Danziger Bridge Katrina Killer Cops Finally Sentenced

[Berzerker]

What if the defendant wants a bench trial for the punishment phase?

I'd be fine with that option, good judges are not the problem. I just see the jury as a check on state power... The last check... Thats why I support jury nullification.

 

[Masada]

What is "good" and what is "justice"?

 

[GoodGame]

Do you think minimum sentencing laws, which were ironically implemented to keep "liberal judges" from from being "soft on crime", should be rescinded or at least rewritten to give judges far more leeway in these sort of cases? Or do you think that justice was served? That these sentences are reasonable given the crimes? That the prosecution had little choice but to offer the cops extremely short sentences who were willing to tell the truth about what actually transpired?

What about the sergeant who led the cover-up? Do you think a six year sentence was reasonable given that he could have received 120 years for his crimes?

1. I think minimum sentencing laws exist to ensure that the laws have real-world weight by virtue of having substantial punishment. A book of laws without any kind of punishment or system of reform are literally a book of wishes. So I'd say regardless of politics of the moment (e.g. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge wasn't being honest in giving his opinion, and was merely playing to whatever political forces put him in his position), they are necessary to having an efficient system of government. Rather than patronizing political ideology, they are a form of check and balance to ensure that the judicial branch follows the legislative branch. Sure they are not an absolute, and any similar society might have a different view on the separation of branches' powers. But they are valid if they came to be by a valid act of a valid government.

2. IMHO, six years is relatively light for conspiracy to cover up an investigation. I'd think 10 years should be a standard for fraud, disinformation, etc.. when such is against civil government at least at the state/federal level. Totally arbitrary, yet in line with the listed penalties for lying on Federal forms. I'd counter----what is meaningful incarceration-----until you're beyond your reproductive years, until your hair is white, until you write you're sorry 1 million times on a chalkboard, etc...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only in this particular case, the federal minimum sentence laws apparently handcuffed the judge from giving even lengthier sentences.

 

[Berzerker]

What is "good" and what is "justice"?

the person opting for a trial without a jury has to decide that, not me

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's baack...

Justice Dept. officials' online trash talk torpedoes Danziger Bridge verdicts

(CNN) -- Jury selection was minutes away for five ex-New Orleans police officers accused of shooting unarmed civilians after Hurricane Katrina when a commenter ripped into the defendants on a newspaper website.

"NONE of these guys should had have [sic] ever been given a badge," the commenter, identified only as "legacyusa," wrote. "We should research how they got on the police department, who trained them, who supervised them and why were they ever been promoted. You put crap in -- you get crap out!!!"

"Legacyusa" turned out to be one of the top federal prosecutors in New Orleans. His post was just one of many anonymous barbs that led a federal judge Tuesday to throw out the convictions of those ex-cops in the Danziger Bridge shootings, which left two people dead and four seriously wounded.

In a 129-page ruling, District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt cited long list of "egregious and inflammatory" comments by at least three Justice Department officials using a variety of online identities. Those comments fueled a "21st century carnival atmosphere" that tainted the 2011 trial and will require a new one, Engelhardt wrote.

"This case started as one featuring allegations of brazen abuse of authority, violation of the law and corruption of the criminal justice system; unfortunately, though the focus has switched from the accused to the accusers, it has continued to be about those very issues," the order states. "After much reflection, the court cannot journey as far as it has in this case only to ironically accept grotesque prosecutorial misconduct in the end."

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, the Justice Department said, "We are disappointed with the court's ruling. We are reviewing the decision and considering our options."

The five officers were charged with firing on an unarmed family at the New Orleans bridge and at others who were attempting to flee the scene, which unfolded six days after Katrina flooded most of the city. They were found guilty on a total of 25 counts of civil rights violations, and in 2012, Engelhardt sentenced them to prison terms ranging from six to 65 years.

Justice Department rules forbid prosecutors from making public comments that might influence the outcome of a case. But lawyers for the convicted officers accused prosecutors of mounting "a secret public relations campaign" aimed at discrediting the defendants before trial.

"The government's actions, and initial lack of candor and credibility thereafter, is like scar tissue that will long evidence infidelity to the principles of ethics, professionalism and basic fairness and common sense necessary to every criminal prosecutor, wherever it should occur in this country," Engelhardt wrote in granting them a new trial.

"Given the time, effort and energy invested by the court in this matter from the beginning, this is indeed a bitter pill to swallow," he added.

Two top lieutenants of then-U.S. Attorney Jim Letten -- the office's top trial lawyer, Sal Perricone, aka "legacyusa" and other handles; and Jan Mann, the first assistant U.S. attorney -- had already been identified as having posted disparaging comments anonymously.

Justice Department, New Orleans Police Department agree on overhaul
Perricone had been trash-talking the New Orleans Police Department from then-Superintendent Warren Riley on down since at least 2008, Tuesday's order states. Six months before the Danziger Bridge trials opened, with other officers on trial for their conduct in the post-Katrina chaos, Perricone called the NOPD "a collection of self-centered, self-promoting, insular, arrogant, overweening, prevaricating, libidinous fools ... the entire agency should be re-engineered from the ground up."

The third official cited in the order was Karla Dobinski, a senior attorney in the Justice Department's civil rights division. In the Danziger Bridge case, Dobinski had led the department's "taint team" -- the group charged with reviewing evidence to make sure no statements given under a grant of immunity get used against defendants.

Though not part of the prosecution, she posted to the New Orleans Times-Picayune six times during the trial to praise pro-prosecution commenters, according to Engelhardt's order. Dobinski told investigators she was trying to get information "otherwise unavailable from the prosecution team," the order states. But Engelhardt said it was "difficult to accept" that explanation and said she "fanned the flames" of those calling for a guilty verdict.

Mann and Perricone have left since their involvement was revealed in 2012, said Anna Christman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about Dobinski.

Former officer Robert Faulcon got the longest sentence of the Danziger Bridge defendants, at 65 years. The lightest term went to former detective Sgt. Arthur Kaufman, who was sentenced to six years for attempting to cover up what the officers had done.

Two former sergeants, Kenneth Bowen and Robert Gisevius, got 40-year terms for their roles. Ex-officer Robert Villavaso was sentenced to 38 years.

 

[Berzerker]

wow, I must have got infractions for this thread

one year sure has mellowed me

sorry IdiotsO, I over-reacted

thanks Rugby

as for the OP

The judge spoke of an “air of mendacity” about the prosecution, charging that the plea bargains — which involved lesser charges that came with capped sentences — had limited his discretion in sentencing those who were convicted.

Sounds like the judge was criticizing the sentencing laws for preventing him from nailing them with longer terms - mandatory maximums

 

[ParkCungHee]

The last check on the power of the State is people in the employ of the state, who hears what the state allows them to, and may only consider what the state allows them to consider.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

They can still consider things the state does not want them to consider, even if instructed otherwise. Jury nullification is still a thing, even if the state tries to keep it secret and is unlikely to approve jurors whom they think likely to use it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Jury nullification was hardly a secret during the voir dire process at the trial which I participated. It was discussed at some length, and prospective jurors were questioned in that regard.

I think the notion that a few anonymous comments that prosecution attorneys placed on the website of the local paper somehow tainting the minds of the jurors is beyond preposterous.

But that hardly excuses how incredibly stupid it was for them to do so:

Mother of god, did any of these idiots actually go to law school?

In a blistering and meticulously detailed 129-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt found that federal prosecutors in New Orleans had anonymously posted damning online critiques of the accused officers and the New Orleans Police Department before and during the 2011 trial, a breach of professional ethics that had the effect of depriving the officers of their rights to a fair trial. The judge granted the officers' request for a new trial. "Re-trying this case is a very small price to pay in order in order to protect the validity of the verdict in this case, the institutional integrity of the Court, and the criminal justice system as a whole," Judge Engelhardt wrote.

We are obligated to be tough on police and on prosecutors because they're the ones who work for us. ("In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equal organizations...") For example, if you have a murder case that you know is going to be a high profile affair, like, perhaps, one in which a famous football player is charged with butchering his wife, you make sure every I is dotted and every T is crossed, and you make sure you're more careful with the Constitution than James Madison was, and you don't send Lt. Stupid and his partner, Detective Goebbels, to secure the crime scene. If you lose on the merits, you lose. But if you make a botch of it, either through incompetence or arrogance, you fail all of us, and we get angry. And, too often, we get angry at "the system," and take another few whacks at the Bill of Rights, or we decide that They are always beating "the system," instead of putting the blame on you, where it belongs.

Or, for example, if you're trying some murderous cops who shot down unarmed citizens on a bridge in the aftermath of a massive natural disaster, and then moved heaven and earth to cover it up, you don't turn your prosecution into a high-school slam book.

The judge's ruling excoriated two former top attorneys in the federal prosecutor's office in New Orleans, as well as a lawyer in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division who had played a role in the case. The prosecutors posted comments about the Danziger case on NOLA.com, the website of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, as the case was still unfolding. The comments included a variety of attacks on the police department, calls for guilty verdicts and encouragements to other anonymous commentators to take apart the defense being offered by the five officers. Engelhardt wrote that he was unaware of any other case in which "prosecutors acting with anonymity used social media to circumvent ethical obligations, professional responsibilities, and even to commit violations of the Code of Federal Regulations." He called the behavior of prosecutors "bizarre and appalling."

As it happens, I think the judge is right here, dammit. What were these people possibly thinking? The Danziger Bridge shootings were as close to a war crime as can be committed by the police against the citizens they are sworn to protect. The cover-up was massive, and it metastasized all throughout the NOPD, which was no bargain to begin with. The federal prosecutors had an overwhelming obligation to the people of New Orleans to do this not only well, but to do it right. Instead, in as clumsy and stupid a manner as possible, they put a thumb, both feet, and a 10-pound sandbag on the scale. In the performance of their public duties, they were no more faithful to their oaths than were the cops who covered up the shooting, all of whom are now out of jail. That is all that the African American citizens of New Orleans will see now -- that the cops who shot people are free. That is the final betrayal of this episode, and of all the elements of "the system" that are supposed to keep everyone safe.

 

[Evie]

Though one. On the one hand, they do have a right to a trial without an unduly influenced jury.

On the flip side, letting people walk on that kind of technicality alone - anonymous comments on a bulletin board turning out to be from the prosecutors - discredit the credibility of the entire justice system.

Not that any of this make the prosecutors any less daft. They should have known this would get them in trouble, and that they did so anyway is disgraceful.