The Jury Talks Back

10/1/2018

The Ever-So-Objective New York Times Has Emily “I Hate Judicial Conservatives” Bazelon as a … “Reporter” on a “News Article” About Kavanaugh

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 9:49 pm

Oh Dear Lord. Here we go:

As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

They then quote a supposed eyewitness who says … Kavanaugh threw his “beer” at the guy:

Mr. Ludington said that he had been in touch with the F.B.I.

He said that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert on Sept. 25, when he and a group of people went to Demery’s and were drinking pints. At one point, they were sitting near a man who, they thought, resembled Ali Campbell, the lead singer of UB40.

“We’re trying to figure out if it’s him,” he said.

When the man noticed Mr. Ludington, Mr. Kavanaugh and the others looking at him, he objected and told them to stop it, adding an expletive, Mr. Ludington said.

Mr. Kavanaugh cursed, he said, and then “threw his beer at the guy.”

I have now flipped on Kavanaugh and oppose him. I mean, if the guy put ice in his beer

In all seriousness (not really): They got him! You see, I am reliably told by countless lefty blue checkmarks on Twitter that Kavanaugh denied drinking too much. And indeed, if you look at his testimony, which I have right here, we have … we have, um … hang on … ah, there it is: “Sometimes I had too many beers!” SEE? HE WAS LYING! Oh wait, that’s an admission he sometimes drank too much. Um. Well.

Interesting little factoid about this NYT piece: check out who the “reporters” are.

Bazelon the Neutral Reporter

Emily Bazelon? The ultra-leftist woman always screeching about judicial conservatives on Slate? Often in a dishonest fashion? That Emily Bazelon? Gee, I wonder if she has any preconceptions about Brett Kavanaugh!

If you were wondering, wonder no longer. Because as many people have observed on Twitter, Emily Bazelon is … not exactly an unbiased reporter:

Also, here is my Totally Objective News Article about him!!!

California Enacts Criminal Justice “Reform” Disallowing Prosecuting 15-Year-Olds (and Younger) as Adults

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:22 pm

Enter any District Attorney’s office in California these days and you’ll encounter people rolling their eyes at the latest attacks on public safety from the Legislature or Governor. One day they’re weakening the felony murder rule and gutting murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a staple of gang murder prosecutions. The latest: 14- and 15-year-olds cannot be tried as adults — for any crime including murder.

I haven’t counted how many people I have in California state prisons serving life for murder. 40? 50? Something like that, I’d guess. And off the top of my head, I can think of only three whom I convicted for crimes they committed when they were 15 years old (one defendant) or 14 years old (two defendants). They were all stone cold killers, but one of the 14-year-olds was one of the worst monsters I have ever prosecuted. He and his 15-year-old co-defendant committed multiple shootings in a weeks-long crime spree that terrorized the city of Long Beach about nine years ago, and it’s his good luck that only one of his victims died.

Now, people like that who commit similar murders today will be held in a juvenile justice facility into their early twenties, at the outer limit. And then they will be released back into society. Gang members who are having a hard time finding 13-year-olds to hand a gun to? They will now have a new crop of 14- and 15-year-olds who can be the triggermen in their retaliation shootings, without fear of a life sentence.

This “reform,” in other words, is not all rainbows and lollipops.

I understand the impulse towards leniency. My son is 15 years old, and it’s hard to think of someone his age (or a year younger!) committing such awful crimes. Until you’ve witnessed the evidence yourself — until you’ve talked to the mothers of the victims who will never see their sons again — it’s hard for that concept to truly sink in.

But in all the applause you see about this and other criminal justice “reforms” these days, make no mistake: this will lead to more murders and more dead victims. Not might. Will.

It’s just a question of how many.

[As always, I speak on behalf of myself and not my office.]

Rachel Mitchell’s Memo Cites Ford’s Inconsistencies, Would Not Bring Case Against Kavanaugh Based On Evidence Presented

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 8:03 am

[guest post by Dana]

Last night, the Washington Post published a memo written by Rachel Mitchell, the outside prosecutor hired by the GOP to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The memo outlines why Mitchell would not bring criminal charges against the nominee:

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell writes in the memo, sent Sunday night to all Senate Republicans. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”

Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell notes problems she had with Ford’s testimony:

Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault, including when exactly it occurred. Mitchell also noted that Ford did not identify Kavanaugh by name as her attacker in key pieces of evidence, including notes from sessions with her therapist — records that Ford’s lawyers declined to provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford testified before the panel Thursday that she is “100 percent” sure Kavanaugh was her attacker.

“I believed he was going to rape me,” she told the panel. “I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most.”

But in the memo, Mitchell also argued that Ford “has no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account,” nor has Ford given a consistent account of the alleged assault. Noting that Ford did not remember in what house the incident allegedly occurred, or how she left the gathering and got back home, Mitchell said “her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.”

Mitchell also stressed that nobody who Ford has identified as having attended the gathering — including Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland (Ingham) Keyser — has been able to directly corroborate Ford’s allegations. Keyser, however, has told the Judiciary Committee that she believes Ford’s account.

Mitchell also makes a distinction between law and politics, and clarifies her role in the assessment of Ford’s testimony:

No clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process,” Mitchell wrote in the memo. “But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”

Democrats, as expected, are discounting Mitchell’s report:

Untitled2

To those dismissing the report for whatever reason (Mitchell was hired by Republicans, she’s a prosecutor and Ford wasn’t on trial, the memo doesn’t address Kavanaugh, she obviously wants Kavanaugh confirmed, etc, this is a sensible clarification :

1) She gave her opinion on a preponderance evidence standard, too. 2) She isn’t giving an opinion on whether he should be on the court, but whether this particular allegation against him is credible. 3) Prosecutor understands burden is on the accuser, not the accused.

Oh, as a reminder, some prominent Democrats were indeed fully on board with Mitchell’s line of inquiry. A line of inquiry which produced answers, and which, in turn, informed her memo:

Untitled

The full memo can be found here.

–Dana


Powered by WordPress.