In Federal Judge Robert Chatigny's courtroom, Haitian child sexual abuse victims already have two strikes against them.
IGNATIUS GROUP___
Monday, August 6, 2012
For more information:
Paul Kendrick, Portland, ME,
207-838-1319
LANDMARK CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES DESERVE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE.
JUDGE ROBERT CHATIGNY MUST VOLUNTARILY RECUSE HIMSELF FROM 24 CIVIL CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES.
For more information:
Paul Kendrick, Portland, ME,
207-838-1319
LANDMARK CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES DESERVE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE.
JUDGE ROBERT CHATIGNY MUST VOLUNTARILY RECUSE HIMSELF FROM 24 CIVIL CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES.
HAITIAN CHILDREN WHO WERE ABUSED DESERVE FULL RESPECT OF U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Twenty four poor, vulnerable Haitian street children who were threatened, intimidated, punished, manipulated, deceived and sexually abused by a U.S. citizen deserve the full respect of the U.S. judicial system.
Finally, in a Federal courtroom in Connecticut, these abuse victims are being given the opportunity to hold accountable the people and institutions who looked the other way, said and did nothing and were negligent by their failure to impose systems, policies and procedures to protect children from being sexually abused.
Unfortunately, the Haitian child sexual abuse victims already have two strikes against them.
"A review of Judge Chatigny's record in sentencing of defendants who committed sex crimes or crimes against children shows that she has repeatedly reduced sentences – often for reasons that have no basis in law, including because the defendant had an abusive childhood, the defendant has done community service, the defendant has been an otherwise law-abiding citizen, the defendant has an addictive personality, the defendant lost his job as a result of viewing child pornography, or the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his prosecution and conviction. In only two cases that came before Judge did he cite a legally permissible reason for reducing the mandatory minimum sentence."
Judge Robert Chatigny's Record is Cause for Serious Concern
-Ms. Casey Higgins
Before taking the bench, each federal justice or judge is required by the Constitution and by law to swear the following oath:
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."i
The concept of justice has been established by our nation's founders as a cornerstone not only of our judicial system, but of democracy as well. The judicial oath is reflective of the importance of equal justice and impartiality. These principles should be at the forefront of the debate when a judge has been nominated to the federal bench and the U.S. Senate sets out to exercise their constitutional role of advice and consent on a given judicial nominee.
In reflecting on this, Judge Robert Chatigny's record should make the U.S. Senate think long and hard about whether he is qualified for a promotion to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Chatigny, nominated by President Obama to the Second Circuit on February 24, 2010, has served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut since 1994. Chatigny also served as Chief Judge of the District Court from 2003 to 2009. In the months since his nomination, he has quickly become one of the most controversial court nominees we have seen in some time.
President Obama's nominee for the Second Circuit has been referred to as the "perfect example of why Obama's 'empathy' standard for judges is extremely dangerous and improper." Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, described Judge Chatigny as "a disgrace to the legal profession and an example of one of the worst nominations Mr. Obama has put forth." As Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) all emphasized repeatedly, Chatigny's record shows that he has continuously abandoned his responsibility as a neutral and detached magistrate and instead become an advocate, most frequently for those convicted of sex offenses or on child pornography charges. Yet, even after Republicans expressed deep-seeded and legitimate concerns with Chatigny's record during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 10, the Committee reported the nomination to the floor. The vote was 11-7 along party lines, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) abstaining.
The controversy surrounding Judge Chatigny's nomination centers on three main issues. First and foremost is his ethically questionable interference in and shocking statements regarding the 2005 case of Michael Ross, more commonly known as the "Roadside Strangler," who confessed to the rape and murder of eight young women and was convicted and sentenced to death in Connecticut. Chatigny reportedly argued that Ross not only should not have received the death penalty, but also "never should have been convicted" due to the fact that he suffered from "sexual sadism." Chatigny's position on Ross' guilt, or lack thereof, was clear as demonstrated by an official transcript of a teleconference between Chatigny and several attorneys involved in the case.
I suggest to you that Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row. Michael Ross, by what I see in the record, suffered from these intolerable obsessional bouts with sexual sadism…So when he says, I feel that I'm the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn't treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he's coming from.
In accordance with this opinion that Ross was unfairly convicted and sentenced, Chatigny pursued extra-judicial means in advocating for Ross' death sentence to be remanded and, feeling that Ross' attorney was complicit in this "state-assisted suicide," went so far as to threaten to have him disbarred.
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit cleared Chatigny of any ethical violation; however, many remain deeply troubled with Chatigny's actions – and rightfully so. At the Judiciary Committee markup, Sen. Sessions read from a formal letter sent to the Committee by Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney for the State of Connecticut, which offered an in-depth discussion of Chatigny's interference in the Ross case and opposed his nomination: "I believe that Judge Chatigny's conduct in that case, in other litigation relating to Ross, and in the days leading up to Ross's scheduled execution call into question his suitability to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."
The Ross case is not the only troubling aspect of Chatigny's record. He also invalidated the Connecticut version of "Megan's Law" because the law required both violent and non-violent offenders to register. Despite the fact that the website states clearly that there has been no determination about the dangerousness of registrants, Chatigny explained that requiring non-violent sex offenders to register stigmatized them. As such, he held that the law violated the sex offenders' due process rights because there was no procedure or method under law to distinguish dangerous registrants and non-dangerous registrants.ii The Second Circuit affirmed, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed Judge Chatigny's ruling, finding that the registration requirement was not based on how dangerous the defendant is, but rather on the fact of a prior conviction for certain crimes, e.g., sex offenses. The Court explained that there was no violation of a "liberty interest" because "mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest."iii Moreover, "even assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff had been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material" under the statutory scheme.iv
Moreover, when it comes to sexual offenses, Judge Chatigny has a record of being soft on sentencing, even despite Federal Sentencing Guidelines. According to statute, a federal judge may ONLY reduce a sentence for a sex crime or a crime against children if the reason for doing so is "affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of a downward departure in sentencing guidelines."v The Sentencing Guidelines explicitly delineate which grounds are permissible under the law as a basis for reducing a sentence: "The grounds enumerated in this Part K of Chapter Five are the sole grounds that have been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward departure in these sentencing guidelines and policy statements."vi The Guidelines delineate that a assigning a sentence below the minimum is permissible when a court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines.
A review of Judge Chatigny's record in sentencing of defendants who committed sex crimes or crimes against children shows that he has repeatedly reduced sentences – often for reasons that have no basis in law, including because the defendant had an abusive childhood, the defendant has done community service, the defendant has been an otherwise law-abiding citizen, the defendant has an addictive personality, the defendant lost his job as a result of viewing child pornography, or the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his prosecution and conviction. In only two cases that came before Judge did he cite a legally permissible reason for reducing the mandatory minimum sentence.
Despite this clear history of skirting the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in favor of sexual offenders, in response to questioning from Sen. Coburn, Chatigny claimed empathy does not play a role in his courtroom and that he relies only on the facts and the law. A 2003 speech at the University of Connecticut School of Law, however, indicates otherwise. Chatigny criticized mandatory minimums because "'[e]mpathy' for individuals involved in [a] case inevitably comes into play, as it should." He went on to argue: "We shouldn't try to drastically reduce departures. Departures are essential. The Guidelines help achieve fairness and avoid unwarranted disparity, but only if departures are allowed." Departures are, in fact, allowed, but only on the specific grounds laid out by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges are simply not permitted to reduce a sentence for arbitrary reasons.
Anyone that puts empathy above the law and is not afraid to take ethically questionable actions in order to advance the interests of a convicted sex offender has no business serving on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It seems quite clear that Judge Chatigny has abandoned his responsibility to serve as an impartial member of the judiciary and has become an advocate to those appearing before him. When Chatigny's nomination comes to the floor, the U.S. Senate should take a closer look at this disturbing record, rather than turning a blind eye as Senate Judiciary Democrats did in committee.
i. 28 U.S.C. § 453
ii. See Doe v. Lee, 132 F. Supp.2d 57 (D. Conn. 2001), aff'd, 271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001), rev'd, 538 U.S. 1 (2003).
iii. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003).
iv. Id. at 7.
v. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(2)(A)(ii).
vi. Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 5K2.0(b) (2009).
####
Casey Christine Higgins is a 3L at Catholic University, Columbus School of Law and will graduate with a certificate in Law and Public Policy. Higgins is currently law clerk for the RNLA and is Vice President of the Catholic University Chapter of the RNLA.
Twenty four poor, vulnerable Haitian street children who were threatened, intimidated, punished, manipulated, deceived and sexually abused by a U.S. citizen deserve the full respect of the U.S. judicial system.
Finally, in a Federal courtroom in Connecticut, these abuse victims are being given the opportunity to hold accountable the people and institutions who looked the other way, said and did nothing and were negligent by their failure to impose systems, policies and procedures to protect children from being sexually abused.
Unfortunately, the Haitian child sexual abuse victims already have two strikes against them.
"A review of Judge Chatigny's record in sentencing of defendants who committed sex crimes or crimes against children shows that she has repeatedly reduced sentences – often for reasons that have no basis in law, including because the defendant had an abusive childhood, the defendant has done community service, the defendant has been an otherwise law-abiding citizen, the defendant has an addictive personality, the defendant lost his job as a result of viewing child pornography, or the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his prosecution and conviction. In only two cases that came before Judge did he cite a legally permissible reason for reducing the mandatory minimum sentence."
Judge Robert Chatigny's Record is Cause for Serious Concern
-Ms. Casey Higgins
Before taking the bench, each federal justice or judge is required by the Constitution and by law to swear the following oath:
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."i
The concept of justice has been established by our nation's founders as a cornerstone not only of our judicial system, but of democracy as well. The judicial oath is reflective of the importance of equal justice and impartiality. These principles should be at the forefront of the debate when a judge has been nominated to the federal bench and the U.S. Senate sets out to exercise their constitutional role of advice and consent on a given judicial nominee.
In reflecting on this, Judge Robert Chatigny's record should make the U.S. Senate think long and hard about whether he is qualified for a promotion to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Chatigny, nominated by President Obama to the Second Circuit on February 24, 2010, has served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut since 1994. Chatigny also served as Chief Judge of the District Court from 2003 to 2009. In the months since his nomination, he has quickly become one of the most controversial court nominees we have seen in some time.
President Obama's nominee for the Second Circuit has been referred to as the "perfect example of why Obama's 'empathy' standard for judges is extremely dangerous and improper." Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, described Judge Chatigny as "a disgrace to the legal profession and an example of one of the worst nominations Mr. Obama has put forth." As Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) all emphasized repeatedly, Chatigny's record shows that he has continuously abandoned his responsibility as a neutral and detached magistrate and instead become an advocate, most frequently for those convicted of sex offenses or on child pornography charges. Yet, even after Republicans expressed deep-seeded and legitimate concerns with Chatigny's record during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 10, the Committee reported the nomination to the floor. The vote was 11-7 along party lines, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) abstaining.
The controversy surrounding Judge Chatigny's nomination centers on three main issues. First and foremost is his ethically questionable interference in and shocking statements regarding the 2005 case of Michael Ross, more commonly known as the "Roadside Strangler," who confessed to the rape and murder of eight young women and was convicted and sentenced to death in Connecticut. Chatigny reportedly argued that Ross not only should not have received the death penalty, but also "never should have been convicted" due to the fact that he suffered from "sexual sadism." Chatigny's position on Ross' guilt, or lack thereof, was clear as demonstrated by an official transcript of a teleconference between Chatigny and several attorneys involved in the case.
I suggest to you that Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row. Michael Ross, by what I see in the record, suffered from these intolerable obsessional bouts with sexual sadism…So when he says, I feel that I'm the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn't treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he's coming from.
In accordance with this opinion that Ross was unfairly convicted and sentenced, Chatigny pursued extra-judicial means in advocating for Ross' death sentence to be remanded and, feeling that Ross' attorney was complicit in this "state-assisted suicide," went so far as to threaten to have him disbarred.
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit cleared Chatigny of any ethical violation; however, many remain deeply troubled with Chatigny's actions – and rightfully so. At the Judiciary Committee markup, Sen. Sessions read from a formal letter sent to the Committee by Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney for the State of Connecticut, which offered an in-depth discussion of Chatigny's interference in the Ross case and opposed his nomination: "I believe that Judge Chatigny's conduct in that case, in other litigation relating to Ross, and in the days leading up to Ross's scheduled execution call into question his suitability to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."
The Ross case is not the only troubling aspect of Chatigny's record. He also invalidated the Connecticut version of "Megan's Law" because the law required both violent and non-violent offenders to register. Despite the fact that the website states clearly that there has been no determination about the dangerousness of registrants, Chatigny explained that requiring non-violent sex offenders to register stigmatized them. As such, he held that the law violated the sex offenders' due process rights because there was no procedure or method under law to distinguish dangerous registrants and non-dangerous registrants.ii The Second Circuit affirmed, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed Judge Chatigny's ruling, finding that the registration requirement was not based on how dangerous the defendant is, but rather on the fact of a prior conviction for certain crimes, e.g., sex offenses. The Court explained that there was no violation of a "liberty interest" because "mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest."iii Moreover, "even assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff had been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material" under the statutory scheme.iv
Moreover, when it comes to sexual offenses, Judge Chatigny has a record of being soft on sentencing, even despite Federal Sentencing Guidelines. According to statute, a federal judge may ONLY reduce a sentence for a sex crime or a crime against children if the reason for doing so is "affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of a downward departure in sentencing guidelines."v The Sentencing Guidelines explicitly delineate which grounds are permissible under the law as a basis for reducing a sentence: "The grounds enumerated in this Part K of Chapter Five are the sole grounds that have been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward departure in these sentencing guidelines and policy statements."vi The Guidelines delineate that a assigning a sentence below the minimum is permissible when a court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines.
A review of Judge Chatigny's record in sentencing of defendants who committed sex crimes or crimes against children shows that he has repeatedly reduced sentences – often for reasons that have no basis in law, including because the defendant had an abusive childhood, the defendant has done community service, the defendant has been an otherwise law-abiding citizen, the defendant has an addictive personality, the defendant lost his job as a result of viewing child pornography, or the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his prosecution and conviction. In only two cases that came before Judge did he cite a legally permissible reason for reducing the mandatory minimum sentence.
Despite this clear history of skirting the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in favor of sexual offenders, in response to questioning from Sen. Coburn, Chatigny claimed empathy does not play a role in his courtroom and that he relies only on the facts and the law. A 2003 speech at the University of Connecticut School of Law, however, indicates otherwise. Chatigny criticized mandatory minimums because "'[e]mpathy' for individuals involved in [a] case inevitably comes into play, as it should." He went on to argue: "We shouldn't try to drastically reduce departures. Departures are essential. The Guidelines help achieve fairness and avoid unwarranted disparity, but only if departures are allowed." Departures are, in fact, allowed, but only on the specific grounds laid out by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges are simply not permitted to reduce a sentence for arbitrary reasons.
Anyone that puts empathy above the law and is not afraid to take ethically questionable actions in order to advance the interests of a convicted sex offender has no business serving on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It seems quite clear that Judge Chatigny has abandoned his responsibility to serve as an impartial member of the judiciary and has become an advocate to those appearing before him. When Chatigny's nomination comes to the floor, the U.S. Senate should take a closer look at this disturbing record, rather than turning a blind eye as Senate Judiciary Democrats did in committee.
i. 28 U.S.C. § 453
ii. See Doe v. Lee, 132 F. Supp.2d 57 (D. Conn. 2001), aff'd, 271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001), rev'd, 538 U.S. 1 (2003).
iii. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003).
iv. Id. at 7.
v. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(2)(A)(ii).
vi. Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 5K2.0(b) (2009).
####
Casey Christine Higgins is a 3L at Catholic University, Columbus School of Law and will graduate with a certificate in Law and Public Policy. Higgins is currently law clerk for the RNLA and is Vice President of the Catholic University Chapter of the RNLA.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire