From the Daily News:During the recent hearing that led to an order for a new trial in a murder case, I kept hearing about big troubles at the Queens district attorney's office.
Starting with DA Richard Brown ailing and turning over much of the work in an operation that handles 70,000 cases a year over to his chief of trials, James Quinn.
And that was the reason Quinn, in an attempt to stop the setbacks at his office, had decided to personally try the hearing where Tejpal Singh successfully fought his murder conviction.
Daily News reporter Greg Smith did an expose last year citing a half dozen shaky Queens convictions being challenged.
Last year, Kareem Bellamy was freed after doing 14 years for murder when Queens Acting Supreme Court Justice Joel Blumenfeld overturned his conviction, citing new evidence. Bellamy filed suit last month for prosecutorial misconduct.
The State Court of Appeals recently ruled 5-0 to uphold another Blumenfeld ruling, that Queens prosecutors’ practice of grilling suspects before arraignment without attorneys was unethical.
Now courthouse sources were telling me that Brown, 79, had Parkinson's disease.
8 comments:
Mr. Hamill seems to have an axe to grind against DA Brown and that, of course, is his right as a columnist. But it seems to me, an attorney who practices criminal law in Queens County, that Mr. Hamill has an obligation, journalistically if not ethically, to get his facts straight before he shoots from the hip. Beyond the travails of Mr. Singh, Mr. Hamill offers the following comment: "The State Court of Appeals recently ruled 5-0 to uphold another Blumenfeld ruling, that Queens prosecutors’ practice of grilling suspects before arraignment without attorneys was unethical." Nothing could be further from the truth. The case that Mr. Hamill refers to is entitled Brown v. Blumenfeld and it has so far only been heard in the Appellate Division, which declined to declare whether or not the practice of pre-arraignment interviews of defendants was ethical or not. Of more importance, however, is the stark fact that the Court of Appeals has NEVER had this case before it and has NEVER rendered an opionion on this issue. A first year law student would recognize the fallacy of Mr. Hamill's assertion by simply noting that the Court of Appeals has 7 members and so does not rule 5-0. Perhaps Mr. Hamill couldn't keep track of all the information that Mr. Murphy was feeding him and so, and I say this with respect, he negligently provided misinformation to the general public. I hold no brief for DA Brown and I consider myself a friend of Mr. Murphy, a truly great trial attorney, but I find it disgraceful that Mr. Hamill is relegated to being a stalking horse with blinders.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/queens-da-richard-brown-suffering-parkinson-disease-article-1.1054084#ixzz1qyeOfwt5
Whoa...
what lawyer just put up the first post?
Rarely does it work out for the public when someone stays in office this long. Office's often get lazy, develop bad habits and the top person gradually loses interest. Perhaps more officials, particularly when facing health issues, should relax and take it easy - but at home, not in public office. But, the power is too difficult to abandon.
Regardless of what you think of Brown, it's just time to hang it up.
"Mr. Hamill seems to have an axe to grind against DA Brown..."
Perhaps, but Hamill uses this column and many of his others to do legal pimping for his buddy Stephen Murphy.
I saw an interview on NY1 and saw his handing shaking. It's possible...
What DA Brown suffers from, is lack of passion about pursuing corrupt Queens politicians. It's always the Feds that go after them.
We're suffering from Brown!!!
He won't go quietly.he wants to be judge brown,da brown...........but not mr.brown............
Post a Comment