A 2021 study found that 53% of homeless shelter residents and nearly half of unsheltered people were employed.
Scholars and policymakers have spent many years analyzing the causes of homelessness. They include wage stagnation, shrinking public benefits, inadequate treatment for mental illness and addiction, and the politics of siting affordable housing. There is little disagreement, however, that the simple mismatch between the vast need for affordable housing and the limited supply is a central cause.
Homelessness and race
Like poverty, homelessness in the U.S. is not race-neutral. Black Americans represent 13% of the population but comprise 21% of people living in poverty and 37% of people experiencing homelessness.
The largest percentage increase in homelessness for any racial group in 2023 was 40% among Asians and Asian-Americans. The largest numerical increase was among people identifying as what the Department of Housing and Urban Development calls “Latin(a)(o)(x),” with nearly 40,000 more homeless in 2023 than in 2022.
This disproportionality means that criminalizing homelessness likewise has a disparate racial effect. A 2020 study in Austin, Texas, showed that Black homeless people were 10 times more likely than white homeless people to be cited by police for camping on public property.
Increasing homelessness, especially its visible manifestations such as tent encampments, has frustrated city residents, businesses and policymakers across the U.S. and led to an increase in crackdowns against homeless people. Reports from the National Homelessness Law Center in 2019and 2021 have tallied hundreds of laws restricting camping, sleeping, sitting, lying down, panhandling and loitering in public.
Just since 2022, Texas, Tennessee and Missouri have passed statewide bans on camping on public property, with Texas making it a felony.
Under presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the federal government has asserted that criminal sanctions are rarely useful. Instead it has emphasized alternatives, such as supportive services, specialty courts and coordinated systems of care, along with increased housing supply.
Some cities have had striking success with these measures. But not all communities are on board.
Members of a local ‘park watch’ group demonstrate against homeless encampments in Grants Pass, Ore., March 20, 2024.AP Photo/Jenny Kane
The Grants Pass case
Grants Pass v. Johnson culminates years of struggle over how far cities can go to discourage homeless people from residing within their borders, and whether or when criminal sanctions for actions such as sleeping in public are permissible.
In a 2019 case, Martin v. City of Boise, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause forbids criminalizing sleeping in public when a person has no private place to sleep. The decision was based on a 1962 Supreme Court case, Robinson v. California, which held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize being a drug addict. Robinson and a subsequent case, Powell v. Texas, have come to stand for distinguishing between status, which cannot constitutionally be punished, and conduct, which can.
In the Grants Pass ruling, the 9th Circuit went one step further than it had in the Boise case and held that the Constitution also banned criminalizing the act of public sleeping with rudimentary protection from the elements. The decision was contentious: Judges disagreed over whether the anti-camping ban regulated conduct or the status of being homeless, which inevitably leads to sleeping outside when there is no alternative.
Grants Pass is urging the Supreme Court to abandon the Robinson precedent and its progeny as “moribund and misguided.” It argues that the Eighth Amendment forbids only certain cruel methods of punishment, which do not include fines and jail terms.
The homeless plaintiffs argue that they do not challenge reasonable regulation of the time and place of outdoor sleeping, the city’s ability to limit the size or location of homeless groups or encampments, or the legitimacy of punishing those who insist on remaining in public when shelter is available. But they argue that broad anti-camping laws inflict overly harsh punishments for “wholly innocent, universally unavoidable behavior” and that punishing people for “simply existing outside without access to shelter” will not reduce this activity.
They contend that criminalizing sleeping in public when there is no alternative violates the Eighth Amendment in three ways: by criminalizing the “status” of homelessness, by imposing disproportionate punishment on innocent and unavoidable acts, and by imposing punishment without a legitimate deterrent or rehabilitative goal.
‘Housing First’ is a strategy for reducing homelessness that has contributed to progress in cities including Houston, Salt Lake City and Columbus, Ohio.
The case has attracted dozens of amicus briefs, including from numerous cities and counties that support Grants Pass. They assert that the 9th Circuit’s recent decisions have worsened homelessness, stymied law enforcement and left jurisdictions without clear guidelines for preserving public order and safety.
On the other hand, the states of Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Vermont filed a brief urging the Court to uphold the 9th Circuit’s ruling, arguing that local governments retain ample tools to address homelessness and that criminalizing tends to worsen rather than alleviate the problem.
A brief from 165 former local elected officials agrees. Service providers, social scientists and professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association filed briefs noting that criminalization increases barriers to education, employment and eventual recovery; erodes community trust; and can force people back into abusive situations. They also highlight research showing the effectiveness of a nonpunitive “housing first” model.
A race to the bottom?
The current Supreme Court is generally extremely sympathetic to law enforcement, but even its conservative members may balk at allowing a city to criminalize inevitable acts by homeless people. Doing so could spark competition among cities to create the most punitive regime in hopes of effectively banishing homeless residents.
Still, at least some justices may sympathize with the city’s argument that upholding the 9th Circuit’s ruling “logically would immunize numerous other purportedly involuntary acts from prosecution, such as drug use by addicts, public intoxication by alcoholics, and possession of child pornography by pedophiles.” However the court rules, this case will likely affect the health and welfare of thousands of people experiencing homelessness in cities across the U.S.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
I've often wondered if OJ Simpson would have been arrested, charged with murder, and what the reaction would have been if his murdered ex-wife had been a black woman. In the early 1990s, the former professional football player and Hollywood actor was earning $55,000 per month and had a net worth of nearly $11 million, according to court records.
I was born in 1965, the same year as Ron Goldman, and within my lifetime, interacial marriage was still illegal in some parts of the country until the Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967. Centuries of systemic racism has been codefied in law, policy, and custom which results in disastrous outcomes for African-American criminal defendants and civil litigants even today. Yesterday's racism didn't disappear, it simply evolved.
Too often in our society, when a black male celebrity is involved with a white woman the results are disastrous. From Jack Johnson to the lastest example Jonothan Majors, famous black men have had their lives tuned upside down because they dared date white women. Rape or attempted rape was the second most common accusation used as pretexts for lynching black people who violated Jim Crow etiquette or engaged in economic competition with white people. Even the bombing and destruction of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, OK and the murder of Emmett Till were based on false allegations by white women.
Even though Ron Goldman's family had had ties to drugs and money laundering, he was never considered the target. Ron Goldman was stabbed and wounded many times according to the autopsy report. Goldman sustained dozens of defensive wound on his body, mostly found on his hands, face, and upper body indicating he fought with his attacker for what could have been 5 – 10 minutes. The killer most certainly would have been covered in blood.
The prosecution of OJ Simpson involved perjured testimony, questionable DNA and circumstancial evidence. Los Angeles police detective, Mark Fuhrmann was a chief witness during the trial. Fuhrmann denied ever using the word "nigger" on the witness stand. Simpson’s defense team produced audiotapes of Fuhrman using the word "nigger" multiple times and Fuhrman later pleaded no contest to committing perjury. Prior to the Simpson case, Mark Furhman took part in taped interviews with a screenwriter in which he used the word "nigger" 41 times. At one point he said, “all these niggers in L.A. City government … should be lined up against a wall and fucking shot.” Read the court transcript for yourself.
The jury did not believe OJ had enough time to commit the murders, base upon the evidence, the jury determined OJ only had 8 minutes to murder Nicole Brown and Ron Goldmann, travel back to his estate, get cleaned up and ready for his trip. Additionally in those 8 minutes, OJ would have needed to clean the bloody Bronco and remove all traces of blood from the drain pipes that investigators checked for any traces of blood.
The only cut or bruise was on OJ's middle finger, which he said he cut in Chicago. Six or seven different witnesses testified they saw OJ at the airport and he didn't have a cut on his finger. Oj was shaking hands,signing autographs, and showing off his hall of fame ring.
OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder because the prosecution failed to prove their case against him. The legal defense team believed evidence was planted by police. Jurors are allowed to used their background, education, life experience, common knowledge and common sense when evaluating evidence. A bloody nose I had one day during the trial became a piviotal moment for me. I rushed to the my bathroom for tissue. After my nose stopped bleeding, I realized blood was several places between the living room and bathroom. I then thought about the tremendous amounts of blood killing two people with a knife would generate. If OJ was the killer, vast amounts of blood should have been found.
When I also consider the fact that the Los Angele Police Department was known to have racist officer and a large number of officers were proven to have planted evidence during the Rampart Scandal just a few years after OJ's acquital. Over 70 officers within the Rampart Division were accused of being corrupt. Rampart officers planted evidence and committed perjury which resulted in 106 prior convictions to be overturned and more than 140 civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles, costing the city an estimated $125 million in settlements.
I still believe the OJ Simpson jury reached the right verdict!
by Frankie Bailey, University at Albany, State University of New York
O.J. Simpson shows the jury a pair of gloves, similar to those found near the crime scene, during his trial in Los Angeles in 1995. POO/AFP via Getty Images
With the death of O.J. Simpson, I can’t help but wonder whether the media has learned any lessons from its coverage of his trial, in which the ex-football star was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend.
In many ways, the “trial of the century” brought out some of the media’s worst impulses.
As criminologist Gregg Barak explained, the O.J. Simpson case was a true “spectacle” – essentially a nine-month live news broadcast. At the same time, because of Simpson’s celebrity, the case was being followed as popular culture.
Of course, crimes have always attracted morbid interest, generating media attention and inspiring true-crime narratives.
But since the late 20th century, this has occurred more often – sometimes even before a trial has ended. The lines between news and entertainment have become increasingly blurred – what criminologist Ray Surette calls “infotainment” – with race, class and the quest for ratings influencing which crimes get covered and how they get portrayed.
Trial by media
Whenever I teach the O.J. Simpson trial in my criminal justice classes, I bring up a late-19th century murder case involving a white, upperclass woman named Lizzie Borden.
Both Simpson and Borden were accused of double murder – and both of their trials became a media circus.
In August 1892, Andrew Borden, a wealthy businessman, and Abby, his second wife, were hacked to death in their home in Fall River, Massachusetts. Accused of killing her father and hated stepmother, their 32-year-old daughter, Lizzie, became the subject of exhaustive media coverage.
A century before O.J. Simpson hired what the media called a legal “dream team,” Borden had a star-studded defense team that included a former governor and the Borden family lawyer. Like the Simpson case, the legal strategies of the prosecutor and the Borden defense team were subjected to much media scrutiny.
Most of the evidence against Borden was circumstantial; in the end, she was acquitted by an all-male jury that may have found it difficult to believe a respectable spinster could commit such a horrific crime.
Yet, Borden was never able to escape the stigma of having been accused of murder. Upon being set free, she found herself ostracized by former friends. For years, newspaper coverage documented Borden’s life after her acquittal. Since her death, the countless books, articles, a made-for-TV movie – even a recent TV series about Borden’s life after the trial – demonstrate the staying power of the high-profile, 19th-century trial.
Like Borden, Simpson was able to use his class and wealth to his advantage. But he also was excoriated during and after his trial.
Celebrity crimes make good TV
Of course, there was no television in Borden’s time.
On Oct. 3, 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans tuned in to hear the jury’s verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. It marked the culmination of 16 months of wall-to-wall, prime-time television coverage.
On the evening of June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, were slashed to death outside Nicole Simpson’s upscale condo in Los Angeles, California. After the police pursued O.J. Simpson’s white Bronco in a low-speed car chase that mesmerized TV viewers, O.J. Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders.
For the broadcast networks and their fledgling cable news counterparts, it was a recipe for high drama – and high ratings.
With a captivated nation glued to their TVs, radios and newspapers, media outlets rolled out a slate of trial experts to offer daily commentary. This template would become the norm for future celebrity trials, as a cottage industry of legal pundits would appear on the airwaves to comment on cases ranging from Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” lawsuit to the indictments of former President Donald Trump since he left office in 2021.
Post-trial research has found that audience perceptions of guilt or innocence in the Simpson trial were shaped by the amount – and type – of media consumed. The more someone became sucked into the daily happenings of the trial, the more likely they were to become emotionally invested in O.J.’s life. Developing what’s known as a parasocial bond, they became more likely to believe in his innocence.
How the media colors crime and race
When the jury declared Simpson innocent, reactions largely fell along racial lines. Throngs of white Americans responded with shock, dismay – even anger – while crowds of Black Americans responded with elation.
Polls and surveys later found people’s reactions to the verdict reflected not only their opinion about Simpson’s guilt or innocence, but also their beliefs about race and the fairness of the country’s criminal justice system.
Simpson’s own relationship to race was always complicated.
In a 1970 New York Times article titled “For the Black Athlete, New Advances,” reporter Robert Lipsyte quoted Simpson describing how he had overheard a racial slur while attending a wedding with mostly white guests. Lipsyte wrote that race relations would have to improve dramatically for Simpson “to be able to transcend blackness in his public image.”
By the 1990s, Simpson seemed to have done just that. A middle-aged O.J. had achieved celebrity status, and he appeared to have transcended this blackness by distancing himself from poor and working-class black people, while gaining the acceptance of white people who saw him as a celebrity immune to the trappings of racial stereotypes.
Despite some incidents of domestic violence, Simpson had been able to maintain this genial reputation – until he was accused of the murder of his white ex-wife and her friend.
Simpson’s fall from grace was symbolized by a controversial 1994 Time magazine cover photo, which some claim was altered to make Simpson’s skin appear darker.
By 2014, the gap between how Black people and white people viewed Simpson’s verdict had narrowed: Black people were far more likely to believe that Simpson was guilty.
The month before Kim Gardner was sworn in, I published an article that made the following prediction: "Make no mistake, if Ms. Gardner proves to be a fair prosecutor, there will certainly be those that will attempt to distort her statements, vilify her actions and generally discredit her. There is a private prison system that stands to lose millions of dollars under a non-oppressive system."
The oppression of African-Americans is big business. Police officers often earn six figures annually, judges, prison food service, prison guards, probation officers, tech companies that supply ankle monitoring systems, and a multitude of others make their living and profits because of the continuing oppression of others. Take away the oppression and their income is taken away. Oppression and racism are big business, and always have been!
Article by Jeremy Kohler
After the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the months of protests that followed, the city of St. Louis was forced to reckon with its Black residents’ longstanding distrust of its police and courts.
Kim Gardner emerged as a voice for change. A lifelong resident of St. Louis, she had diverse professional experiences, having worked as a funeral director, a nurse, a lawyer, and a state legislator. When campaigning for circuit attorney, the city’s top prosecutor, she focused on the disproportionate frequency of arrests and police officers using force against St. Louis’ Black community.
Kim Gardner in 2022, when she was the St. Louis circuit attorney
“We need to change decades of old practices that left many in our community distrustful of the criminal justice system as a whole,” she told The St. Louis American, the city’s Black newspaper, just days before her decisive primary victory in August 2016 that all but sealed her general election win.
In the last decade, prosecutors in other major American cities also campaigned on promises of systemic reform: Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco.
Yet, much like Gardner, these prosecutors have faced resistance from the police and the unions that represent rank-and-file officers. They’ve been accused of being soft on crime and have even been met with political maneuvers aimed at derailing their initiatives. Several have been targeted by efforts to remove them from office or pare away their powers.
Boudin lost a recall vote and was removed in June 2022. And Krasner, criticized for his reduced emphasis on prosecuting minor crimes, was impeached by the state legislature in November, although a state court threw out the result.
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has removed elected prosecutors in Tampa and Orlando. He suspended Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren over Warren’s refusal to prosecute offenses related to abortion and gender-related health care. He suspended the state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties, Monique Worrell, because he said she wasn’t tough enough on some serious offenses.
Monique Worrell speaks at a press conference after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended her from her job as a state attorney
Georgia recently became the first state to establish a commission with the authority to discipline and even remove local elected prosecutors. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp framed the law as a way to check “far-left prosecutors.”
Gardner, who was reelected in 2020, stepped down in May of 2023 while facing both a lawsuit from the state attorney general that sought her removal and a separate attempt by the Republican-led legislature to curtail her authority. Gardner’s mismanagement of her office played a significant role in her downfall. Reform-minded lawyers who she personally hired had departed. And while judges fumed about prosecutors failing to show up for court, Gardner was moonlighting as a nursing student.
Though other prosecutors faced various challenges, there are no widely known instances like that of retired detective Roger Murphey in St. Louis, who has refused to testify in at least nine murder cases and hasn’t received any departmental discipline.
“For every progressive prosecutor who’s managed to stick it out, there’s one who’s either been recalled or driven out,” said Lara Bazelon, a University of San Francisco law school professor who volunteered on Boudin’s campaign and serves as chair of the commission he created to review inmates’ claims of innocence. “So it’s a real mix of success and cautionary tales.”
She added: “If the police are against you, or literally out to get you, you’re probably not going to be able to last in that job.”
Foxx, elected in 2016 and reelected in 2020, announced in April that she will not seek a third term next year, though she said it was not because of resistance from the police. In an interview, Foxx said that even before she took office, the Chicago police union felt threatened by her assertion that Black lives matter and that the criminal justice system could be more fair, particularly to communities of color.
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announces that she will not seek reelection.
It was a signal, she said, “that I was not one of them.”
“The reality is we were offering something very different to what was traditionally viewed as the law-and-order approach to prosecution,” Foxx said. “I think it was surprising to folks that prosecutors could be elected addressing these issues.”
R. Michael Cassidy, a law professor at Boston College and an expert in prosecutorial ethics, said the Ferguson unrest emphasized the need for change in how police and prosecutors work. He said some prosecutors have failed to manage their relationships with police; prosecutors depend on the officers to bring them cases and to testify in court, but they must conduct oversight of the police as well.
Foxx pushed back against any assertion that she didn’t manage her relationship with police. She pointed to a popular Chicago police blog that often refers to her as “Crimesha” — “a play on the word ‘crime’ and what I believe to be a racist insinuation about me being Black with the name ‘-esha.’” The blog has also sexualized her last name by adding a third X and has insinuated that members of her family are connected to gangs.
“From the moment we came into office, we reached out to our partners in law enforcement, and what we saw was there was a segment of them who were never going to be satisfied with me in this role because I said ‘Black lives matter,’ because I said ‘We need police accountability,’ because I said that we had a criminal justice system that overly relied on incarceration that targeted Black and brown communities,” she said.
She said that she, Gardner, and other prosecutors “have been faced with an unprecedented level of hate and vitriol” from the police.
“That,” she said, “is the story.”
Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara and other union officials did not respond to requests for comment. But Catanzara told the Chicago Sun-Times in 2020 that the union’s complaints about Foxx were based on her job performance. He said she was a “social activist in an elected law enforcement position” who was unwilling to “faithfully do her job.”
The local police union organized a protest calling for the removal of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx in Chicago in 2019.
But as property crime rates climbed in San Francisco, Boudin came under increased scrutiny.
Cassidy said Boudin and other like-minded prosecutors have been scapegoated for isolated incidents or temporary spikes in crime statistics, as if they alone are responsible. In some cities, that has swung public opinion against them.
Chesa Boudin, during his time as San Francisco’s district attorney
Boudin said the claims were unfair and largely the product of police resistance to his reforms.
“We’ve seen, on body-worn camera footage, police officers telling victims there’s nothing they can do and, ‘Don’t forget to vote in the upcoming recall election,’” Boudin said in an interview.
Boudin said he and other local prosecutors have found “there is absolutely zero accountability for these officers who engage in explicitly political acts of sabotage or dereliction of duty.”
A spokesperson for the San Francisco police union declined to comment.
Some prosecutors have held onto their positions despite challenges to their power. In November, veteran public defender Mary Moriarty was elected county attorney for the jurisdiction that includes Minneapolis in the first election since the death there of George Floyd. The same night, Dallas District Attorney John Creuzot was reelected by a nearly 20-point margin in spite of calls by a police union for his ouster over his plan not to prosecute certain low-level offenses.
In August 2022, Sarah George, the incumbent state’s attorney in Vermont’s Chittenden County, which includes Burlington, secured her seat with a 20-point victory in the Democratic primary over Ted Kenney, a challenger backed by the police.
George had introduced a variety of reforms, including eliminating cash bail and declining to prosecute cases where evidence was obtained during noncriminal traffic stops, like those for broken taillights. The Burlington police union called her actions “disastrous” and Kenney argued that the approach made streets less safe.
George, too, has seen police body camera video of officers blaming her for crime. In one video, which she provided to ProPublica, the Riverfront Times and NPR, an officer from a suburban police department tells a couple that officers can’t do anything about a crack house in their neighborhood. He then implores them to vote for Kenney because of George’s “super-progressive, soft-on-crime approach where we arrest the same people daily and they get out the same day.”
George said that, with some crime investigations, the police are “not really doing the work that we need to do on the case, and then blaming us for the case not being filed.”
The Burlington police union declined to comment. The chiefs of police in Burlington and Winooski, the suburb where the video was taken, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Gardner, too, often faced criticism from police for her reluctance to prosecute cases based on arrests alone. In one notable instance in 2019, she dropped child-endangerment charges against two daycare workers who were captured on video as they appeared to encourage toddlers to box using toy Incredible Hulk fists.
The police union called for her ouster, writing on Facebook: “The first rule of toddler fight club is … that you prosecute the sadistic promoters of toddler fight club.”
In comments made before her resignation, Gardner noted that she had been careful not to file criminal charges in cases where she did not feel there was enough evidence. “What they want me to do is make it look like this job is easy,” she said. “We can’t make things fit and people don’t like that. That’s not what justice is about.”
Richard Rosenfeld, a professor emeritus of criminology at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, was one of several researchers who pooled data from 65 major cities and found “no evidence to support the claim that progressive prosecutors were responsible for the increase in homicide during the pandemic or before it.”
Indeed, Chicago’s murder rate fell during Foxx’s first years in office, rose during the first years of the pandemic and has been falling this year, city crime statistics show. Philadelphia’s murder rate was in steep decline this year after a precipitous rise that started in 2020. And most categories of crime were in retreat in St. Louis at the time Gardner resigned, while violent crime was up in San Francisco a year after Boudin’s exit, according to statistics.
Acknowledging that the St. Louis police commonly blamed Gardner for crime trends, Rosenfeld, a veteran observer of policing in St. Louis, said, “Case not proved, is what I would argue there.”
Republished with permission from Propublica under license.
Plea agreements are made without the full discovery of the facts and evidence and prosecutors often lack enough evidence to secure a conviction. Personally, I never want to experience the degrading experience of going to jail. I don't believe I would ever accept a plea deal. Regardless of how short a prison sentence is when someone is locked up with hardened criminals, there's no way to guarantee your safety. Even if you physically survive your prison sentence, but are forced into compromising situations, your mental health could be permanently damaged.
by Shi Yan, Arizona State University; David M. Zimmerman, Missouri State University; Kelly T. Sutherland, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Miko M. Wilford, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Despite a constitutional right to a jury trial, more than 94% of criminal convictions in the United States result from guilty pleas, not jury verdicts. Even innocent people, those who did not commit the crimes of which they are accused, can plead guilty – and they do.
Given the lack of reliable data, it is extremely difficult to estimate what proportion of pleas are from innocent defendants. However, many researchers believe the proportion is significant. So far, the National Registry of Exonerations, a database that records all known exonerations of innocent defendants in the United States after 1989, has identified more than 580 cases in which innocent people chose to plead guilty.
When people are held in jail, they’re likely to accept quick release – even if it means admitting to something they didn’t do. Caspar Benson via Getty Images
Even though prosecutors largely base their charging and bargaining decisions on the assessed strength of available evidence, such assessments are not perfect. While guilty people are more receptive to plea offers, innocent defendants are not immune to the potentially coercive factors that make pleading guilty attractive such as pretrial detention and differences in duration of sentences.
Prosecutors often offer plea deals with dramatically lower sentences than those likely to be imposed if a jury finds the defendant guilty. In some cases, defendants who opted for a trial instead of pleading guilty have received tenfold sentence increases from the original plea offer, or even life sentences, upon conviction.
This possibility can make a plea offer very attractive, and even create what some have called a “trial penalty” for defendants who refuse to plead guilty.
When defendants are held in jail before trial, they may be more likely to accept a plea deal as well – even if they are innocent. The promise of immediate release, usually through probation or a sentence for time already served behind bars, has been found to increase both true and false guilty plea rates.
With tools like these, the justice system was already skilled at encouraging defendants to plead guilty – even if they were innocent. Then, the coronavirus hit.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the nation’s criminal justice system in two major ways.
First, prisons and jails, as places where diverse populations came into very close physical contact, became outbreak hot spots.
And then courts closed or limited their operations, seeking to follow workplace safety rules and social distancing guidelines. Many courts stopped hosting jury trials for months.
These facts further increased the risks of going to trial: Defendants had to wait longer for their day in court, and each day they spent in jail increased their risk of being exposed to the coronavirus. The research on pleas has clearly indicated that when the cost of going to trial increases, guilty pleas increase too.
Sure enough, a survey of 93 defense attorneys found that plea bargaining practices have indeed changed during the pandemic. More than 60% of the lawyers surveyed said they thought prosecutors were offering more lenient deals than they would have before the pandemic. At the same time, more than 30% of the attorneys had a client who claimed innocence but nevertheless accepted a plea offer because of concerns related to COVID-19.
To examine whether COVID-19 exacerbated the innocence problem in guilty pleas among a larger sample of potential defendants, we used a computerized simulation platform of legal procedures funded by the National Science Foundation and developed at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. More than 700 U.S. adults agreed to participate in our study, and we randomly assigned them to be either innocent or guilty of stealing a pair of sunglasses. In the simulation, all participants were detained before trial, then offered a plea deal to be immediately released.
Among both guilty and innocent conditions, we further randomly informed half of the participants about the complications related to COVID-19 – that the jail was currently having an outbreak of coronavirus and court dates had been pushed back because of the pandemic.
The results confirmed that both guilty and innocent participants were more likely to plead guilty when warned of the increased complications posed by COVID-19. Further, innocent participants ranked the pandemic as a more important factor in shaping their decision to plead than guilty participants.
As the pandemic wanes, courts and the legal system as a whole are resuming more normal operations. But the fundamental problems with the plea process – excessive trial penalties and pretrial detention – will remain.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
I’ve been researching lawsuits against the gun industry for over 20 years. While I believe New York’s law is certain to unleash a new round of lawsuits against gun-makers, my research suggests that these claims will face considerable legal hurdles. Even if this litigation succeeds – effectively ending the gun industry’s immunity from liability – the jury is still out on whether it will do much to curb gun violence.
States routinely rely on public nuisance laws to regulate conduct that unreasonably interferes with the health and safety of others. Common examples include polluting the air or water, obstructing roadways or making excessive noise.
New York’s amended statute holds gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for the public nuisance of illegal gun use if they fail to implement “reasonable controls” to prevent the unlawful sale, possession or use of firearms within the state. The law specifies that “reasonable controls” include implementing programs to secure inventory from theft and prevent illegal retail sales.
Under the law, both public officials and private citizens can file lawsuits seeking money damages and a court injunction to compel offending parties to stop the nuisance. For example, a gun manufacturer who sold weapons that were subsequently used in crimes could be held liable if it failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that retail dealers did not engage in illegal sales practices.
The gun industry’s immunity shield
Suing the firearms industry for gun violence under the theory of public nuisance is nothing new.
Individual gun violence victims, civic organizations such as the NAACP and big-city mayors started filing such lawsuits in the late 1990s. Congress put an end to this litigation in 2005 when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which granted gun sellers – including manufacturers – immunity from liability arising out of criminal misuse of the weapons they sold.
Immunity under the act is not absolute. Notably, a seller is not immune from liability if it “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms. Consequently, following the passage of the act, plaintiffs argued that gun-makers’ marketing, distribution and sales practices constituted a public nuisance in violation of state statutes.
However, federal appellate courts in New York and California rejected this argument. Those courts held that public nuisance laws did not qualify for the exception to immunity because they were not specifically aimed at regulating firearms.
Challenges ahead for New York’s new law
New York responded by updating its statute.
The state is hoping to prompt civil litigation that will bring pressure on the industry to prevent the diversion of guns into the black market and the hands of illegal gun traffickers. Before the federal immunity bill, the industry faced a rising tide of litigation.
New lawsuits, however, will face multiple challenges, which I believe will likely reach all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I will consider two prominent ones.
First, gun industry defendants will argue that New York’s amended public nuisance statute is an attempt to subvert the purpose of 2005 law, which was passed specifically to halt these types of claims against gun sellers in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The opening section of the immunity law denounces this litigation as “an abuse of the legal system.” New York’s claim to utilize a narrow exception to gun industry immunity looks an awful lot like an attempt to eliminate immunity altogether.
At the same time, the letter of the law allows claims arising out of the violation of any statute that specifically applies to the sale of firearms, which is exactly what New York’s amended public nuisance law does.
For the Supreme Court, these contending views would pit the conservative majority’s strong allegiance to gun rights against its insistence on sticking to the letter of the law when reading statutes.
Second, gun industry defendants will argue that the Second Amendment limits any type of litigation likely to restrict access to the lawful purchase of firearms.
In a series of landmark cases, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own firearms “in common use” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” If public nuisance lawsuits were to drive some gun-makers into bankruptcy, courts might view them as a threat to Second Amendment rights.
However, the Second Amendment is silent on how to balance the constitutional right to keep and bear arms against the right Americans have to sue in civil court. How the Supreme Court might rule on this particular challenge is unclear.
Impact on reducing gun violence
But let’s assume for a moment that nuisance lawsuits survive a Supreme Court challenge, effectively ending the gun industry’s liability shield. Would this litigation then be able to reduce gun violence?
The main impact of these lawsuits is to put pressure on gun manufactures to do more to prevent inventory theft and illegal sales by retailers. Since 2000, the gun industry has operated a program to prevent illegal straw purchases, suggesting manufactures think they may be able to affect how retailers operate. Even still, little is known about whether this program has had any impact on gun violence rates. That’s why no one really knows if forcing gun manufacturers to more closely supervise retailers will work.
Part of the problem is a lack of government funding since the mid-1990s for public health research on alleged links between industry sales practices and gun crimes. Recent funding for this kind of research may clarify the value of regulating illegal gun sales as a public nuisance.
Until then, passing laws to prompt litigation against the gun industry is just a shot in the dark.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
