by Lucie Olejnikova -

Tired of Corruption? Hold On … A Possible Cure by Constitutional Convention

POST WRITTEN BY: John A. Vitagliano (’17), J.D. Pace Law School

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara has criticized New York’s political culture, where

deal-making has long been done in Albany by ‘three men in a room’ (the governor, the State Assembly speaker and the State Senate majority leader), who work in secret and without accountability to decide [the states] most vital issues.

On May 12, 2015 New York Senate Majority Leader, Republican Dean Skelos vacated his post amidst a criminal complaint filed for federal charges involving fraud, extortion, and solicitation of gratuities and bribes.

On January 21, 2015, the Former Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver, Assemblyman since 1976 and continuously re-elected speaker since 1994, was indicted on several criminal corruption charges using his political power and influence that netted him $4 million in payoffs.

Mr. Silver, a Democrat from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, was accussed of steering real estate developers to a law firm that paid him kickbacks. He was also accused of funneling state grants to a doctor who referred claims to a second law firm that employed Mr. Silver and paid him fees for referring clients.

Mr. Silver has resigned from his position as Speaker and is currently awaiting trial to defend himself against the federal charges. The exposure of Mr. Silver’s conduct brings Governor Andrew Cuomo’s termination of the Moreland Commission back into the spotlight. The anti-corruption panel was set up to investigate public corruption in New York State and was disbanded after it began looking at the behaviors of certain law firms tied to the governor and Mr. Silver.

Over the past few years, the New York Legislature has been infested with corruption and political misconduct. On February 5, 2015, Mr. Silver and former New York State Assemblyman, Vito Lopez, settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $580,000 using state funds to pay over 90% of the settlement. William Scarborough resigned from his position and plead guilty to corruption charges in April 2015. Bronx politician Nelson Castro was sentenced to two years probation and 250 community service hours after pleading guilty for lying to investigators. Due to Castro’s cooperation, Eric Stevenson was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for accepting bribes from businessmen in May 2014. In October 2014 Gabriela Rosa was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty for making false statements in a bankruptcy petition and lying to authorities regarding her marital relationship. William Boyland was convicted in March 2014 on federal charges including bribery, extortion and mail fraud. In February 2014, Malcolm Smith was found guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery, and extortion when he attempted to scheme his way onto the ballot. In July 2014 Thomas Libous was indicted for lying to federal agents in regards to abusing his political influence in order to obtain a job for his son. In 2013 Pedro Espada Jr. was sentenced to five years in prison for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from a health care network he ran. In 2012 Nick Spano, after pleading guilty to a felony for filing fraudulent tax returns, served one year in prison.

Amidst all the public corruption and political misconduct in New York State, the question becomes – can we trust our elected officials? Regardless of political party, can the citizens of New York rely on politicians to uphold their offices with honesty and integrity? Do we really know if our representatives have the public’s interest at heart when they are conducting “business” behind closed doors? Given the recent developments the answer appears to be NO.

The apparent corruption in New York may engender a strong grass-roots movement for a State Constitutional Convention to assist in revamping our political system. Every 20 years, the New York Constitution mandates voters to decide whether to hold a statewide convention to change or amend the constitution and the government. The 2017 ballot will ask the voters if a State Constitutional Convention should be held. Most politicians oppose a constitutional convention because

it is feared that a convention might take steps to diminish the legislature’s institutional power or incumbents’ chances of re-election.

Citizens of the state with honest motives, ethics and morals would have the opportunity to run for delegates for the Convention to redesign the New York State government. While many obstacles would be met if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, it is a legitimate opportunity to rid the state of corrupt politicians.

Action should be taken in order to change the New York political system and restore the integrity of the State. If nothing changes, nothing changes; public corruption and political misconduct will continue to run rampant within our state and voters will only have themselves to blame.

by Lissa Griffin -

Update: Proceedings for a Special Prosecutor in Ferguson

As we reported last week, a hearing was held on Friday, May 29 on the motion for appointment of a special prosecutor in Ferguson. After a contentious discussion the Judge Joseph L. Walsh III agreed to consider the expert affidavit of Prof. Bennett Gershman on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury.

Gershman complained about a “gross deviation from proper standards of conduct,” saying he never before saw prosecutors go to “extraordinary lengths to exonerate a potential defendant.”

by Lissa Griffin -

Proceeding Seeking a Special Prosecutor in Ferguson

This Friday, May 29, 2015, a hearing will be held in Missouri State Court in the matter of  State of Missouri ex inf. Montague Simmons, et al., v. Robert McCulloch, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, seeking appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s conduct in the grand jury in State of Missouri v. Darren Wilson  (previously discussed here). The Wilson matter arose from the death of Michael Brown. After a grand jury presentation, the grand jury failed to indict Officer Wilson in the death of Mr. Brown.

Missouri has an interesting statute, Missouri Revised Statutes §§ 106.220–106.290, that allows a private citizen to bring an action for an investigation to determine if a sitting prosecutor’s conduct  constituted a failure to perform the duties of his public office. If so found, a special prosecutor would be appointed with authority to file a writ of quo warranto action seeking ouster of the sitting prosecutor from office.

The motion is supported by the affidavit of Prof. Bennett Gershman, from Pace Law School, who addresses the questions of serious misconduct in the presentation of the case to the grand jury.

Related Readings:

by Lucie Olejnikova -

Judge Rakoff Addresses Mass Incarceration in the U.S.

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior Federal District Judge serving on the Southern District of New York, is one of the most distinguished federal judges and one of the most outspoken on criminal justice issues. A previous PCJI post reported on Judge Rakoff’s recommendations for the process of plea-bargaining. In November 2014, the judge addressed this issue further in an article he wrote for the New York Review of Books.

Prior to assuming the bench in 1996, Judge Rakoff was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, where he served as Chief of the Business and Securities Fraud Prosecutions Unit. He subsequently entered private practice and worked, among other assignments, as a defense lawyer on securities law prosecutions.

Judge Rakoff has been a friend of the Pace Law School community. He has on several occasions judged Pace’s Grand Moot Competition. He has also mooted Pace’s International Criminal Court moot court team, drawing on his experience as an advisor to International Criminal Court prosecutors at The Hague.

In an article published in the May 21, 2015 issue of the New York Review of Books, Judge Rakoff thoroughly reviews the issue of mass incarceration in the United States. The judge recently addressed this issue further in a speech he delivered at a conference at Harvard Law School in April 2015.

The judge notes that while the population of the U.S. is about 5 percent of the world’s population, U.S. prisons house nearly 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Judge Rakoff attributes these statistics in large part to strict sentencing laws adopted, beginning in the 1970s, by Congress and State legislatures. These laws, which included mandatory minimum sentences for both violent and non-violent crimes, were intended to reduce the high rate of violent crime the U.S. was experiencing in the 1960s and 1970s. “The dictate common to all these laws,” the judge writes, “was that, no matter how minor the offender’s participation in the offense may have been, and no matter what mitigating circumstances might be present, the judge was required to send him to prison, often for a substantial number of years.”

In the years following adoption of these laws, the U.S. crime rate significantly declined. “The unavoidable question,” Judge Rakoff says, is whether the decrease in the U.S. crime rate can be attributed – either wholly or at least in some part – to the adoption of these strict sentencing laws. Judge Rakoff reviews several analytical studies that attempt to answer this question. The judge notes that the answer to this question is especially important because of the social effect of these laws: “by locking up so many young men, most of them men of color, we contribute to the erosion of family and community life in ways that harm generations of children, while creating a future cadre of unemployable ex-cons many of whom have learned in prison how better to commit future crimes.”

Judge Rakoff’s conclusion from the evidence presented, and the claims made, in these studies is that “one cannot fairly claim to know with any degree of confidence or precision the relative role of increased incarceration in decreasing crime.”

To rebut public belief to the contrary, the judge writes that

those whom the public does respect should point out why statutes prescribing mandatory minimums, draconian guidelines, and the like are not the solution to controlling crime, and why, in any case, the long-term price of mass incarceration is too high to pay, not just in economic terms, but also in terms of shared social values.