As Brooklyns latest courthouse corruption scandal exploded this
week, District Attorney Charles Hynes appeared shocked shocked!
that bribery was allegedly committed on his watch, and he suggested
there is something inherently wrong with the buying and selling of judgeships
as well as judgements.
Justice should be blind; a district attorney, however, may not be blind
to injustice and judicial corruption. Hynes, nursed at the bosom of the
Brooklyn Democratic machine, is, in this case, friends with all the wrong
people.
Whatever his public pronouncements now, Hynes decades-old allegiance
to the sources of our judiciarys dark days will taint his actions.
Every prosecution he brings can appear to be both a cover for the prosecutions
he will not bring and a reminder of those he did not bring before.
In the interest of blind justice, Hynes should recuse himself as prosecutor
of Brooklyns judicial mess. A special federal prosecutor should
take his place.
The fruit of a poisoned tree
In the legal trade its called fruit of a poisoned
tree.
Thats the term lawyers use to argue that valid evidence obtained
improperly not be admitted at trial. With the arrest this week of Judge
Gerald Garson, a longtime treasurer of the Kings County Democratic Committee,
and the declaration by District Attorney Charles Hynes that the system
used to select Brooklyn judges is a sham, all of Brooklyns judges
and Hynes himself must be considered such fruit.
The poisoned tree, of course, is the county Democratic Party and its judicial
screening process. At the trees root is party leader Clarence Norman
and his chief executive Jeffrey Feldman. The tree holds Hynes as well.
After nearly two years of judicial corruption staring him in the face,
Hynes, forced to confront strong evidence in the Garson case, deflected
attention from individual judges who might be engaged in improprieties
(the trees fruit) and targeted the tree itself.
Any suggestion this is a process giving voting rights to the public
is nothing less than a sham, Hynes said. He empaneled a grand jury
to investigate how the boroughs judges are selected.
Hynes may be well intentioned here. But his close ties to the Brooklyn
Democrats, especially Norman, Feldman and former Borough President Howard
Golden (a longtime party leader to whom Hynes provided a six-figure, do-nothing
job after Golden was term-limited out of office), combined with Hynes
failure to address the problem sooner, make him the wrong man for this
task.
Hynes has for his entire political career had no qualms with the way judges
are hand-picked by the county organization. Now, after more than a dozen
years as district attorney, we are asked to believe that hes found
religion.
Charles Hynes, the great court reformer. Imagine!
Consider the case of Supreme Court Justice Victor Barron, who last year
was caught shaking down an attorney. The court scandal did not begin with
Barron, and we see that it didnt end with him. Yet Hynes declined
at the time in the face of a constant barrage of criticism by reformers
and editorial writers at the Daily News to widen his probe.
Its overstated, without a scintilla of evidence, that this
is an endemic problem, Hynes said then. I dont believe
it. Not here in this county or any other county.
By all appearances, Hynes had an airtight case against Barron. Following
Barrons arraignment, the DA told reporters that he had marked money
that was exchanged between the crooked judge and the attorney, who was
cooperating with investigators. He also had an incriminating recording
of Barron accepting the cash.
According to a Brooklyn Papers source, Barrons best defense would
have been to put the whole system on trial.
The only thing you could do for Barron is to show the jury the corruption
of the courthouse and show that Barron is a fall guy, the source
said.
Hynes let Barron cop a plea deal, avoiding a trial that would likely have
gone far to expose the system of corruption in Brooklyns courts.
That was less than a year ago. Why should we trust Hynes not to sweep
the whole mess under the rug this time?
It would be welcome news, but incredibly hard to believe, that Hynes is
ready to burn all his political bridges.
Hynes can contribute to the restoration of public respect
for the judiciary and the rule of law in Brooklyn by acknowledging his
inherent conflicts of interest in these cases and recusing himself from
their investigation and prosecution. If he fails to act with honor in
this, the public will be justified in wondering, with each conviction
Hynes extracts, how many others were dealt with among friends.
A special federal prosecutor with no ties to the Kings County Democratic
Committee should head these investigations and present evidence to a grand
jury. Even Brooklynites have a right to justice.