Tagged: criminal law

Attacking Prostitution Through Legal Reforms

POST WRITTEN BY: Jessica Mlinar (’16), J.D. Pace Law School

Northern Ireland passed a law on June 1, 2015 making “buying sex” a criminal activity. “If convicted, a person could be fined, sentenced to a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, or both. It remains an offense to keep or manage a brothel, but the new law removes criminality from soliciting in the street or public place.” The efforts stem from the idea that the correct way to minimize prostitution and other activities of that nature is to decrease the demand for them rather than punish the prostitute. Andrea Matolcsi, a spokeswoman for Equality Now, which is an international women’s rights group, wholeheartedly supports these efforts. In her opinion, “the legalization and decriminalization approach is not benefiting anyone.”

By the same token, other countries believe that the best approach is to legalize both the selling and buying of sex, largely due to the fear that passing laws turning purchasing sex into a criminal activity will cause more harm than good. Buying sex is not a novel idea; it has been around for decades and any controversial move may consequently drive the activity underground. Additionally, it is feared that  strict laws outlawing these activities will increase violence against women.One sex worker, Katie McGrew, explains a concern that this new law will lead to “situations where more women are competing for fewer clients [which] has dangerous consequences, including charging less, offering services they wouldn’t have previously, and agreeing to unsafe sex.”

Further, the migration of the newly criminalized activity presents another problem. The Immigrant Council of Ireland stated that there was no doubt that men would “make the short journey over the border in order to escape the law.” Some believe that this movement has already begun and is evidenced by the increase in advertisements in the over-the-border areas.

Nonetheless, other countries such as France and Irish Republic are considering enacting similar legislation that criminalizes the conduct of a client, while protecting women who are in the business of providing sex. “ The Nordic Model” (social and economic model of the Nordic countries which makes purchasing sex a criminal activity) has been adopted in Canadaand Sweden, as well as Norway. Only time will tell which one of the two mainstream routes proves to be more successful.

In my view, this worldwide issue does not have a single solution. It is clear that authorities themselves struggle to figure out which approach works the best. This is because no one model has proven to be one hundred percent effective. Nonetheless, I believe that adopting the Nordic model is the right way to go. Passing a law criminalizing this undesirable activity shows just how important it is for Northern Ireland to manage and limit prostitution, or rather criminalize purchasing sexual services. Decriminalization can often be perceived as giving up, rather than as a way of taking control and fighting harder.

Related Readings:

Student Perspective: Prof. Gershman as Clarence Darrow

POST WRITTEN BY: Danielle Petretta (’17), J.D. Pace Law School & Jake B. Sher (’16), J.D. Pace Law School

“Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.”
– Clarence Darrow

Over the weekend of April 24th 2015, Pace Law School’s Criminal Justice Society produced a one-man show starring Professor Bennett L. Gershman, one of the law school’s original faculty members, as the renowned American lawyer Clarence Darrow.  Darrow, one of the most famous trial lawyers in US history, was a vital member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Professor Gershman stunned viewers with his impressive ability to transform a script adapted from Darrow’s memoirs and speeches into a powerfully effective and moving story. Gershman embodied Clarence Darrow’s wit and passion throughout the performance as the audience journeyed through Clarence Darrow’s career history. Throughout Gershman’s rendition, he captivated the audience. Beginning in a chair in Darrow’s office, the story commenced with his first career milestone, defending the Pullman Railway Company strikers led by Eugene Debs.  The audience followed Darrow through one of his more difficult trials in which he defended two union officials accused of murder in the dynamiting of the Los Angeles Times Building; that case nearly ruined Darrow’s career and reputation. Finally, the audience roared with laughter as Gershman depicted Darrow’s cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan in The Scopes Trial, a pivotal moment in which Darrow defended a schoolteacher against a Tennessee Butler Act banning state funded schools to teach the theory of Evolution.

Viewers unfamiliar with Darrow’s career left having acquired insight into Clarence Darrow’s personal and professional career, and an inspiring look at the character that remains among the most famous attorneys in American history.

Questions of right and wrong are not determined by strict rules of logic … as long as crime is regarded as moral delinquency and punishment savors of vengeance, every possible safeguard and protection must be thrown around the accused.
– Clarence Darrow, Crime: Its Cause and Treatment 283 (1922).

Related Readings:

The Newburg Sting: HBO Documentary Screening and Panel Discussion: Views from a Law Student

POST WRITTEN BY: Maureen F. Schnepf (’17), Pace Law School

On Tuesday February 3, 2015, some of my classmates and I attended The Newburgh Sting event – an event our professors had encouraged us to attend,  assuring us it would be a great time. I had never heard of this case prior to the event and was interested in finding out whether  this was “a classic case of entrapment.” As an American, I have always had faith in our criminal justice system. However, on Tuesday, that faith was somewhat shaken. Fortunately, there were many other valuable takeaways making up for it.

The film portrays the story of four poor black men, James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payan, who, as the movie portrays it, were all entrapped by an FBI undercover informant, Shahed Hussein. The FBI agency is tasked with the responsibility to combat terrorism, especially in the post 9/11 world. But at what cost do we as Americans support this goal? In order to turn these men into terrorists, Shahed Hussein approached James Cromitie, a low level marijuana dealer who worked at Walmart, to recruit him to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and a military base near Newburgh, NY. Hussein kept pushing  Cromitie to find more “brothers” to come along. Hussein needed involvement of more than one person for a conspiracy charge to stand since Hussein was a government agent. Even after Mr. Cromitie temporarily disappeared, he was nevertheless pulled back in by the false sense of security that Hussein promised. Mr. Cromitie convinced three other men to help: one needed money to pay for his brother’s medical bills that had resulted from a surgery removing a tumor; another one was enticed by the promise of sustenance and financial stability which he so needed for his family; and the last one hoped this to be his ticket out of poverty-stricken Newburgh. All four men had exactly one thing in common – they all needed money. Hussein skillfully lured all four men, taking advantage of their low intelligence while promising financial security.

When the plot was being formulated (in Hussein’s living room with hidden cameras), Hussein was the one giving instructions.  It was Hussein who suggested using two bombs in a backpack and a stinger missile. Coincidentally, the use of a stinger missile triggers a mandatory 25 year sentence in prison. It was Hussein who continuously reminded the men that this was a jihad – a holy war for Allah. Mr. Cromitie and David Williams demanded reassurance from Hussein that they were only targeting property and that no one would get hurt. Hussein kept inciting the men to believe that this mission was for Allah; however, Mr. Cromitie always responded that “[t]hey can use the money.”

On the night of the attack, the whole group drove to Connecticut to pick up the – unbeknownst to the participants – fake bombs and the stinger missile. Interestingly enough, crossing state lines triggered federal jurisdiction. When the men returned to New York to switch the cars, they were apprehended by the police and FBI agents. The scene was flooded with an excessive number of police officers who claimed to be thwarting four “terrorists” – who they knew had two fake bombs that would never detonate. To top it all off, the FBI made public statements about this thwarted attack, stating that the FBI had been watching these four Muslim men who had allegedly met in prison for over a year. However, the men did not meet in prison; nor did I get the feeling from the video that they were devout Muslims because only one Quran was discovered when their homes were searched. The FBI put on a great show for the public. The four men pleaded  not guilty but were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.  They lost their appeal, and their last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court, denied their writ of certiorari.

On one hand I can see how they were convicted since they followed through on the plan of committing a terrorist attack on innocent people. However, can we call this “justice”? The defendants were convicted for a crime they would have never had the ability to pull off had it not been for the government planting this idea in their minds. The defense attorneys who spoke at Pace on Tuesday shared that the trial judge, Judge McMahon, in her opinion, appeared to be setting these four men up for a successful appeal, even after the jury found the entrapment defense baseless and convicted them. That boggled my mind. In her 54 page opinion, the judge opines as if she is to find the defendants not guilty but in the last two pages she found the four defendants guilty, even Payan who clearly exhibited diminished mental capacity.

This entire situation was very sad to learn about. The families of these men who will forever be labeled as terrorists will not see them for 25 years. I can’t help but ask: would they have ever done this without the FBI? I don’t think so.

And so, what’s the lesson? Ms. Susanne Brody, Onta Williams’ defense attorney, shared that integrity is key – one must remain grounded in what is right and what is wrong – that is the key to being an attorney. Don’t just blindly follow, and stand up for what you believe is right. Another valuable lesson was to learn about the amount of time and effort invested into this case. Sam Bravermen, defense counsel for Mr. Payan, shared that his team spent close to 10,000 hours working on this case in just a few months, demonstrating the diligence, commitment, hard work, and team cooperation needed to take on a case such was this.

If there was one truth throughout the film that stuck with me the most, it was that fear is among the most potent motivators. It motivated a jury to convict these men. It motivated the FBI to plan and incite this entire “attack” in the name of security, and it appears to motivate all of us today. But perhaps we should be more fearful about the fact that our system isn’t always working as intended.  Having integrity and thus ensuring the integrity of the system we are all going to very soon be a part of, perhaps, should be our focus. Whether working as a defense attorney, a prosecutor, or for the FBI, we all should try our best to act with candor, do the right thing, and remember why we came to law school in the first place.

I urge all of you to watch this film. It speaks for itself. You may be surprised at how you feel once the credits begin to roll.

The Newburgh Sting Event Wrap-Up

On behalf of Prof. Lissa Griffin who was instrumental in making this event a reality.

What could be better than a terrific film documentary about a sensational criminal case and a panel discussion with the director and the lawyers who defended the four defendants, several of whom were Pace Law grads. That was Tuesday evening in the Moot Court Room. Many thanks to Prof. Lou Fasulo, Prof. Lucie Olejnikova, Iris Mercado, Jessica Dubuss, Joan Gaylord, Judy Jaeger, Janice Dean, Kay Longworth, Tony Soares, Glen Quillen, Ann Marie Stepancic, and of course the Criminal Justice Society and its president, Erica Danielson,  for their help in making this such a successful event. We had approximately 130 people – an interesting mix of students, CLE participants, alums, and the public – attend the screening of The Newburgh Sting HBO documentary, an almost unbelievable critique of one investigation and prosecution in the government’s “War on Terrorism.”

The government certainly has a legitimate interest in uncovering people in the United States who are intent on joining a terrorist plot against the Country.  In this case, that is what it apparently set out to do.  But here, four poor African American men from Newburgh, NY, previously unknown to the government, were induced by an FBI informant – with the most lavish kinds of benefits – to attempt to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and military transports on Stewart Air Force Base. They never saw a Stinger missile in their lives – indeed, they were unemployed and owned no cars or even bicycles – until such a weapon along with non-functioning bombs were produced by  the undercover agent. As the trial judge stated, they would have done nothing unlawful or remotely terrorist-related if the government  had left them alone. Still, they were convicted as willing joiners in this plot.   The jury took eight days to convict, and the Second Circuit upheld the convictions, with a dissenting judge holding the defendants were entrapped as a matter of law. It’s a fascinating and provocative case.

The panel of lawyers addressed important issues about the nature of our criminal justice system, the role of defense lawyers and prosecutors, the law on entrapment, trial tactics, and the legitimate government interest in the prosecution of prospective terrorists, and the director, who was an attorney and ex-prosecutor himself, brought a unique perspective to the issues.

Thanks to all who made this possible!  Lissa

REMINDER: The Newburgh Sting – HBO Documentary Screening with Director and Attorneys

On February 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm in the Moot Court Room of the Gerber Glass building at Pace Law School, the Criminal Justice Institute and Criminal Justice Society at Pace Law School will host a screening of the HBO Movie The Newburgh Sting, with the film’s director, David Heilbroner. This film, which was shown at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival, tells the story of United States v. Cromitie, a 2013 terrorism case that arose out of Newburgh, New York and was tried in White Plains. The defendants were young men who joined the efforts of an undercover FBI agent posing as a terrorist in his plan to bomb a synagogue in Riverdale. United States v. Cromitie, 781 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). It has been said to involve the most outrageous government entrapment methods of any post-9/11 terrorism case. But did it? Or was it rather a successful prosecution of young men willing to join the efforts of an apparently well-armed, well organized terrorist? The jury took eight days to render its verdict, rejecting the entrapment defense. The defendants were sentenced to twenty-five year prison sentences. The Second Circuit affirmed in a divided opinion. United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013).

After the screening, the attorneys involved in the case will join the director for a panel discussion addressing the many provocative issues raised by the film. Among these issues are:

  • Were the defendants entrapped as a matter of law or were they properly convicted for willingly joining a terrorist plot?
  • How can the government discover and prosecute people who are not members of a known terrorist organization but who are willing to join a plot to bomb US targets?
  • What are the differences between a film director trying to show “what happened” and a lawyer trying to prove “what happened” in a courtroom?
  • What do those differences say about our criminal justice system?
  • What do these lessons mean for lawyers and law students?

Several of the attorneys taking part in the panel discussion are graduates of Pace Law School: Susanne Brody is a 1988 graduate and an attorney with Federal Defenders of New York; Heather Bird is a 2010 graduate and is an attorney in Toronto, Canada; Gonul Aksoy is a 2008 graduate and an attorney with a White Plains firm; and Giovanni Rosania is a 2006 graduate also in private practice in White Plains. The panel also includes two well respected and well known criminal defense lawyers who were defense counsel in the case: Sam Braverman of Fasulo Braverman & Di Maggio, LLP, President of the Bronx County Bar Association, and Kerry Lawrence of Calhoun & Lawrence, LLP, a former Assistant United States Attorney.

The Pace Criminal Justice Institute generates educational opportunities for Pace Law students and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars, policymakers and practitioners in and outside the Pace community. The Institute supports and encourages creative research, teaching, and discussion concerning the theory and practice of Criminal Law. The Institute created and maintains an online forum, Pace Criminal Justice Blog, fostering and encouraging the discourse of important current issues in domestic and international criminal law and procedure.