Pajamas Media has just posted a disturbing article as part of their series of reports on Eric Holder's Justice Department. The below article describes how the Special Litigation Section used trickery to try and sue the Erie County (NY) jail for "violating the rights of prisoners".
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/19/the-special-litigation-section-strikes-out/
Aside from the obvious points made in the article, as a retired DEA agent, I see a couple of other glaring problems in this action.
The US Marshals, aside from searching for federal fugitives, are also responsible for housing federal prisoners in custody. They do not have their own jails other than a small holding area for prisoners appearing in federal court on a particular day.
When other federal agencies, such as DEA make arrests, they are not turned over to the Marshals until they make their initial arraignment, bail is set, and they are remanded to custody (of the Marshals). Until that is done, the Marshals will only lodge the prisoners during daylight (M-F) hours while the arraignment is taking place. If arrests are made after hours or on weekends, the arresting agency will book them into county facilities until they can be taken to court, arraigned, and remanded to the Marshal's custody. Even then, the Marshals will book them into the county facility until they make bail. This arrangement is per a contract between the various counties and the federal government. County jails are paid by the federal government for housing federal prisoners pending trial.
All of which is a long explanation to make the point that the Marshals depend on the good relationship they must enjoy with the county authorities. Here you have a situation where the Justice Department has placed the Marshals in a situation of having to hoodwink the county jail, in this case, Erie County, to help DOJ make a case against said county jail.
As pointed out in the article, using ruses that involve prisoners' counsel is a risky business that interferes with the attorney-client relationship. Once a defendant is represented by counsel, you must go through the attorney in order to talk to the prisoner. If this was not done, it is a grievous violation by DOJ-even if it was done purportedly in the prisoners' interest.
But what do you expect from this Justice Department under Eric Holder?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Headline: PAJAMAS MEDIA ENDORSES RAPE COVER UP!
Erie County, New York, where a pretrial detainee just won a civil judgement against the sheriff. The most clear and uncontested fact was that she had been raped by a sheriff's deputy. The only issue, closely decided, was whether the rape resulted from omission or commission on the part of the sheriff's department. A jury of local citizens found that it did.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/09-4371_complete_opn.pdf
So, without saying ANYTHING about WHAT the civil rights violations might be, the little beddy-bye kiddies charge some kind of malfeasance by the Justice Department! Hideous excuse for journalism. I really don't think Gary would have fallen for this if he looked into it more -- but he's infatuated with the fact that the Pajamas Party agrees with him on the Fast and Furious discussion.
If Erie County was not fully cooperative in making prisoners available for interview, then they are the ones engaged in skullduggery. Nothing wrong with using a ruse to remove them from the jail and interview them. Its faster than the court orders and threats of contempt citations that a civil attorney would have to go through before getting any action.
(If the above link doesn't work, google "Second Circuit Opinions" and click on Cash v. Erie County, No. 09-4371.)
Siarlys,
Excuse me, but you are quoting a 2002 case where a female inmate was raped by a guard. I don't see a connection with that case and the DOJ investigation in the PM article.
BTW: Reena Raggi was an Asst US Attorney in the E District of NY Controlled Substances Unit 1979-1986. I recall her name, and may have met her once or twice or spoken on the phone with her. Over the years, I had occasion to work with the E District of NY on cases and have testified there a couple of times.
The case came to mind because the appeal was just decided recently by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and I just read it. Indeed it is possible that civil rights violations committed with impunity in 2002 are no longer happening. However, in a jurisdiction where this sort of blatant violation has occurred, it is not implausible that there is something worth investigating.
The most evident feature of the Pajama Party's pathetic attempt at an "expose" is that they say NOTHING about what civil rights violations are alleged, or how credible the allegations may be. All they do is complain that U.S. marshalls are using a ruse to get prisoners out of the jail to be interviewed. Nothing is wrong with that, AND, this IS a jurisdiction with a history that should suggest caution before denying that the investigation is legitimate.
If a former U.S. attorney saw fit to uphold the jury verdict, I would say that lends a little extra credence. Glad to update you on an old colleague.
Post a Comment