Yale Succumbs to Hysteria – USA Gov Policy

This article was contributed by the distinguished retired jurist, Judge John Wilson.

Its one of the most prominent law schools in the country. Its graduates often turn to careers as professors rather than practicing lawyers. Its distinguished alumni include Presidents Clinton (Class of ’73) and Ford (Class of ’41), as well as Former US Senator Hillary Clinton, and current Senators Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal. Supreme Court Justices Alito and Sotomayor are also alumnus of Yale.

The Criminal Justice program at Yale is advertised as ” a rich academic experience studying criminal law through many different lenses.” The course Offerings include “Capital Punishment: Race, Poverty and Disadvantage,” Criminal Justice Reform: Theory and Research in Action,” and “Guns in the United States.” The Professors teaching these classes include Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches Constitutional Law, and Gideon Yaffe, who teaches “the study of metaphysics including causation, free will and personal identity.”

Yale Law School is also the alma mater of Judge Brett Kavanaugh (Class of ’90). Until recently, Yale was quite proud of their nominee for the Supreme Court. In its July 9, 2018 press release, the Dean of Yale Law, Heather Gerken, stated “I can personally attest that, in addition to his government and judicial service, Judge Kavanaugh has been a longtime friend to many of us in the Yale Law School community. Ever since I joined the faculty, I have admired him for serving as a teacher and mentor to our students and for hiring a diverse set of clerks, in all respects, during his time on the court.” Even the aforementioned Professor Amar praised Judge Kavanaugh; “Judge Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices.”

In less than three months, however, Yale has turned its back on its once favored son. At the time of his nomination, there was an open letter published in response to the press release, decrying Judge Kavanaugh as “a threat to the most vulnerable.” Of course, not a word of this response letter anticipated the bombshell dropped when Professor Christine Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her sometime in the early 1980s, while both were still in high school.

Since that accusation has been leveled, Yale Law School has been in full retreat before the onslaught of the perpetually outraged. Even Professor Amar, who continues to stand by his endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh’s abilities, has called for “the best and most professional investigation possible — even if that means a brief additional delay on the ultimate vote on Judge Kavanaugh, and even if that investigatory delay imperils his confirmation.”

When sufficiently large, the nodules compress the urethral canal to cause partial, buy cialis line or sometimes virtually complete, obstruction of the urethra, which interferes with the normal flow of urine. Super ED glass Super ED high density glass, a.k.a. extra-low dispersion glass viagra generika is again another unique thing about the pill is that it contains a different numbers of active ingredients in china. This in turn results in a better sexual health. * Discreet and confidential delivery when you place your order from the buy sildenafil no prescription comfort of your own home. Occasional episodes of failure to reach erection are common and does not indicate persistent erectile problems in the future and do not require a visit to your GP. cialis australia Meanwhile, the students and some of the faculty at Yale have tried to outdo each other in expressing their consternation at Yale’s failure to throw Judge Kavanaugh fully under the bus. “Over the past few months, I’ve seen the name of my school associated with this awful human being and been disgusted by it,” said Matt Post, a freshman at Yale College. “I’ve seen faculty defend his character, even if they disagreed with his ideas. I think those two concepts are inseparable, and we’re seeing that today. You can’t devalue a woman’s right to choose and respect women.”

Students held an old fashioned sit in protest last week, wearing black, and listening to speeches from the likes of Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal (it bears repeating here that while still Attorney General of Connecticut, the Yale Alumnus, Class of ’73, lied to a group of veterans, and claimed that he had served in Vietnam. Protesting is nothing new in the life of students – “fight the power!” students have cried out for many years. But this time, the faculty assisted the protest, by cancelling a total of 31 classes.

Even Dean Gurken, who in July was so proud of Judge Kavanaugh and his accomplishments, now says “As dean, I cannot take a position on the nomination, but I am so proud of the work our community is doing to engage with these issues.”

While Judge Kavanaugh is not a defendant in a criminal prosecution, he is accused of a serious criminal act. He is entitled to due process under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Even after the recent testimony given by Professor Ford before the Senate subcommittee, the allegations remain vague and uncorroborated, insufficient to meet even the slightest burden of proof.

For his own Alma mater to turn its back on Judge Kavanaugh and encourage their law students to rush to judgment, and rely upon incomplete, unreliable evidence in forming their conclusions, is the unkindest cut of all.

Photo: law books (Pixabay)

Quick Analysis

What does the Reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Portend for Donald Trump?

The New York Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling by the trial judge we closed yesterday’s article with. “Defendant argues that CPL 30.10 (4) (a) has only been applied to cases involving nonresidents,” the Court of Appeals stated. However, “[n]owhere does this provision distinguish between residents and nonresidents and we cannot read into the statute a limitation not adopted by the legislature…If the legislature intended this tolling provision to apply only to nonresidents or that courts should factor residency into a tolling analysis, it would have said so expressly.” (Citation omitted.) Further, “the statute [does not] contain any requirement that the tolling period apply once authorities know that a crime has been committed and, as with defendant’s proposed exclusion for New York residents, we reject defendant’s invitation to rewrite the statute to provide such limitation.” Thus, it is irrelevant whether Donald Trump was a resident of New York or not, nor does it matter whether or not the New York County District Attorney had any intention to charge the former President with a crime at the time the offense allegedly occurred. The time he spent outside New York stops the Statute of Limitations from running out. But what if Donald Trump (like Weinstein) had been in and out of New York during the time period in question? According to the Court of Appeals, “‘all periods of a day or more’ during a defendant’s absence from the state ‘should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations’…Logically, then, even a day’s absence counts.” (Citation omitted.) Thus, as we warned in May of last year, the prosecution of Donald Trump is not time-barred, based upon the extended time periods he spent outside of New York, serving his country as President of the United States. This issue, while significant, is only one ruling which could impact the Trump case. During the trial, we have witnessed several rulings which affect the former President’s ability to defend himself. For instance, in their opening statement to the jury, Prosecutors stated “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up…[t]he defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up.” In fact, according to The Hill, “[a]lthough Trump faces charges of falsifying business records, prosecutors will tell jurors a story that ranges from sex to politics to accounting, attempting to convince them that Trump criminally covered up a hush money deal to influence the 2016 presidential election. The district attorney’s first oration to the jury echoed two of Trump’s other criminal cases, which revolve around his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results after losing to President Biden. “It was election fraud – pure and simple,” [the prosecutor] said in his opening remarks.” Donald Trump is charged with falsifying his business records to disguise a “hush money” payment made to a woman who alleged he had an affair with her. That charge has been elevated to a felony based upon an intent to hide an underlying crime. The crime has never been adequately specified, but it appears to involve the violation of federal elections laws that enumerate the appropriate expenditure of campaign contributions. Now the Manhattan DA’s office is changing their theory by claiming the underlying crime is outright federal election fraud – an uncharged crime. Further, “[i]f Donald Trump takes the stand, prosecutors will be allowed to grill him under oath about several adverse rulings in his past civil cases, Justice Juan Merchan ruled…Prosecutors will be allowed to elicit testimony about Trump being found liable for fraudulently inflating his business assets in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. They will also be allowed to question him about defamatory statements he made about writer E. Jean Carroll. In a civil case last year, a federal jury determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, and in two civil cases, Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll. Merchan also ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about fines he received for violating a gag order in the business fraud case when he verbally attacked the law clerk of the judge overseeing that case.” Even Politico had to concede that this was “a significant loss for the former president that will complicate his self-declared plan to testify in his own defense.” This ruling is much more than a “loss” that complicates Trump’s ability to testify in his own defense. In fact, if Judge Merchan maintains this position, and also lets stand the prosecutor’s attempts to use proof that Trump allegedly “subverted” the 2020 Presidential election, under the Court of Appeals’ ruling in the Weinstein case, permitting these prejudicial matters into evidence is most certainly reversible error. “Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense, the Court of Appeals states in People v. Weinstein. “Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality… It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict.” In Harvey Weinstein’s case, “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, […]