Creators: The State Must Be Bound by Its Word

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators
December 3, 2024

The Illinois Supreme Court recently overturned Jussie Smollett's conviction for falsely portraying himself to police as the victim of a hate crime. The decision evokes comparison to Pennsylvania's high court ruling vacating actor and comedian Bill Cosby's 2018 sexual assault conviction.

While the crimes and history of criminal conduct are very different, there are similarities that should make practitioners of criminal law take heed. In both cases, ambitious prosecutors using the notoriety of the accused breached their obligation to follow the law and protect the due process rights of the accused.

Cosby was investigated by the Montgomery County District Attorney's office in 2005 for the alleged sexual assault of Andrea Constand. The then-District Attorney Bruce Castor, a lawyer who later defended President-elect Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial, found "insufficient, credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt."

In an unusual move, Castor filed a civil lawsuit against Cosby on behalf of Constand. If Cosby sat for a deposition in the civil case and told the truth, Castor agreed not to prosecute him.

Cosby testified in the civil case without invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He admitted to taking women to his Montgomery County home, drugging them and sexually assaulting them. The civil suit was settled.

Castor's campaign opponent in 2015, Kevin Steele, made the Cosby prosecution a campaign issue. In the final weeks of their campaigns, according to The Guardian, Castor and Steele ran attack ads against each other over not charging Cosby with sexual assault during their respective tenures in the county DA office.

Steele rode Cosby's prosecution to victory. After taking office, Steele charged Cosby with sexual assault. Steele used Cosby's deposition testimony at trial and won a conviction.

Soon after Cosby was convicted, Smollett was indicted for 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly lying to Chicago police. He was accused of hiring two brothers in 2019 to make it appear as though he was the victim of a hate crime.

A couple of weeks after the indictment, the district attorney's office reached an agreement with Smollett and his legal team to drop the charges. Prosecutors took into consideration Smollett's history of volunteer work in the city and his agreement to forfeit his $10,000 bond. He did 15 hours of community service and the charges were dismissed.

However, due to mounting public pressure, including a harsh rebuke from the mayor of Chicago, a Cook County judge appointed a special prosecutor in June 2019 to conduct an independent investigation of Smollett's case.

Smollett was later indicted on six charges of disorderly conduct. He was convicted on five of those charges in December 2021.

Cosby and Smollett both appealed their convictions.

In 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Cosby was unfairly prosecuted because he agreed to testify without invoking his Fifth Amendment right based on a deal made with the DA.

For Smollett, the outcome was similar. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled, "Because the initial charges were dismissed as part of an agreement with defendant and defendant performed his part of the agreement, the second prosecution was barred."

Joseph Cammarata, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney and partner at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata and Siegel, told CNN, "A special prosecutor was appointed and sought to undo what the state had agreed to, and the (Illinois Supreme Court) said, 'no, we're not going to allow that because it's not just, it's not fair, and the state must be bound by its word.'"

Both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts agreed that a man or woman accused of a crime must be able to trust a bargain made with the county's top prosecutor. Anything less would undermine the criminal justice system.

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 X @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania legislator seeks death penalty for child rape in spite of SCOTUS ruling

 Pennsylvania House Bill 1909, introduced by state Rep. Ryan Warner, R-Perryopolis, proposes the option of a death sentence for someone who is convicted of the rape of a child or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, reported the Uniontown Herald-Standard.

Who care if the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana said “Informed by its own precedents and its understanding of the Constitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its independent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape.”

Currently, only those convicted of first-degree murder can be sentenced to death in Pennsylvania, should prosecutors opt to seek it.

Warner said he modeled the legislation after a Florida bill that gives jurors the options of sentencing a defendant in those types of cases to either life in prison or death.

The bill is in its early stages, having only just been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration, but if it makes it through the state legislature, chances are slim that it will have much impact during Gov. Josh Shapiro’s tenure, Warner acknowledged.

Shortly after he took office last year, Shapiro continued the moratorium on carrying out sentences of death in Pennsylvania, something put into place by his predecessor Gov. Tom Wolf in 2015. Shapiro also called upon state lawmakers to abolish the death penalty as a potential sentence, and vowed not to sign any warrants of execution.

There have been no executions in Pennsylvania since 1999.

As Warner’s bill begins moving through the process, lawmakers in the state House could also consider a diametrically opposed bill proposed by Philadelphia Democrat Rep. Christopher M. Rabb.

His bill seeks to repeal the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

Rabb’s measure was passed by the House Judicial Committee on Oct. 31. If it were enacted, Pennsylvania would be the 24th state to remove the death penalty as a potential sentence.

According to the state Department of Corrections, there are currently 98 people sitting on death row for first-degree murder convictions, including one each from cases in Fayette, Greene and Washington counties.

To read more CLICK HERE

Congress seeks to invalidate nondisclosure agreements relating to worker sexual harassment

 The US House is expected to vote next on legislation that would invalidate some nondisclosure agreements in instances when workers allege sexual harassment and assault, a final hurdle before the bill would be sent for President Joe Biden’s signature, reported Bloomberg News.

The bill, known as the SPEAK Out Act, would apply only to nondisclosure agreements signed before a dispute arises—not those signed as part of a settlement. The Senate passed the bill under unanimous consent in September.

Nondisclosure agreements emerged as one of the many barriers workers faced when trying to come forward with allegations of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement. The bill narrowly addresses the issue, though some legal scholars see this as only a start.

The bill has had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but still drew opposition from employers like Uber Technologies Inc., who lobbied to focus its purview even more.

If the lower chamber passes the bill, it will be the second piece of pro-worker legislation to clear both the House and Senate this congress, after a bill banning mandatory arbitration for workers alleging #MeToo claims was signed into law earlier this year.

To read more CLICK HERE

DNA from rape kit used to prosecute victim for separate crime

 San Francisco police used DNA collected as part of a rape exam to link a woman to a crime, possibly violating her constitutional rights, the city’s district attorney alleged, according to The Guardian.

The department’s crime lab entered the DNA profiles of potentially thousands of sexual assault victims over “many years” to a database that is used to identify suspects, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. District attorney Chesa Boudin, who said his office first learned of the practice last week, told the newspaper such use of victims’ DNA could violate the California’s Victims’ Bill of Rights as well as constitutional laws related to unreasonable searches and seizures.

The woman’s DNA, which was collected in a rape exam as part of a domestic violence and sexual abuse case several years ago, was used to link her to a felony property crime in the city. Police identified her in the crime based on evidence from the rape exam, Boudin said.

The district attorney expressed concerns the practice would deter victims of sexual assault, which is widely underreported in the US, from coming forward.

“Law enforcement retaining and using DNA collected from survivors’ sexual assault exams to incriminate them hurts survivors,” Boudin said on Twitter. “Public safety demands that we support sexual assault survivors and end any practices that dissuade them from coming forward.”

Bill Scott, the San Francisco police chief, told the Chronicle the woman could have been identified in the property crime via DNA found in a different database, rather than a profile collected from a rape exam. Scott also said the department “would thoroughly review the matter” and report back to him and the district attorney’s office.

State senator Scott Wiener, who represents the city, said lawmakers were seeking to determine whether a change in state law was needed to prevent the practice. “Getting a rape kit can be re-traumatizing. Having that DNA placed in a database for future use creates yet another incentive not to do it. It’s unacceptable,” he said on Twitter.

To read more CLICK HERE

Congress looks to expand statute of limitation for child sex abuse

In an effort to empower victims of child sex abuse, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that the Senate pass a bill to give survivors unlimited time to file civil claims in federal court, reported Courthouse News Service.

The Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act would apply to more than a dozen federal child abuse offenses and has garnered bipartisan support within and outside of the committee.

While there's no federal criminal statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse if the child is still alive or for 10 years after the abuse, there are limits as to when a survivor can file a civil claim in federal court.

In 2018, Congress extended the statute of limitations, allowing federal civil claims to be filed until the survivor turns 28 or 10 years after the discovery of the abuse.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who supports the legislation, said these timelines don't line up with how long it takes many survivors to process and understand their abuse, much less be willing to come forward about it in a public forum.

“Delayed disclosure has historically impacted survivors' path to the justice that they deserve. We can't deter children in any way from speaking out against their abusers," Grassley said. “ We know from the Larry Nasser case, and many other tragic examples that it can take years for survivors to muster up the courage to come forward. This bill sends a clear message to victims of these horrendous crimes that we see, we hear, and we support you.”

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who co-sponsored the bill with Republican Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, cited research from Child USA, a nonprofit focused on combatting child abuse and neglect, which estimates the average survivor is 52 years old when they finally report their abuse.

"Statutes of limitations remain an obstacle for many survivors," Durbin said.

The committee also favorably recommended a bill to the Senate that would target child sexual abuse and exploitation online by reforming section 230, a policy governing the internet that typically shields websites from being liable for posts by third parties.

The Earn It Act was first introduced in 2020 by Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.

Blumenthal and Graham's legislation would alter section 230 to make online platforms liable for content portraying child sexual abuse on their sites and establish a national commission of abuse survivors, researchers and law enforcement that will develop strategies for combatting online child abuse.

"Our goal is to tell the social media companies, 'Get involved and stop this crap. And if you don't take responsibility for what's on your platform, then section 230 will not be there for you.' It's never going to end until we change the game and this bill changes the game," Graham said.

While the proposal does not give websites the explicit duty to prevent such content from being posted, they would be held responsible if they are found to have knowledge of explicit and abusive content of children on their platform.

The bill has garnered broad support from both sides of the aisle and from members of the law enforcement community, but it's faced backlash from members of tech companies and civil rights organizations that warn the bill could endanger user privacy and free speech.

A group of more than 60 civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and GLAAD, sent a letter to the committee opposing the legislation, arguing it will end up functioning similarly to a 2017 revision of section 230 that intended to target online sex trafficking but has rarely prevented trafficking, according to research by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

"Providers will engage in over-broad censorship of online speech, especially content created by diverse communities, including LGBTQ individuals, whose posts are disproportionately labeled erroneously as sexually explicit," the letter warns.

Tech companies have argued the legislation would keep companies from using encryption to secure privacy on messages and user information out of fear of prosecution.

"A key distinction here is it doesn't prohibit use of encryption, doesn't create liability for using encryption, but the misuse of encryption to further illegal activity is what gives liability here," Blumenthal said in defense of the bill.

To read more CLICK HERE

Potter, Holmes and Maxwell await verdicts in three sensational criminal trials

Three women on trial for very different crimes are currently in verdict watch.  The three juries are deciding the fate of Kim Potter, Elizabeth Holmes and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Kim Potter a former Minnesota police officer pulled her service weapon thinking it was a Taser and shot Daunte Wright killing him. 

Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud. Holmes, through her company Theranos, is charged with bilking millions from investors by misleading investors, doctors and patients over a blood testing devise.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the companion of Jeffrey Epstein, is accused of sex-trafficking and enticing young girls into sexual contact with Epstein.

All three trials have garnered national attention. To watch the verdicts CLICK HERE

PA prosecutor asks SCOTUS to review Bill Cosby decision

Prosecutors in Montgomery County, Pa., have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling by the state’s top court earlier this year that vacated the sexual assault conviction of Bill Cosby, who was one of the country’s most beloved celebrities before he was recast as a merciless predator and sexual deviant in the first celebrity trial of the #MeToo era, reported the Washington Post.

Cosby, 84, was found guilty of sexual assault in 2018. He spent nearly three years behind bars before his sentence was reversed in June by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that Cosby had believed he was operating under an immunity agreement offered by a prosecutor when the entertainer provided testimony that was damaging to himself.

Prosecutors have denied the existence of such a deal, and Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele said in a Monday statement that the U.S. Supreme Court “can right what we believe is a grievous wrong.”

Cosby has always maintained his innocence. On Monday, his spokesman Andrew Wyatt lashed out at Steele, whom he accused of having a troubling “fixation” on Cosby.

“In short, the Montgomery County D.A. asks the United States Supreme Court to throw the Constitution out the window, as it did, to satisfy the [#MeToo] mob,” Wyatt said in a statement. “This is a pathetic last-ditch effort that will not prevail.”

Though the case was widely followed in the media, it appears unlikely that the Supreme Court will review it. The panel receives between 7,000 and 8,000 petitions each term and grants oral arguments to around 80.

“[Cosby’s case] is such a one-off situation that the U.S. Supreme Court might look at it and say, ‘It’s not worth our time because this will never happen again,’” Jules Epstein, a law professor at Temple University, told The Washington Post at the time of Cosby’s release.

From the onset of Cosby’s criminal trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed over their differing interpretations of a 2005 news release issued by then-district attorney Bruce Castor, who had declined to pursue a criminal case against Cosby, citing “insufficient, credible and admissible evidence.”

The release did not mention an immunity deal, but Cosby’s attorneys said it buttressed an oral non-prosecution agreement.

Bill Cosby’s accusers now number 60. Here’s who they are.

Cosby and Andrea Constand, an employee at Cosby’s alma mater Temple University who accused him of drugging and molesting her, later settled a civil lawsuit. The criminal case, which Castor had declined to prosecute, was reopened in 2015 after a judge unsealed parts of Cosby’s deposition during the civil suit. That decision came shortly after a dozen women came forward with allegations that Cosby had drugged and sexually assaulted them.

A particularly damaging deposition from the 2005 civil suit revealed that Cosby had acknowledged intending to use quaaludes, a sedative, on young women with whom he wanted to have sex. He did not admit to criminal wrongdoing during the deposition.

By the time he was convicted in 2018, at least 60 women had accused Cosby of sexually assaulting or harassing them. The allegations spanned some 40 years, during which Cosby’s career took off and transformed him into a household name.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

PA Supreme Court forecloses strategy to pursue Catholic Church abuses

Victims of childhood sexual abuse suffered a setback when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that could have allowed dozens of lawsuits over decades-old sexual abuse claims to move forward against the Catholic Church, including the Allentown Diocese, reported the Allentown Morning-Call.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s 12-year statute of limitations for people abused as children to file civil lawsuits bars a western Pennsylvania woman from suing the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown over abuse by a priest she claims she suffered between 1974 and 1981. Renee Rice claimed in her suit that church officials’ silence amounted to fraudulent concealment.

An appeals court decision that Rice should be allowed to persuade a jury the cover-up prevented her from pursuing her claims revived her case after a county judge dismissed it and buoyed hope for justice for others with similar experiences.

In an opinion overturning that decision, Justice Christine Donohue wrote that whether “the courthouse doors should be opened for suits based on underlying conduct that occurred long ago is an exercise in line drawing that includes difficult policy determinations.” The courts are “ill-equipped to make that call.”

Donohue added that the Legislature is better able to examine such issues and determine an appropriate balance of competing concerns and that the state constitution bars courts from doing so.

“Even in view of the reprehensible circumstances depicted in this case, and others like it, we must follow the rule of law and enforce the value judgments expressed by the General Assembly,” Donohue said in her opinion for the majority.

Richard Serbin, the Altoona attorney who represents Rice, said the decision is a disappointing defeat for hundreds who hoped to pursue abuse claims under the legal precedent in Rice’s case. It also increases pressure on lawmakers to act on legislation that would create a limited period for abuse victims whose claims are too old to seek compensation.

“Until our legislature creates a path for justice, survivors of child sex abuse in Pennsylvania will have none,” Serbin said.

Eric Anderson, a Pittsburgh lawyer who represented the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese, said the Supreme Court’s decision was correct.

“They applied the law to the facts of the case and they came out with the appropriate decision,” Anderson said. “The Superior Court stretched the law in certain ways and the Supreme Court said no.”

Victims of childhood abuse in Pennsylvania currently have until age 30, or 12 years after they legally become adults, to sue.

Serbin estimated that more than 250 lawsuits by people whose abuse claims were too old had been filed against Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania since the Superior Court decision in Rice’s case. In Lehigh County alone, at least 25 lawsuits were filed against the Allentown Diocese. Spokesperson Paul Wirth said the diocese is reviewing the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Since 2019, the Allentown Diocese has paid more than $16 million to 97 people who claimed they suffered abuse by clergy. It received 106 applications for its Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program, which required claimants to waive their rights to litigate against the diocese. Six people rejected offers and three claims were deemed ineligible.

Allentown was one of five Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania that established compensation funds after a 2018 state grand jury report revealed sexual abuse accusations against 301 priests, who had abused hundreds of children over several decades. The report named 37 priests from the Allentown Diocese, and the diocese added 15 names to the list.

Rice alleged the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese and two bishops tried to cover up her abuse to protect their reputations and that of the Rev. Charles F. Bodziak, the parish priest who Rice accused.

As a child, Rice was brought in to clean Bodziak’s living space, and was a church organist. Rice alleges Bodziak abused her at St. Leo’s Church in Altoona, including attacks in the choir loft, a car and a cemetery. Bodziak denies the allegations.

After a county judge dismissed her lawsuit as untimely in 2017, Rice appealed and the Superior Court found there were enough facts for a jury to decide whether the actions of church officials prevented her from seeking compensation for her abuse.

Rice argued that a separate 2016 grand jury report on sexual abuse in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese alerted her to allegations church officials tried to cover up Bodiziak’s actions that amounted to fraudulent concealment. She claimed that the statute of limitations should be extended to when she learned of the church’s efforts to conceal the priest’s actions.

The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, finding that in order for fraudulent concealment to extend the statute of limitations, Rice was required to make an effort to investigate but did not.

“What the Supreme Court said is you have that duty even if there is a claim of fraudulent concealment,” Anderson said.

Victims’ hopes to overcome the time limits on civil litigation now rest in the Pennsylvania Senate, where Majority Leader Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland, has signaled no interest in moving legislation similar to a bill that passed the House in April. The proposal would allow now-adult victims of child sexual abuse to sue the perpetrators or institutions that did not prevent it when it happened years or decades ago.

A constitutional amendment to provide a two-year litigation window was badly fumbled by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration this year, putting it years behind schedule.

To read more CLICK HERE

Education Department plans overhaul of DeVos era Title IX regulations

The Education Department announced plans to hold public hearings on how schools should handle sexual misconduct cases as the first step in a planned overhaul of Title IX regulations, reported NBC News.

In a letter released by the Education Department, the hearing is described as a chance for students, parents, school officials and advocates to weigh in before the Biden administration offers its proposal for how K-12 schools and colleges receiving public funding must respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment. The department has not yet announced a timeline for the hearing but plans to share more details in the coming weeks. The hearing will occur over multiple days and include a virtual component, a department official said.

After the hearing, the department intends to begin a formal process known as "proposed rule-making" to rewrite the Title IX rules, which would include another round of public comments.

The department will also issue question-and-answer-style guidance in the coming weeks to advise schools how to adhere to the current Title IX rules.

During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden vowed to scrap the Trump administration's new regulation on campus sexual misconduct, which took effect in August under Title IX, a gender equity law. Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had said she had designed the new rules to offer a clearer, fairer process to adjudicate sexual assault complaints; victims' rights advocates criticized the regulation for narrowing the definition of sexual harassment and limiting the incidents schools could investigate.

Biden signed an executive order last month directing Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to review and consider rewriting the regulation.

"Today's action is the first step in making sure that the Title IX regulations are effective and are fostering safe learning environments for our students while implementing fair processes," Cardona said in a statement Tuesday morning.

Cardona has not indicated the specific policies the Biden administration intends to propose or change.

Democratic lawmakers and advocates for sexual assault victims had already started pressuring the Biden administration to quickly act on changing the Title IX rules. Some welcomed Tuesday's announcement.

"This is a critical next step in protecting survivors in school and ensuring Title IX's promise of ending sex discrimination is realized," said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women's Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. "So I'd see this step as a victory and a testament to the student survivors who have continued to so bravely fight for campuses where they can be safe and treated fairly and with dignity."

Federal rule-making can be a lengthy process — sometimes taking over a year — but it is more lasting than executive orders or policy statements and more difficult for future administrations to reverse. Under DeVos, the Education Department used the same rule-making process to set up the current Title IX regulation on campus sexual misconduct.

The framework implemented by DeVos prevents schools from launching Title IX investigations into allegations of assaults that take place off campus, uses a narrower definition of sexual harassment compared to workplace standards and requires schools to presume that accused students are innocent at the outset of investigations.

DeVos' rules were widely condemned by victims' rights advocates, who said some elements, such as requiring colleges to allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers through third parties, would discourage people from reporting assaults. Many trade groups for K-12 schools and universities were also critical, arguing that the rules would turn their institutions into courtrooms.

Advocates for accused students praised DeVos' policies as ensuring evenhanded responses to assault allegations on campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that focuses on due process on college campuses, said last month that it would not rule out suing to block a Biden administration rewrite of Title IX rules.

 To read more CLICK HERE

New York legislature authorizes impeachment investigation of Gov. Cuomo

Carl Heastie, Speaker of the New York State Assembly, has authorized the Assembly Judiciary Committee to commence an impeachment investigation into Governor Andrew Cuomo after multiple women accused the governor of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior, reported Jurist.

Among the six women who have come forward, Lindsey Boylan, Candidate for Manhattan Borough President, published an online essay detailing her unpleasant encounters with Cuomo.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected. His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right. He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences. … I hope that sharing my story will clear the path for other women to do the same.

Following Boylan’s claims, other former and current aides to Cuomo came forward with their stories reported by the New York Times, Times Union and other sources.

Cuomo issued a statement apologizing and calling for “an outside, independent review” to look into the allegations:

I never intended to offend anyone or cause any harm. … I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended. I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that. To be clear I never inappropriately touched anybody and I never propositioned anybody and I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but these are allegations that New Yorkers deserve answers to.

Earlier this week, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the investigation into the allegations against Cuomo. She appointed former Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Joon Kim and employment discrimination attorney Anne Clark to lead the investigation.

James said:

We are committed to an independent and thorough investigation of the facts, Joon H. Kim and Anne L. Clark are independent, legal experts who have decades of experience conducting investigations and fighting to uphold the rule of law. This team is charged with conducting a thorough and independent investigation of, and the circumstances surrounding, allegations of sexual harassment against Governor Cuomo, including his administration’s handling of such matters.

The attorney general’s office also issued a statement Thursday following the commencement of the impeachment investigation that their investigation would be independent and would run parallel to the impeachment investigation.

Several calls for Cuomo’s resignation were issued by New York State Legislators, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Jerry Nadler.

To read more CLICK HERE

Congressman Jim Jordan tried to cover-up his cover-up of the OSU wrestling sex-abuse scandal

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan’s name came up Tuesday during a Statehouse hearing on a bill that would pave the way for victims of former Ohio State University doctor Richard Strauss to sue the university for damages, reported the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

Jordan an ardent supporter of President Trump during the impeachment hearings in the House of Representative could be seen regularly on television defending the president.

Adam DiSabato, a former captain of the OSU wrestling team during the late 80s and early 90s, told members of the House Civil Justice Committee that Jordan and other team officials knew about open-shower team facilities that facilitated sexual harassment and abuse of team wrestlers​, an allegation Jordan has denied.

He also said Jordan called him repeatedly in July 2018, after media outlets quoted his brother, Michael DiSabato, saying Strauss’ abuse was common knowledge to those surrounding the wrestling program, including Jordan.

“Jim Jordan called me crying, groveling… begging me to go against my brother…That’s the kind of cover-up that’s going on there,” he said.

“Are you guys going to do what you’re voted to do?” he told lawmakers later. “That’s the only reason I’m here.”

Jordan, an assistant coach for the wrestling team at OSU from 1987 to 1995, has denied knowledge of lewd behavior at university facilities. Adam DiSabato is among the former OSU wrestlers who have filed lawsuits against the school alleging it ignored Strauss’ abuse.

To read more CLICK HERE 

GateHouse: Weinstein lawyers try to remove judge for admonishing client

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.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

Weinstein's trial set to begin today in Manhattan

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s criminal trial begins today in Manhattan, the outcome already is anticipated as a verdict on much more than one man’s alleged wrongdoing, reports the New York Times.

Many supporters of the #MeToo movement that Mr. Weinstein’s accusers helped ignite are looking to see whether the legal system can deliver justice for victims. Lawyers for Mr. Weinstein, who lost his company, his reputation and his marriage, are arguing that the case is proof that #MeToo has gone too far. At the courthouse, media from around the world, demonstrators outside and spectators in packed galleries will be watching.

But for all the expectations about the high-profile trial, the jurors will be hearing a narrow legal case, with an already-fraught back story and a highly unpredictable result.

While prosecutors intend to call several female witnesses to show a pattern of misconduct, the charges rest largely on two women. Mr. Weinstein is accused of forcing oral sex on a film production assistant and raping another woman, who is still anonymous, her story not publicly known. Most of the other allegations against Mr. Weinstein dated too far back to be prosecuted, fell outside New York’s jurisdiction or involved abusive behavior that was not criminal. Other accusers were unwilling to participate, convinced the personal toll would be too great.

The prosecutors’ path to the courthouse has been difficult. They were forced to drop one accuser who had been central to the case. The lead detective was ousted over allegations of police misconduct. And Mr. Weinstein, who claims his sexual encounters were consensual, produced emails that he says show a long, intimate relationship that continued after the alleged rape.

The defense team has its own tale of troubles. Mr. Weinstein, who could face life in prison if convicted on the most serious charge, has hired, alienated and discarded a series of high-powered lawyers. He has been accused of tampering with his electronic ankle bracelet, and tested the patience of the clearly annoyed judge who will preside over the proceedings. Just weeks ago, Mr. Weinstein deviated from his lawyers’ script with a tabloid interview in which he boasted of being a pioneering advocate for women in film and complained that his work had been forgotten.

The trial, expected to stretch more than two months, will begin with the judge’s instructions at the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, followed by two weeks of jury selection. Until opening arguments begin, it will be hard to gauge either side’s strength.

“I can’t think of another case where the defendant comes into trial at a larger disadvantage in terms of perception,” said Mark A. Bederow, a New York criminal defense lawyer and former Manhattan prosecutor. But, he cautioned, “evidence in the courtroom very often is not the evidence that appears in the public realm.”

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court to hear yet another challenge to the remnants of Megan's Law

The landmark Pennsylvania law that for nearly a quarter of a century has required a public registry of sex offenders and community notification about their whereabouts is facing a life-or-death challenge before the state’s highest court, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Enacted nearly 25 years ago, Megan’s Law was hailed as a pivotal step toward making communities safer by empowering the public with information about where sex offenders live. Now, five separate cases before the state Supreme Court are attacking it as outdated, discriminatory, and unnecessarily cruel, depriving thousands of people of their fundamental rights.

The cases challenge nearly every aspect of the law, which has undergone several incarnations since being signed in 1995, one year after the death of 7-year-old Megan Kanka. The New Jersey girl was raped and killed by a neighbor who, unbeknownst to her family, was a twice-convicted pedophile. Similar laws were adopted across the United States and at the federal level.

Prosecutors believe the pending cases could gut Pennsylvania’s law, allowing sexually violent predators to evade detection and endangering public safety. They also warn that the law’s best-known aspect — the website that lists the thousands of offenders in the state — could be watered down or dismantled. In the last year alone, the website received 411 million page views, state records show.

"Awareness and knowledge are power, and they are precisely why this offender registry exists and what is at stake in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro, whose office is leading the defense of the law in some of the cases before the high court.

Defense lawyers, joined by a growing chorus of experts in the criminal justice reform movement, dismiss that. They argue the cases expose deep constitutional problems and should at a minimum push the legislature to rethink its approach to managing people who commit sexual violence.

“The way the system works currently cannot continue to function,” said Aaron Marcus, an assistant defender with the Defender Association of Philadelphia and one of the lawyers involved in challenging the law.

At the heart of the majority of cases is the latest iteration of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, which evolved out of the original Megan’s Law. When SORNA took effect at the end of 2012, it greatly expanded the law, increasing the list of offenses subject to registration and notification — including a handful that are not sexual in nature — and imposing more stringent registration and notification rules.

The state’s Megan’s Law registry more than doubled, growing from about 10,000 people to just over 20,000, according to the Pennsylvania State Police, which oversees the registry.

Marcus said that after “decades of trial, mountains of empirical evidence and close to one million people around the country being denied their rights to liberty and their reputation," no hard evidence exists that the public is any safer or that assaults have been prevented.

One of the most closely-watched cases before the high court deals with requirements under the current law for people classified as “sexually-violent predators," those who have committed the most serious offenses and who are considered to have a high likelihood to reoffend. They are subject to lifetime registration, as well as lifetime counseling and community notification.

The case centers on whether those rigorous registration, notification and counseling requirements constitute unlawful punishment.

Brought by a Butler County man who pleaded guilty to statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors, the case targets the state’s little-known process for assessing sexual offenders. A board of psychiatrists, psychologists and criminal justice professionals in Pennsylvania make recommendations to the court about whether someone should be classified as a sexually violent predator.

Since 2000, the board has completed 20,260 assessments, according to state officials. In 6,027 of those cases, it has recommended that the offender be classified as a sexually violent predator, although the courts have not always agreed.

“This is the case that will dictate how we operate going forward,” said Meghan Dade, the board’s executive director. “This is a pivotal moment in Pennsylvania.”

Another case before the court arose from the convoluted registration system for offenders. Because of a separate legal challenge, the law now imposes two different sets of rules: one for people who committed crimes prior to Dec. 20, 2012 — when the current law went into effect in Pennsylvania — and another for people who committed crimes after that date.

Lawyers for a Chester County man — a biochemical engineer with no prior record who was convicted in 2017 of aggravated indecent assault and subject to lifetime registration — are arguing the law violates a fundamental right to reputation under the state constitution. It presumes that people convicted of certain sexual offenses cannot change and therefore are prone to reoffending, they contend.

In court papers, the lawyers, led by Marcus, cite experts and studies that show the public holds a false perception that people convicted of sexual offenses will go on to reoffend, and that their risk for doing so lasts for years. They said only a small number of offenders fit that bill, while the rest get lumped into that group, suffering a lifetime of harm.

Their arguments go to the heart of the criminal justice reform movement blossoming across the country that aims to reduce harsh penalties for smaller offenses, and reform policies for offenders who, after serving prison time, suffer myriad social and financial hardships.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact that sex offender registration has on a person’s life,” Marcus said.

Lawyers are paying close attention to the case because it takes aim at the state’s sex-offender website, which some view as aiding in destroying reputations because it is so widely accessible.

“The long-term viability of the Megan’s Law website could be implicated,” said Carson Morris, a deputy attorney general in the state Attorney General’s Office who is defending Megan’s Law in one of the five cases before the high court.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA legislature poised to change statute of limitations for sexual assault

Rep. Mark Rozzi (D-Berks) as said his own abuse by a priest drove him to run for office in the first place, and to take on the commonwealth’s relatively restrictive statutes of limitations, reported WHYY-FM.

But for the last few years, he and supporters of his legislation have been in a bitter stalemate with Senate Republican leaders, who were worried that opening a window for retroactive lawsuits on old abuse cases — one of the key provisions in the package — might be unconstitutional, and would bankrupt churches.

A 2018 grand jury report on decades of alleged child sex abuse in Pennsylvania’s Roman Catholic Dioceses added a sense of urgency to the negotiations.

The compromise that eventually won approval by the legislature was hammered out over the last year, and is mostly contained in two bills.

One would get rid of the statute of limitations for people to file criminal charges against their abusers. It would also extend the statute for civil suits to the victim’s 55th birthday. Those provisions would only apply to people who are abused when they are 23 or younger.

The second would amend the constitution to make it clear that retroactive lawsuits on old abuse cases are legal. It would create a two-year window for those suits, starting in 2021.

Some abuse victims have been dismayed by the compromise because amendments take two legislative sessions to pass. State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm said it creates uncertainty.

“We could be looking at an extra four years, potentially, tacked on to this,” she said. “Survivors don’t want to wait. They would rather see it go to the courts in 2020 and let the courts decide.”

She added, though, that she considers the bill “progress.” And she said she’s confident legislative leaders — particularly Senate Republicans who have been opposed to the measure — are now committed to passing it.

Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R-Centre) said as much. The goal, he said, is to let victims heal.

“It may not be at the pace that some want, but at the same time I do believe it’ll begin a pathway for victims to seek a way to compensate for all the damages that have been done,” he said. “That’s important.”

During extended, emotional Senate floor debate, Katie Muth (D-Montgomery) was one of several lawmakers who pitched a slew of amendments that would have broadened the proposals to allow more abuse victims to sue, and would have passed a window for retroactive suits as a simple bill, instead of an amendment.

They all failed.

Muth urged her fellow lawmakers to look at this action as the beginning, not the end of Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations overhaul.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we’re leaving many behind,” she said. “Rape is the most underreported crime in the United States.”

Rozzi said he understands why some victims aren’t happy with his compromise.

But he added, “I have to be responsible for them and make sure the path I give them is successful. I don’t want to take them down a road that’s a dead end that’s ruled unconstitutional.”

The way he sees it, churches would probably move quickly to protect their assets if a window for retroactive lawsuits were passed—particularly churches that are already putting millions of dollars into internal compensation funds for victims.

If, for instance, a retroactive window were to open tomorrow, Rozzi estimated about three-quarters of Pennsylvania’s Roman Catholic dioceses “would file Chapter 11 reorganizational bankruptcy, and victims would probably see less compensation than they would through the compensation fund.”

Because the legislature is opting for a slower constitutional amendment, he said, churches will have time to “close these compensation funds out, take a step back, reorganize the church, and then the window will open in about a year and a half.”

A spokesperson for Pennsylvania’s Catholic Conference, a longtime opponent of retroactive abuse lawsuits, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The constitutional amendment that would open the retroactive lawsuit window cleared its first hurdle late Wednesday night: initial passage by the legislature. Lawmakers will need to pass it once more next session before it goes to voters in a statewide referendum.

The bill extending statutes of limitations going forward needs final approval by the House, which is expected to be a formality. Then it will head to Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s desk, along with related measures that would clarify penalties for covering up abuse and make sure confidentiality agreements don’t prohibit victims from talking to police.

Wolf is expected to sign them soon.

To read more CLICK HERE

Gov. Wolf signs justice reform legislation

With the Legislature out of session for the summer, Gov. Tom Wolf on Monday ceremonially signed six bills designed to boost the rights of crime victims in Pennsylvania, reported the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

The legislation Wolf officially signed into law on June 28 are, per his office:

“House Bill 315, which criminalizes female genital mutilation by making it a first-degree felony.

“House Bill 502, which amends the Crime Victims Act to allow the victim to be present in any criminal proceeding unless the court determines the victim’s own testimony would be altered by hearing other witnesses.

“House Bill 504, which prevents prosecutors bringing up the victim’s sexual history or prior allegations of sexual abuse while prosecuting certain crimes.

“Senate Bill 399, which makes updates to the Sexual Assault Testing and Evidence Collection Act, including requiring the Pennsylvania State Police to create procedures for anonymous victims and establishing timelines for submitting, testing, and storing rape kits.

“Senate Bill 469, which establishes procedures protecting victims and witnesses with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder, including allowing for testimony and questioning to take place outside of a courtroom.

“Senate Bill 479, which expands the list of crimes for which an out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 can be used.”

The commonwealth has in recent years made headlines for bipartisan criminal justice reform, including a landmark law that automatically seals certain criminal records.

But at the Capitol on Monday, state Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm said this legislative session has been just as profound for crime victims. She called 2019 a “historic and unprecedented” year, thanks to the passage of nine bills that make “necessary and vital changes” to existing state law.

“At a time when our system is ever-changing and reforming,” Storm said, “we are obligated to ensure that crime victims are at the forefront of everything we do.”

Flanked by several state lawmakers, Wolf said he would “continue to pursue this goal into the fall session.”

Storm also mentioned Marsy’s Law, a proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine crime victims statutes in the state Constitution.

It does not require Wolf’s signature, as Storm noted. Rather, “it will be the citizens of Pennsylvania who will decide if it will become law,” this November.

Critics, most prominently the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, say Marsy’s Law will endanger the due process rights of the accused.

Storm has rejected those concerns, countering that the amendment will simply give crime victims recourse if their rights are violated — something they don’t have at the moment.

“Marsy’s Law changes that,” she said. “It is in my humble opinion the most important thing we can do for victims.”

Wolf has publicly backed the proposal.

“There’s a balance we’re trying to strike,” Wolf said in a response to a reporter’s question about the ACLU’s objections. “I’m not a big believer in slippery slope arguments.”

To read more CLICK HERE

GateHouse: The fate of two strangely connected men plays out before the Supreme Court

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

October 5, 2018

This past week has provided America with some stark contrasts within the justice system. The question on everyone’s mind seems to be — how long is too long?

This week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about an Alabama death row inmate, Vernon Madison, who murdered a police officer 33 years ago. While on death row he has been stricken with vascular dementia and doesn’t remember his crime.

The court tasked with deciding Madison’s fate is one justice short as a result of the delayed, and beleaguered, confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh — due in part to an alleged sexual assault occurring 36 years ago.

Certainly, a murder conviction and alleged sexual assault are two very different things, but sparing someone death by lethal injection and taking a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court are also very different.

The similarities relate to time and redemption.

Madison was 34 when he was charged in 1985 with shooting Mobile police Cpl. Julius Schulte to death as he responded to a domestic violence call.

At a hearing in July 1985, Madison entered a plea claiming his innocence and wrote a letter to the court saying his civil rights were being violated. “I am of poverty, but I’m not without knowledge of the law,” he wrote.

Kavanaugh is 53, he grew-up in an affluent neighborhood in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. His life of privilege included attending the elite Georgetown Preparatory School and Yale University for his undergraduate and law school degrees. He served as a clerk for Supreme Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the man he seeks to replace.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court was delayed following compelling testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford alleging that in 1982, at a friend’s house, Kavanaugh pinned her on a bed, drunkenly groped her, tried to take off her clothes and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.

Judge Kavanaugh says the woman who accuses him of assaulting her and the wider circle of classmates and acquaintances who say he misrepresented a history of alcohol abuse and aggressive conduct, according to the Washington Post, are “simply misremembering the past, and that their distorted recollections cannot be substantiated by more reliable evidence.”

As with Kavanaugh, “misremembering the past” and “distorted recollections” have had an impact on Vernon Madison. The fogginess is not that of witnesses or friends it’s Madison’s own memory that has faded.

Last year, the High Court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had struck down Madison’s death sentence. The lower court found that Madison had suffered strokes in prison and could not remember the crime — he could not make sense of his punishment.

The Supreme Court reversed, finding there is a difference between condemned inmates who cannot recall their crimes and those who cannot “rationally comprehend the concepts of crime and punishment.”

Attorneys for both Madison and Kavanaugh must surely hope that the public will stop focusing on the past and pay more attention to who their clients are today.

Neither Madison nor Kavanaugh have suggested that the crimes they have been accused of, or in Madison’s case convicted of, are insignificant. But some will have us believe that the passage of time has rendered their decades-old conduct less significant.

Is murder ever insignificant? No rational person would make that argument. Is examining the teenage exploits of a hard-drinking, jock who didn’t understand the word “no,” insignificant to the confirmation process for a seat on the United States Supreme Court? A lot of people think it is insignificant.

Madison’s days are numbered, his health is failing. His ability to harm another person has diminished to zero. The U.S. Senate will have to decide the potential harm, if any, to our legal system — and our nation — when considering what impact past conduct should have on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.

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 @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

GateHouse: Cosby’s troubles may be just beginning

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

September 28, 2018

Bill Cosby was convicted in April of aggravated indecent assault in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. His day of reckoning has come. He was sentenced to three to 10 years in a Pennsylvania state correctional facility.

“This was a serious crime,” Judge Steven O’Neill said while sentencing Cosby. “Mr. Cosby, this has all circled back to you. The day has come, the time has come.”

The circle began in 2004 when Cosby gave Andrea Constand pills to incapacitate her and then sexually assaulted her. Prosecutors had asked the judge to sentence Cosby to five to 10 years in prison, saying he had shown “no remorse” for his crime.

His attorneys said they intend to file an appeal.

Cosby’s fate is now in the hands of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. The board will decide if and when Cosby is released from prison.

Pennsylvania has an indeterminate sentencing scheme. Every sentence over two years is considered a state sentence and all sentences have a maximum and a minimum.

The maximum must be at least twice the minimum. In Pennsylvania you can have a two- to four-year sentence but not a two- to three-year sentence or as with Cosby a maximum that is more than two times the minimum.

Once a state sentence is imposed (greater than two year maximum) the local court relinquishes jurisdiction over the case to the parole board.

Every inmate in a state correctional facility will be eligible for parole at some point, except those convicted of first and second degree murder and certain sex offenders who refuse treatment.

Those eligible for parole will be interviewed by a panel of two parole board members and a decision to parole in serious cases will be made by a majority of the full board.

Not everyone eligible for parole gets paroled, as they like to say in Pennsylvania “Parole is a privilege not a right.” I know, because in 2006 the Governor of Pennsylvania appointed me to a six-year term on the Board of Probation and Parole.

Pennsylvania uses a sophisticated assessment tool, as compared to a number of other state paroling authorities, for determining whether an inmate is a good candidate for parole.

The parole guidelines consider the seriousness of the offense, successful completion of rehabilitative programming, the behavior of the inmate while incarcerated, and the level of risk to the public.

There three things that came up during and after the sentencing that people advising Cosby should be concerned about. First, the need to participate in sex offender treatment, second his lack of remorse and finally his attorneys’ statement regarding appeal.

Let’s take the last issue first. Cosby has an automatic right to appeal. He will presumably seek a new trail. Anything he says in treatment or to the parole board can be used against him at a second trial.

As a result, many inmates in Cosby’s position refuse treatment and refrain from making any admissions about the crime in the presence of the board. His chances of parole are about zero. In fact, an inmate in Pennsylvania who refuses to participate in sex offender programming is, by law, not entitled to a parole interview — essentially ineligible for parole.

The issue of remorse is also an extremely important issue when it comes to parole. The board expects that those convicted of crime will take responsibility for their conduct and be able to articulate sincere remorse.

This isn’t just an exercise by the board to flex its muscles. An inmate who shuns responsibility and shows no empathy for those he or she has harmed is doomed to repeat the conduct.

Cosby is considered a geriatric inmate — he is 81-years-old. The cost of housing a geriatric inmate is significantly higher than younger inmates — although age alone is not a mitigating factor for parole. The Pennsylvania Department of Correction, like most states, is prepared for aging inmates. The state has correctional facilities that cater to older, infirm and unfortunately dying inmates.

— 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 @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania lawmakers approve bill giving adult victims of child sexual abuse more time to sue

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow older victims of childhood sexual abuse more time to seek legal redress, reported Manny Marotta on Jurist.

The legislation would lift a limitation for accusers over the age of 30 from seeking legal action for abuses suffered when they were children. The bill also lifts entirely the statute of limitations for criminal cases.

As a result of the revelation of new information regarding sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, several class action lawsuits have been filed in the past 12 months linking some members of Pennsylvania’s clergy to sexual abuse scandals. The amendment to the bill was drafted in part due to a 900-page grand jury report which outlines in detail alleged atrocities committed by Pennsylvania priests.

The bill also opens a two-year window for past victims to bring civil suits.

The House voted 173-21 to give final approval to the bill, which now moves back to the Senate.

 To read more CLICK HERE

GateHouse: Where does Kavanaugh rift leave #MeToo?

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

September 21, 2018

The teetering confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court may be a harbinger of the collapse — or lasting impact — of the #MeToo movement.

Conservative prosecutors, law enforcements agencies and lawmakers are at a crossroads with their counterparts on the left who want to pursue sexual assault at all cost — no matter how long ago.

In Pennsylvania, lawmakers expressed frustration with the state’s statute of limitations that prohibited the prosecution of 299 out of 301 predatory priests listed in a recent bombshell grand jury report. Advocacy groups were also quick to attack the statute of limitations for blocking victims from pursuing Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

Professor Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault which occurred 36 years ago, in Maryland. There is no statute of limitations for rape or sexual assault in Maryland.

According to the Washington Post, Senate Republicans have signaled that they will move ahead with Kavanaugh’s confirmation in spite of Ford calling for a pause and the intervention of the FBI.

Why not have the FBI reopen Kavanaugh’s background investigation? The FBI reopened Justice Clarence Thomas’ background investigation in 1991 after Anita Hill came forward — or let the Montgomery County, Maryland District Attorney’s office conduct a criminal investigation.

Ford has described a sexual assault by a U.S. Supreme Court nominee who is about to take a lifetime appointment on one of the most powerful tribunals in the world.

A spokesperson for the Montgomery County Police Department told The Intercept that since “nobody has come forward to report any allegation or incident” they can’t start an investigation. Don’t they have televisions in Montgomery County?

Why abolish the statute of limitations if a prosecutor chooses to ignore the highest profile allegation of sexual assault in modern history with no limitations on his ability to act?

In June, the New York Times reported, “The battle over statutes of limitations for sexual assault is so fraught that it has upended traditional political alliances. Women’s rights activists typically partner with progressives on political issues ... those who advocate abolishing the limits find their staunchest allies in conservative lawmakers.”

As Kavanaugh’s confirmation presses forward it is ironic that Senator Mitch McConnell and his GOP colleagues in the Senate are pushing for a Monday hearing — with or without Ford.

McConnell was a major force behind the effort to push out Senator Larry E. Craig, the Idaho Republican arrested at an airport in 2007 in an undercover sex sting. McConnell was the chairman of the ethics committee when Oregon Senator Bob Packwood resigned after he was accused of sexual harassment. He pushed for the resignation of Minnesota Senator Al Franken amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

Last year, McConnell said Roy Moore, a Senate candidate from Alabama, would be unfit to serve in the senate after multiple women accused him of long ago sexual abuse.

Surprising, McConnell doesn’t require the same level of fitness for the United State Supreme Court as he does the United States Senate.

I recently wrote that there is a purpose behind the statute of limitations. The statute, or some version of it, has been around since antiquity. There has long been a concern that individuals should not be forced to defend themselves years and years after an event that allegedly caused harm to another person.

Today Show co-host Megyn Kelly — an unlikely ally of the Trump Administration — said this week, “It’s been 34 years. He (Kavanaugh) was allegedly 17 when it happened. How is he supposed to defend himself? There’s a reason we have statutes of limitation in this country and that’s because ... memory fades, details fade and it’s impossible for him to prove a negative.”

As the flaws of abolishing the statute of limitations are laid bare — the challenge for victim advocates is to convince the public that victims — however long ago their victimization — are entitled to be heard whether in a courtroom or a senate hearing room.

— 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 @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE