You’ll Regret This, Carney!!
This story, about Tom Sizemore’s probation violation hearing for failing a drug test, is amusing to me for two reasons.
First, it says that, according to prosecutor Sean Carney, Sizemore confronted Carney before the hearing and yelled: “You’ll regret this, Carney!”
Hahahahahahaha. I know Sean Carney fairly well. If he says this happened, it happened. Also, I can just picture Sean as this nutcase screams threats at him. The mental image makes me smile.
Second, in one of those small-world things that sometimes happens, my cousin was on the jury that convicted Sizemore. He told me a little bit about Sizemore and the trial.
Based on all this, I agree with Bugs Bunny, who once said: “What a maroon.” Bugs wasn’t specifically talking about Tom Sizemore, but he might as well have been.
UPDATE 2-3-06: I saw Sean on the street this morning and yelled: “You’ll regret this, Carney!!” He stopped crossing the street and came back to my side to ask where I had heard about it. He was surprised when I told him I saw it online. He said one of the reporters covering the case was there when it happened.
Whatever happened to the ABA’s admonition prosecutors “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation?”
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_8.html
steve (539a32) — 2/2/2006 @ 11:28 pmThat strikes me as a really stupid comment for you to make, Steve-o. Identify the extrajudicial statement and how it violates the rule.
If you’re talking about Sean, I see zero evidence of an extrajudicial statement of any kind. Reporters go to hearings and report what they hear in court.
Even assuming that Sean did talk to the press, I see no evidence of any statement he made that violates the rule in any way.
If you’re talking about me, guess what? I’m not on Sizemore’s case. I’m speaking in my personal capacity, saying Sean Carney is a good honest guy, and Sizemore is a buffoon.
A little more specificity in your accusations, please. Or, alternatively, you could just stifle, as Archie Bunker used to say to Edith.
Patterico (929da9) — 2/2/2006 @ 11:40 pmOK, so Mr Sizemore violated his probation. What is the court actually going to do about it?
In Philadelphia, we had a judge named Russell Means hand down a sentence of 11½ to 23 months of house arrest — for a rape — because the rapist was a very prominent physician and medical researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, when the physician, who lost his job at Penn, tried to secure a research fellowship in Italy (meaning: completely out of the jurisdiction of our laws), Judge Means allowed him to go, even though he is less than 11½ months into his house arrest period.
There’s more on my site, (I’m always being willing to pimp for it 🙂 ), but it seems that the law is always willing to let prominent defendants off easily.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/3/2006 @ 4:05 amDana makes a good point. The biggest problem I have with our system of justice is the economic inequity built into it. My sole problem with the death penalty, for instance, is that defendants with money or fame are far less likely, all other things being equal, to be convicted. Think what would have happened to OJ had he been a poor working slob. Johnny Cochran would not have come near him and his butt would have been on death row so fast his he’d of had a nose bleed. IMO. Punishment for those with status seems to be different, even if they are guilty.
Sorry about climbing on the soapbox. Dana’s comment just struck a chord.
Dave in W-S (2a57fc) — 2/3/2006 @ 5:17 amWho is Tom Sizemore?
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/3/2006 @ 6:36 amAn actor who was in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Blackhawk Down,” according to the story our esteemed host linked.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/3/2006 @ 6:58 amThanks Dana, I did read the linked story, but I can’t quite put a face on the name. No response necessary.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/3/2006 @ 7:30 amI only heard that Sean was involved this morning … on Mark and Brian no less. I saw the TV news coverage last night where Sizeless adamantly denied that he’s been using drugs. The best part was the video of earlier court appearances where Sizeless looked much healthier. He’s definately still using. I’ve seen too many adicts to know … he’s certainly still using. He needs to go to prison. The time for accomodating his lack of will is over.
I only wished I could have been in court to have heard Sean berated by this knucklehead … only to laugh out loud.
MOG (4d4be8) — 2/3/2006 @ 11:00 amThis case is a sad poster child for the failure of the Prop 36 drug program. But the personal attacks by Sizemore are an amusing side note to the whole process.
BTW: As the story makes clear, the quotes from me were from my comments when I put this sorry incident on the record for the purpose of having the judge order Sizemore not to talk to me.
SMC
C Student (4d4be8) — 2/3/2006 @ 11:44 amTime for some apologies, steve.
Patterico (929da9) — 2/3/2006 @ 8:46 pmIt wasn’t a stupid question. Depending on the office, such venting may simply warrant a “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown” exemption.
Should a prosecutor – hypothetically, of course – blog on same-jurisdiction, active police internal affairs cases in the news, labelling one a “righteous shooting?”
Would it be a fishing expedition for opposing counsel to depose or subpoena him?
steve (239ed4) — 2/3/2006 @ 11:17 pmPatterico don’t blog on cases he’s involved in, Steve. But you’re sure looking for an angle of fire on him here, aren’t you?
See Dubya (fe1b9d) — 2/3/2006 @ 11:55 pmWould it be a fishing expedition for opposing counsel to depose or subpoena him?
A more absurd fishing expedition I could not imagine. A lawyer who put me on his witness list would be laughed out of court.
If your suggestion was that Sean violated some ethical rule, then he has set you straight on that. You misread the story, if that was your argument.
If your suggestion was that I violated some ethical rule by saying that Sean is an honest guy and Tom Sizemore is a buffoon, then your suggestion was, indeed, incredibly stupid.
I have zero personal knowledge of the Tom Sizemore case from working in the office. None. I know from my personal life that my cousin was a convicting juror on his case and was not impressed with Sizemore as a person. And I have personal knowledge of Sean Carney as an honest person. I would believe what he says.
I now have personal knowledge of you as a person who throws around irresponsible accusations. Disappointing.
Patterico (929da9) — 2/4/2006 @ 6:19 amOuch! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Bill M (4f48a9) — 2/4/2006 @ 11:48 amThere is no ambiguity with respect to blogging the “righteous shooting” conclusion in an active-status, same-jurisdiction police case, it seems to me.
Nothing Carney said was even remotely inflammatory.
You’re surely correct that labelling him a “buffoon” – or worse – would not engage opposing counsel. That wasn’t the conjecture.
steve (239ed4) — 2/4/2006 @ 12:18 pmSteve does at least raise the interesting question of what a Deputy District Attorney must do to both run this site and maintain proper professionalism in his job.
Oliver Willis runs the disclaimer: “The views expressed on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not represent my employer, Media Matters for America.” I don’t maintain any such disclaimer on my site, but my job is totally unrelated to politics.
Dana (a90377) — 2/4/2006 @ 12:38 pm