Tagged: panel discussion

Tonight: April 3 at 6:00 pm. The Benefits and Limits of Civilian Review Boards

The Benefits and Limits of Civilian Review Boards

Monday, April 3rd at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in White Plains, NY 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm light refreshments and networking 6:30 pm panel begins promptly in Room G-02.

An interactive panel discussion with law enforcement, members of the Albany and Syracuse Civilian Review Boards, and the President of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement including:

  • Frank L. Fowler, Syracuse Chief of Police
  • Brian Corr, NACOLE President and Director of Cambridge, Mass. Police Review and Advisory Board
  • Ivy Morris, Vice Chair of Albany CPRB (Citizens’ Police Review Board)
  • Zach Garafalo, Albany CPRB
  • Mallory Livingston, Chair, Syracuse CRB
  • Yusuf Abdul Qadir, Director of the Syracuse Chapter of the NYCLU

Panel will be moderated by Law Professor David Dorfman at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.

This forum is organized and sponsored by the Westchester Coalition for Police Reform and is co-sponsored by the Pace Criminal Justice Institute. Seating capacity limited to 90 persons. Please RSVP to lgriffin@law.pace.edu.

Student Perspective: Making A Murderer Event

POST WRITTEN BY: Danielle Petretta (’17), J.D. Pace Law School

On March 2, 2016, Pace Law School’s Criminal Justice Society, Student Bar Association, and the Criminal Justice Institute held an event on the controversial and popular Netflix 10-episode documentary, “Making a Murderer.” The documentary centers on a man named Steven Avery, who found himself stuck deep in the trenches of our criminal justice legal system within a very small knit rural community in Wisconsin.

Steven Avery spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit and in 2003 was finally exonerated. This case received much attention including an effort to pass a bill – the Avery Bill – implementing checks and balances regarding police interrogations, handling and testing of DNA evidence, and policies surrounding an eye witness identification procedures to prevent wrongful convictions.  However, his nightmares continued, as just two years later he was arrested for the murder of 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach. Steven Avery’s nephew, Brenden Dassey, was also arrested for partaking in the Halbach murder. Both Steven Avery and Brenden Dassey remain in prison to date and Steven Avery continues to claim his innocence this time around as well. It is yet to be determined what the status of their appeal is, and the documentary leaves gaping concerns and questions to be answered. The documentary maps Steven Avery’s unfortunate journey through the legal system to date and takes the viewer on a shocking ride.

Did the fact that the Avery’s lived in Manitowoc County, a small knit community, affect the way in which they were treated? Did the appearances and social status of the Avery and Dassey families play an influential role in their prosecutions? Why was the police department involved in the first case able to have a continued presence and involvement in the subsequent Halbach case? Was the evidence tampered with? Were proper police procedures followed? Did someone tipped off the woman who found Teresa Halback’s car in the Avery’s 4,000 car lot within just a few minutes? Why was the same judge deciding Avery’s motion for a new trial when he had been the presiding judge in his trial? What happened in the jury room? Why was the key, one main piece of evidence against Avery, found days after the seventh search?

The discussion panel held at this fabulous event consisted of professors, former prosecutors, and the Greenburg Chief of Police. Professors of professional responsibility, criminal procedure and criminal practice  provided valuable feedback responding to many of the questions continuously discussed. After the initial introduction of the topic by the panelists, the room flooded with questions and comments about the documentary, what it portrayed as well as what it didn’t establish. Discussions and comments about the police work sparked much attention among the crowd of students and current attorneys, and critiques and opinion regarding the prosecution and defense lawyers’ conduct triggered a heated response from the audience.

This discussion panel coupled with the audience forum offered an amazing opportunity for students, attorneys, professors, and community members to debate and challenge the current criminal justice legal system that is so embedded within our society.

Related Readings:

Student Perspective: The Disparate Care of Women in New York State Prisons

POST WRITTEN BY: Brad Landau (‘16), Pace Law School & Natalie Felsenfeld (’16), Pace Law School

Women in New York State prisons face many challenges. Women’s rights to reproductive health care and obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) treatment are often not protected and even violated. The Correctional Association of New York (CA), an independent, non-profit criminal justice advocacy organization, aims to create fair and humane criminal justice system in New York, and as such a safer and more just society for all. Created in 1991, the CA’s Women in Prison Project (WIPP) works to reduce the overuse of incarceration for women, ensures that prison conditions for women are as humane as possible, and aims to create a criminal justice system that treats all people and their families with fairness and dignity.

On April 1, 2015, we attended the Pace CJI event on the Rights of Incarcerated Women in New York State Prisons, which focused on the recently published report by the WIPP of the CA titled Reproductive Injustice: The State of Reproductive Health Care for Women in New York State Prisons. This report focuses on the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) that oversees the operation of all state prisons in New York. The report highlights and outlines the challenges incarcerated women face as a result of mistreatment by medical personnel and correctional officials as well as the inadequacy of policy-making in New York State. The report concludes that incarcerated women receive substandard OBGYN care, including the fact that pregnant women are still being shackled pre-, during and post- labor, even though the N.Y. Correc. Law § 611 (McKinney 2015) (also known as the NYS 2009 Anti-Shackling Law) prohibits the use of restrains of any kind when a “woman is in labor, admitted to a hospital, institution or clinic for delivery, or recovering after giving birth.”

WIPP is currently working to amend the 2009 Anti-Shackling Law to incorporate mechanisms that would ensure compliance with the laws by correctional officers. Among these mechanisms are:

  • Continually publishing information about the law;
  • Publicly reporting shackling practices and other violations;
  • Offering regular and effective training of all correction officers and medical personnel about the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions; and
  • Ensuring that incarcerated pregnant women are informed about their rights under the law.

One of the panelists shared a story about a woman who gave birth in a correctional facility:  the woman was in pain for 25 hours before the correctional officers believed that she was in labor.   She also described her personal experience of giving birth while incarcerated. During her childbirth, she was told to “shut up” by correctional officers on the way to the hospital while her contractions were 2 minutes apart.  Additionally, most incarcerated mothers are separated from their newborns immediately after birth unless they are fortunate enough to get into the nursery program.

Moreover, many women in prison have been victims of sexual abuse or assault; thus, being subjected to substandard OBGYN care often re-traumatizes them.  One of the panelists described how she was a victim of sexual abuse, and how having male correctional officers present during her OBGYN visits made her feel re-victimized. The CA’s report confirms that DOCCS does not provide medical care that is “trauma informed,” meaning that medical personnel in prisons are not trained in how to recognize and understand the impact of trauma on incarcerated women and how to provide care without re-traumatizing their patients. This is an issue that should be addressed in the future because incarcerated women should not have to re-live their psychological and physical harms of their past.

Another panelist also shared her experience with NYS’s unequal approach to offering plea bargains at arraignments to men compared to women.  According to her,  men are more likely to receive plea bargains at arraignment than are women: in fact,  she had never met a woman who was offered a plea during the arraignment stage.  Her personal experience, if proven true, raises the question of inequality and gender bias during the criminal process, which should be addressed.

Although a difficult topic to talk about, the CA panel was a great success in making all attendees think critically about the disparate treatment of incarcerated women in NYS prisons. The CA panel raised two key issues that need to be addressed:

  1. Whether the criminal justice system treats women the same as men in terms of opportunities for early dispositions?
  2. Whether women in prison receive competent and trauma-sensitive OBGYN care while incarcerated? If not, what can be done so incarcerated women are not re-living the psychological and physical harms of their past.

The CA panel was important because it appeared that some attendees were made aware of these issues for the first time. Holding panels such was this one is an integral and valuable part of a law school education because continuous discussion and education about such issues is the first step to effecting change.

Event: Rights of Incarcerated Women in New York State Prisons

RJ-Report-Cover-JPEG-231x300A recently published report by the Correctional Association of New York, Reproductive Injustice, addresses the reproductive health care for women in New York State prisons.  The Report was commented on here by Pace Prof. Michael Mushlin and  has sparked debates across the state. Please join PILSO (Public Interest Law Student Organization at Pace)and the CJS (Criminal Justice Society at Pace) on Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm in Tudor Room of Preston Hall at Pace Law School for a panel discussion on the rights of women in NYS prisons.

The event features an exciting line-up of panelists including:

Join us for a thought-provoking discussion and learn how to get involved. Refreshments will be served!

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.