Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
January 10, 2020
This past week, each morning a feeble looking Harvey
Weinstein hobbled into the State Supreme Court building in Manhattan, New York
for the start of his much anticipated sexual assault trial.
Celebrity trial aficionados know the routine - aging
defendant, in rumpled suit, arm-in-arm with counsel, looking lost and
bewildered. Remember the inexplicably “blind” comedian convicted of sexual
assault?
Weinstein stands accused in criminal court of the alleged
sexual assault of two women. He has been accused of assaulting as many as 70
other women who, by law, cannot pursue criminal charges due to the passage of
time.
Harvey Weinstein appears as though he can’t walk without the
aid of a walker, which, by the way, has its metal legs inserted into yellow
tennis balls.
Monica Hesse, a Washington Post style-columnist, asked “Can
you for one second imagine him (Weinstein) showing up with neon tennis balls?”
referring to the Golden Globe Awards ceremony, ironically held the night before
his trial began.
The trial is merely at the jury selection stage and already
the sparks are flying.
The nearly immobile Weinstein apparently still has good
dexterity in his hands. On the second day of jury selection, Judge James Burke
admonished Weinstein for using his phone in the courtroom - actually two
phones. Judge Burke told Weinstein, “Is this really the way you want to end up
in jail for the rest of your life, by texting and violating a court order?”
Weinstein had been noncompliant with court’s order not to
use cellphones in the courtroom and with court personnel who asked him to put
away his phones on at least three occasions.
Social media was abuzz, was this judge biased against
Weinstein? Did the judge want to put this feeble 78-year-old man in prison for
life for using a cellphone?
Attorneys for Weinstein showed up the next day in court with
a request for Judge Burke to hand the case over to another judge. According to
the USA Today, the request for recusal alleged that Burke’s scolding reflects
“animus” toward the defendant, and has “created a situation in which the
Court’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ in violation of New York
State’s Rules of Judicial Conduct.”
In New York, the sole statutory authority for judicial
recusal is Section 14 of the Judiciary Law. Section 14 provides that a judge
who has a financial interest in a case or is a relative of one the parities
must recuse herself from presiding over the case - scolding a defendant for
violating court rules is not on the list.
The courts in New York have ruled, “Absent a legal
disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of
recusal. This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the
court.”
Judge Burke refused to step aside.
There is a long standing doctrine in the law known as the
“duty to sit.” The duty to sit encourages judges to hear and decide cases
unless there is a compelling reason for recusal.
The duty to sit also discourages litigants from forum
shopping - defense attorneys using recusal to find a more favorable judge. The
doctrine also makes it difficult for judges to simply recuse themselves from
controversial cases. Jeffrey T. Fiut, writing in the University of Buffalo Law
Review, explained ”(T)he judge has a responsibility to hear and decide cases,
one that should not be shirked for political or personal reasons.”
“There’s nothing prejudicial or inflammatory (about) scolding
a defendant,” said Judge Burke. “If using strong or even hyperbolic language
succeeds after stern admonishments have failed, then the court has accomplished
its goals.”
Weinstein’s feeling are hurt - someone told him “no.” There
will be many more distractions as this case moves forward, but the ultimate
goal will not change - justice for the accused and justice for the victims.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010″ was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010″ was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the column CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment