More on U.S. NDNY Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, employment of his sons, conflicts of interest and taints on cases created by such employment, and on media coverage, and lack thereof, contributing to wrongful convictions

I think media contributes to wrongful convictions.

And I think Judge Sharpe and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York should get off cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office and off civil cases defended by the New York State Attorney General's office.  All of them.

And here is why.

Times Union, a major newspaper out of Albany, New York, the capital of New York State, is reporting on a criminal trial.

A reporter that covers a criminal trial must be minimally aware of presumption of innocence of the criminal defendant.

Yet, the report proudly features a picture of a criminal defendant, who is presumed innocent, in shackles.

What for?

To tip "the scales of justice" against the person against whom such scales of justice are already horribly tipped?

And, as always, it is interesting to mention what the same reporter, or Times Union, or any other "mainstream" media outlet, DID NOT report.

That the U.S. Attorney's office employs the presiding judge's son Robert Alan Sharpe.

As well as the New York State Attorney General's office employs the same Judge Gary Sharpe's other son Michael Aaron Sharpe.

Wouldn't you want to have a job where:

1/ you have a "discretion" to retaliate against your enemies;
2/ to make the rules absolving yourself of any liability for your malicious and corrupt acts;
3/ make the rules absolving you of judicial discipline on the bench;
4/ sit on the disciplinary committee where complaint about yourself are heard;
5/ promote your children by having them employed by public offices of attorneys who appear in front of you and
6/ having a "discretion" to not disclose that fact, punish people who point out that fact and ask for your recusal, claim that employment of your sons do not create an appearance of impropriety in the case and does not taint the case.

Well, to me as an objective reasonable observer, as to any other objective reasonable observer, such employment taints the case, big time.

Let me ask any of my readers a question - would you like to be prosecuted by an office employing as an attorney the presiding judge's son?

Would you like to pursue a civil rights claim in a court where your opponent employs the presiding judge's son?

Will you be absolutely comfortable that the judge will not be advancing his or her child's career and job security and will not rule against you and for the judge's employer just to aid the judge's child?

What would you think of your chances in such a criminal or civil proceeding?

Now, WHY would media NOT cover such an issue of public concern and instead reports about pending criminal proceedings by posting pictures of the criminal defendant in shackles?

Is the media afraid that the editor or the reporter will be the next target of the omnipotent judge's ire?

Then do we have a rule of law in this country?

And - last but not least, if the judge thought his children are worth anything as attorneys, why would he allow them to be hired in offices that appear in front of the judge, creating a potential conflict of interest not only for the judge, but, in the case of Chief Judge Gary Sharpe, for the entire court?

And if Judge Sharpe's children, Michael Aaron Sharpe and Robert Alan Sharpe, think they are competent attorneys, why do they need this "little" leg up by being employed by public prosecutors who regularly appear in front of their father - knowing that that will be a factor in their advancement.

An honorable profession.  Honorable people.  Just kidding.