Today, two people will be sentenced for killing innocent others. One person will have made a series of very bad decisions while intoxicated ending in her killing a young girl age 11. The other will have made a conscious decision to kill 11 people. The former will receive a sentence of 12 years in jail. The latter will be released after only doing 8 years while he awaited sentence. The former is a young mother of a pre-teen girl, the latter was a mob hitman. The former, the mom who killed an 11 year old by driving recklessly while intoxicated, spawned a law that makes it a felony to drive intoxicated with a child in the car. The latter Mob hit-man will reinforce the idea that you can kill at will as long as you are willing to give up others, even if you lie to do it.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
Showing posts with label Snitching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Snitching. Show all posts
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 03, 2008
Judges Have to Give Brady Teeth: Sen. Stevens Judge Emmet Sullivan Blows the Chance to Fix Brady Violations Forever.
The Brady Doctrine (for those of you unfamiliar it is a doctrine that holds that the Prosecution must turn over to the Defense, all material that could probably have an effect on the verdict in a case)is a very strong rule that gutless courts have watered down to the point that it has almost no meaning. We have another opportunity to see the doctrine rendered meaningless in the case of US. v. Ted Stevens.
The allegations are that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, let a contractor do free work on his home, without declaring the "gift" as a contribution. He also lobbied for the contractor who was a friend of the Senator.
On Monday, the government allowed a witness that was helpful to the defense to return to Alaska without testifying (allegedly because of his health...I guess Washington DC doesn't have any decent medical care...) and that testimony would have been helpful to the defense. Then on Tuesday, it was learned that the government also suppressed evidence that the Senator had paid every bill he was rendered but that he wasn't rendered a bill and the Contractor (who is of course now the star witness against Sen. Stevens) TOLD THE FBI that he thought had he rendered a bill, Stevens would have paid it.
That is important information. It is a bit speculative, but it goes to a number of issues such as: did Stevens, who paid over 150K for improvements, know that the Contractor should didn't render a bill.
Now, during cross-examination the prosecutor informs the defense attorney about the statement. This wasn't a case of losing and finding an item. This was a case where the prosecution redacted an item. The actually took it out of the paperwork so that the defense would not know about it. Someone on the prosecution side took a pen and blacked out the statement.
The Court should have declared a Prosecution caused Mistrial and dismissed the case. No instead the Court offered to allow the defense some time and then also allow them to give a new opening statement. Now that is truly a toothless opportunity. The Original opening statement is a time when counsel lays out its case, It is the time to make hay of the good things your side will produce or stop the other side from producing. To open later is a possible offer for an item that inadvertently was lost and not turned over. This however was an intentional act.
The Court strongly scolded the prosecution, but then refused to do anything real about their breech of duty. I mean look at the actual words the Court used:
"The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial..."
NO CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT"S ABILITY TO MEET IT'S OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL????
Coming from a federal judge that is a very strong indictment of the public integrity Section of the Justice department. The Justice Dept. gets a lot of perks from the court. The have an obligation to ensure a fair trial. Now the court should have said, if you can't figure out what might be expected to have an effect on the outcome of a trial, and you affirmatively take something out, then there needs to be a serious penalty. The only penalty I can think of is a dismissal with prejudice. Stevens is 82 years old. Are we really going to put a geriatric US Senator in jail?? This would have been the perfect time to show the government they cannot fool with the rules.
Maybe the court was afraid the appeals court would cut the legs out from under him. Who cares?? Let them overrule the decision, It will take the government years to appeal and then they would give the courts another chance to tell the prosecutors that playing fast and loose with the Brady Doctrine will not be tolerated.
Hattip ABA Journal Law News Now.
The allegations are that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, let a contractor do free work on his home, without declaring the "gift" as a contribution. He also lobbied for the contractor who was a friend of the Senator.
On Monday, the government allowed a witness that was helpful to the defense to return to Alaska without testifying (allegedly because of his health...I guess Washington DC doesn't have any decent medical care...) and that testimony would have been helpful to the defense. Then on Tuesday, it was learned that the government also suppressed evidence that the Senator had paid every bill he was rendered but that he wasn't rendered a bill and the Contractor (who is of course now the star witness against Sen. Stevens) TOLD THE FBI that he thought had he rendered a bill, Stevens would have paid it.
That is important information. It is a bit speculative, but it goes to a number of issues such as: did Stevens, who paid over 150K for improvements, know that the Contractor should didn't render a bill.
Now, during cross-examination the prosecutor informs the defense attorney about the statement. This wasn't a case of losing and finding an item. This was a case where the prosecution redacted an item. The actually took it out of the paperwork so that the defense would not know about it. Someone on the prosecution side took a pen and blacked out the statement.
The Court should have declared a Prosecution caused Mistrial and dismissed the case. No instead the Court offered to allow the defense some time and then also allow them to give a new opening statement. Now that is truly a toothless opportunity. The Original opening statement is a time when counsel lays out its case, It is the time to make hay of the good things your side will produce or stop the other side from producing. To open later is a possible offer for an item that inadvertently was lost and not turned over. This however was an intentional act.
The Court strongly scolded the prosecution, but then refused to do anything real about their breech of duty. I mean look at the actual words the Court used:
"The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial..."
NO CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT"S ABILITY TO MEET IT'S OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL????
Coming from a federal judge that is a very strong indictment of the public integrity Section of the Justice department. The Justice Dept. gets a lot of perks from the court. The have an obligation to ensure a fair trial. Now the court should have said, if you can't figure out what might be expected to have an effect on the outcome of a trial, and you affirmatively take something out, then there needs to be a serious penalty. The only penalty I can think of is a dismissal with prejudice. Stevens is 82 years old. Are we really going to put a geriatric US Senator in jail?? This would have been the perfect time to show the government they cannot fool with the rules.
Maybe the court was afraid the appeals court would cut the legs out from under him. Who cares?? Let them overrule the decision, It will take the government years to appeal and then they would give the courts another chance to tell the prosecutors that playing fast and loose with the Brady Doctrine will not be tolerated.
Hattip ABA Journal Law News Now.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
BREAKING NEWS: HEATHER LOCKLEAR MAY HAVE BEEN SET UP! PROSECTUTION IN DISARRAY
The celebrity gossip website TMZ is reporting that Actress Heather Locklear was set up by an out of work gossip reporter Jill Ishkanian illegally obtained information about Heathers whereabouts by hacking into her former employers website, followed her, called in a false tip and then sold information to a paparazzi that Heather was about to be arrested. Ishkanian is also under investigation by the FBI.
In a telling statement, TMZ reports:Ishkanian apparently is the only witness who says Locklear was driving erratically and that she was drunk, even though it's already established she was not under the influence of alcohol.
This really calls into question the probable cause for Locklear's arrest.
In a telling statement, TMZ reports:Ishkanian apparently is the only witness who says Locklear was driving erratically and that she was drunk, even though it's already established she was not under the influence of alcohol.
This really calls into question the probable cause for Locklear's arrest.
Monday, February 27, 2006
A Victory For That Lawyer Dude
Last Tuesday, a Nassau Grand Jury voted not to indict my client Jillian Greico for Assault in the Second or Third Degree or for Harassment. In other words they acquitted her of all charges. In fact they didn't just find her not guilty, they found her to be INNOCENT!!
Too little, too late.
On Halloween, Jill went out with a few friends and participated in the age old "tradition" of egging each other. One kid's egg(not Jill's) accidentally struck a younger kid under the eye. When the egg cracked part of the shell cut his cornea. He is allegedly partially blinded. I say allegedly because I have heard all kinds of reports from full blindness to no issue. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
At the time of the incident, no one knew the boy had been injured. The next day, the injury was reported on the front page of Long Island's daily newspaper of record Newsday, and in all of the major area media on Long Island and in NYC. When Jill learned of the injury, she immediately went to the police. They thanked her for her information and honesty by arresting her and all but one boy, who took part in the prank. That boy's parents lawyered him up, so he went to the police with a lawyer and he got immunity for ratting out his friends. Of course it turns out that he was the kid who supplied the eggs. Seems that ,but for that kid, nobody would have gotten hurt. Thus it makes sense that the guy who is most responsible walks away and isn't even charged.
Now this was, as I said, an accident. Even the police admitted that no one meant for anyone to get hurt. Nevertheless, police and prosecutors at the victim's family's insistence made arrests and tried to upgrade the original charges to a felony. That seemed to me to be absolutely ridiculous. What bothered me more however was the reaction of the other boys charged. Instead of fighting this indictment the way Jill did, they caved in and entered guilty pleas to the original misdemeanor charges. Whatever they were thinking, it is sad someone didn't tell them that accidents happen. Now those guys who all took guilty pleas must do 3 years probation. What a waste of taxpayers money.
When I juxtapose this incident to the accident Vice President Dick Cheney just had, it is clear that the best intentions can still put one at risk of hurting another. In our ever litigious country every childhood act calls out for not only a negligence action but a criminal prosecution to boot. Somebody please tell me how this was a criminal act. I am wondering how many children are going to be deterred next year from throwing eggs on Halloween because of this accident and prosecution. If the answer is none I would not be surprised. Eggs crack just like water balloons explode and snowballs disintigrate on contact. No one in their right minds (except for comedian Kevin Meaney's mother) thinks tossing one on Halloween is going to put someone's eye out. It just isn't a crime even if you live in Oyster Bay Cove and the people throwing eggs at you live in Woodbury, two of the richest neighborhoods on Long Island (or in America.)
Another thing, does anybody here think the Nassau District Attorney's office and the Police would have made an arrest if this had happened in Hempstead or Roosevelt? Would the TV cameras covered it? I strongly doubt it.
Of course the damage is done to Jill already too. Her name and address as well as her picture have been placed all over the NY Televison and Newspaper scene. She has received hate mail and threats on the phone and through the internet. She has had her innocence stolen. Although she is an honor student and a real good person, people now think her irresponsible and sophomoric, and for what? In her case, her egg didn't even hit anyone, it just landed harmlessly on the ground.
Maybe we are spending too much money here on Long Island for prosecutors and Police. Maybe they need more real crime to prosecute or maybe we just need less of them. I didn't think so until this case came along. Two detectives, two days or more of Grand Jury time, a top prosecutor (nope they didn't use a newbie out of the District Court bureau for this case)the time of four well known and expensive attorneys (yes That Lawyer Dude is expensive when he charges for his time)numerous court appearances (which entailed the use of judge's time, court personnel, and courtroom facilities.) All this waste over a childhood prank and a terrible accident. I estimate that the total cost of this fiasco to the kids, families, and our county, equaled over One Hundred Fifty Thousand($150000.00) Dollars. Imagine the impact half that amount could have if we donated it to a charity that provides sight to the needy, or to a Lions club that provides glasses to those who cannot afford them.
A year ago or more an Eighteen year old kid took a twenty six pound frozen turkey and hurled it from a moving car into the windshield of an on coming car and almost killed the driver of that oncoming car. That was an act of stupidity that called for prosecution. Hurling twenty six pounds of any frozen material can only have one end, damage. That is different than tossing a Three ounce egg five to ten feet. Eggs are supposed to crack and this one did. Frozen turkeys don't crack, they are hard as rock. There is a difference and legal professionals are supposed to comprehend that difference and explain it to angry parents or victims. I guess the combination of rich victims and flashbulbs was too much for the powers that be to deal with. They needed that 1.5 minutes of fame. Too bad they had to ruin a girls life to get it.
EDITED 7/16/08: To exclude the name of the kid that received immunity from prosecution. I still think what he did (seeking to minimize his role and taking immunity from prosecution while still being morally responsible for the actions thus allowing his friends to "take the weight") is dispicable, but he is about to enter adulthood and I suppose that he should no longer bear the scares of this case nor of his actions taken while a scared kid. A dear friend of mine asked that I remove it, on behalf of the boy, so Rick, this is the ONLY time I will do this, but this one is for you.
Too little, too late.
On Halloween, Jill went out with a few friends and participated in the age old "tradition" of egging each other. One kid's egg(not Jill's) accidentally struck a younger kid under the eye. When the egg cracked part of the shell cut his cornea. He is allegedly partially blinded. I say allegedly because I have heard all kinds of reports from full blindness to no issue. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
At the time of the incident, no one knew the boy had been injured. The next day, the injury was reported on the front page of Long Island's daily newspaper of record Newsday, and in all of the major area media on Long Island and in NYC. When Jill learned of the injury, she immediately went to the police. They thanked her for her information and honesty by arresting her and all but one boy, who took part in the prank. That boy's parents lawyered him up, so he went to the police with a lawyer and he got immunity for ratting out his friends. Of course it turns out that he was the kid who supplied the eggs. Seems that ,but for that kid, nobody would have gotten hurt. Thus it makes sense that the guy who is most responsible walks away and isn't even charged.
Now this was, as I said, an accident. Even the police admitted that no one meant for anyone to get hurt. Nevertheless, police and prosecutors at the victim's family's insistence made arrests and tried to upgrade the original charges to a felony. That seemed to me to be absolutely ridiculous. What bothered me more however was the reaction of the other boys charged. Instead of fighting this indictment the way Jill did, they caved in and entered guilty pleas to the original misdemeanor charges. Whatever they were thinking, it is sad someone didn't tell them that accidents happen. Now those guys who all took guilty pleas must do 3 years probation. What a waste of taxpayers money.
When I juxtapose this incident to the accident Vice President Dick Cheney just had, it is clear that the best intentions can still put one at risk of hurting another. In our ever litigious country every childhood act calls out for not only a negligence action but a criminal prosecution to boot. Somebody please tell me how this was a criminal act. I am wondering how many children are going to be deterred next year from throwing eggs on Halloween because of this accident and prosecution. If the answer is none I would not be surprised. Eggs crack just like water balloons explode and snowballs disintigrate on contact. No one in their right minds (except for comedian Kevin Meaney's mother) thinks tossing one on Halloween is going to put someone's eye out. It just isn't a crime even if you live in Oyster Bay Cove and the people throwing eggs at you live in Woodbury, two of the richest neighborhoods on Long Island (or in America.)
Another thing, does anybody here think the Nassau District Attorney's office and the Police would have made an arrest if this had happened in Hempstead or Roosevelt? Would the TV cameras covered it? I strongly doubt it.
Of course the damage is done to Jill already too. Her name and address as well as her picture have been placed all over the NY Televison and Newspaper scene. She has received hate mail and threats on the phone and through the internet. She has had her innocence stolen. Although she is an honor student and a real good person, people now think her irresponsible and sophomoric, and for what? In her case, her egg didn't even hit anyone, it just landed harmlessly on the ground.
Maybe we are spending too much money here on Long Island for prosecutors and Police. Maybe they need more real crime to prosecute or maybe we just need less of them. I didn't think so until this case came along. Two detectives, two days or more of Grand Jury time, a top prosecutor (nope they didn't use a newbie out of the District Court bureau for this case)the time of four well known and expensive attorneys (yes That Lawyer Dude is expensive when he charges for his time)numerous court appearances (which entailed the use of judge's time, court personnel, and courtroom facilities.) All this waste over a childhood prank and a terrible accident. I estimate that the total cost of this fiasco to the kids, families, and our county, equaled over One Hundred Fifty Thousand($150000.00) Dollars. Imagine the impact half that amount could have if we donated it to a charity that provides sight to the needy, or to a Lions club that provides glasses to those who cannot afford them.
A year ago or more an Eighteen year old kid took a twenty six pound frozen turkey and hurled it from a moving car into the windshield of an on coming car and almost killed the driver of that oncoming car. That was an act of stupidity that called for prosecution. Hurling twenty six pounds of any frozen material can only have one end, damage. That is different than tossing a Three ounce egg five to ten feet. Eggs are supposed to crack and this one did. Frozen turkeys don't crack, they are hard as rock. There is a difference and legal professionals are supposed to comprehend that difference and explain it to angry parents or victims. I guess the combination of rich victims and flashbulbs was too much for the powers that be to deal with. They needed that 1.5 minutes of fame. Too bad they had to ruin a girls life to get it.
EDITED 7/16/08: To exclude the name of the kid that received immunity from prosecution. I still think what he did (seeking to minimize his role and taking immunity from prosecution while still being morally responsible for the actions thus allowing his friends to "take the weight") is dispicable, but he is about to enter adulthood and I suppose that he should no longer bear the scares of this case nor of his actions taken while a scared kid. A dear friend of mine asked that I remove it, on behalf of the boy, so Rick, this is the ONLY time I will do this, but this one is for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)