A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, judges were neutral. Parities made their arguments as best they could, and the judge, not taking one side or the other, decided the case under the law.
Then there's the Eastern District of New York, otherwise known as Brooklyn, and its twin pro-criminal zealots, Jack Weinstein and, of late, John Gleeson. Gleeson is young enough to know better, and I'm sure he does. The problem is he doesn't care.
Recently he accused federal prosecutors of being extortionists because they do what the Supreme Court explicitly authorized them to do, to wit, offer sentencing inducements in order to settle cases by plea bargains, Bordenkircher v. Hayes. (His screed neglected to point out that the defense bar demands, and for all practical purposes lives off, exactly such plea offers). His most recent stunt, however, takes pro-criminal huckstering to a new level. I'll just let the New York Times article describe it (emphasis added):
Francois Holloway has spent nearly two decades of a 57-year sentence in a federal prison, for serious crimes that no one disputes he committed. There were armed carjackings, and his participation in an illegal chop shop, where stolen cars would be dismantled and sold for parts.But the fairness of the mandatory sentence has been a matter of dispute, not only for Mr. Holloway, but also for a surprising and most effective advocate: the trial judge, John Gleeson.
Does anyone see something amiss in that sentence?