Kent has a thoughtful post about Judge Jon Newman's suggestions to broaden the means to hold police accountable for infringing the constitutional rights of citizens. I would add for the moment only four brief points which, together, make me wonder whether Judge Newman's op-ed is fully forthcoming.
First, the Judge uses the Freddie Gray acquittal as a springboard to note the supposed inadequacies of present law, but never hints that Gray's family already filed suit and, ten months ago, received a multi-million dollar settlement. It is impossible for me to believe either that Judge Newman did not know this or thought it irrelevant.
Second, the Judge likewise never hints that the issue of practical and legal immunity for the police has been considered carefully by the Supreme Court. Kent remedies this deficiency, but it should never have been Kent's job. Why is a federal appellate judge entirely failing to disclose to a lay readership the fact and the substance of the Supreme Court's thinking?
Third, Judge Newman simply assumes that the Baltimore police were liable for tortious, if not criminal, conduct. He does this without quoting a single word from the Baltimore trial court's factually detailed opinion, which, to put it gently, puts Judge Newman's assumption in doubt.
Last, Judge Newman says this: "Juries, and even judges in non-jury trials, are reluctant to convict police officers of a crime, even in the face of ample evidence." Yes, well, that might be because, as Judge Newman also full well knows, and in other contexts insists upon, "ample" evidence is insufficient to convict. It takes evidence proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can we expect something more balanced than this from a veteran federal judge?
Story on early release of prisoners hits the Weekly Standard:
weeklystandard.com/how-washington-state-accidentally-released-3000-prisoners-early/article/2003037
"In December 2012, the father of a stabbing victim learned his son's assailant was about to be released and spent five minutes double-checking the department's math. He proved they'd made a mistake. When confronted by the anguished father, the department recognized the release date was wrong not only for this inmate, but for many others. Because the father had complained, they kept his son's assailant incarcerated for the full duration of his sentence, but they didn't fix the sentencing problem for other prisoners. So for another three years, prisoners continued to be released early.
"During this period of time, two people—a 17-year-old boy and a mother of two—died from crimes alleged to have been committed by prisoners who should have been incarcerated at the time of the offense.
"By the time this story became public in December 2015, approximately 3,000 prisoners had been released before completing their sentences. ..."
Steve O'Ban, Washington State Senator, Weekly Standard, 6/27/16
~Adamakis