I so far covered misconduct of judges Michael V. Coccoma - elevated instead of punished, John Lambert - elevated instead of punished and Brian Burns - also elevated instead of punished (for his role in Anthony Pacherille's case).
I wrote recently about Anthony Pacherille's case and compared it to the presiding judge's extremely lenient decision in favor of the rich and powerful defendant who killed one person (a poor person) and injured her child.
In this blog, I will continue providing the description of Burns' misconduct and providing documentary evidence of that misconduct in regards to the mentally ill minor child Anthony Pacherille who was sent to a maximum security prison because Burns was pissed by a letter of compassion sent to him as a part of regular pre-sentencing procedure by the child's father.
Here is the timelines of the Pacherille case:
March 24, 2010 - Anthony Pacherille turns 16, that does not make him an adult under New York law, but it does take him outside of the juvenile delinquency statute, which is illogical, because the Family Court act covers children under the age of 18 in custody and child neglect proceedings.
April 2, 2010 - the shooting occurs on a Good Friday. Anthony Pacherille is a Catholic, and the victim Wesley Lippitt, according to Anthony Pacherille's father, relentlessly taunted him because he was a Catholic.
April 30, 2010 - the indictment of Anthony Pacherille, 16, is announced in the press.
January 6, 2011 - Burns is sworn in for another term of 10 years and parades his three teenage children before the entire Cooperstown community in an open-court ceremony where anybody can see his children and wife
April, 2011 - Burns coerces a mentally ill teenager, Anthony Pacherille to plead guilty to a B felony attempted murder, with an element making it a hate crime under Article 485 of penal law - instead of reducing the case to a misdemeanor and granting the child a YO status, which was well within the court's discretion.
The child, according to his father, was intimidated by a threat of being sentenced for 20 years instead of "just 11 years" in prison, into lying that race was a motivating factor in shooting the person who, according to the father, was relentlessly bullying the child for years in school, with nobody helping the child or holding the bully accountable.
Burns refused to consider that evidence.
June 1, 2011 (6 months after the swearing-in ceremony) - Anthony Pacherille's father writes to the judge and asks, as a father of a teenager to a father of a teenager, to consider that a teenager cannot be held accountable the same way as an adult is, because his mind is not the same of an adult yet.
July 22, 2011 - Burns refuses to give YO status to the child and sends the child to prison for 11 years.
August 5, 2011 - Burns files a sworn deposition admitting under oath that he felt intimidated by the father's letter sent for purposes of sentencing leniency on June 1, 2011.
Let's once again look where Burns sent the child.
Here is the information about Anchony Pacherille from the NYS Department of Corrections that I checked today:
By the way, Anthony Pacherille was born on March 24, 1994, and his crime was committed in April of 2010.
The shooting occurred on the Good Friday in 2010, which was April 2, 2010.
That means that, had the shooting occurred 9 days (!) earlier, Anthony Pacherille could not be prosecuted as an adult, but only as a juvenile delinquent under Article 3 of the New York Family Court Act. His age, that he JUST turned 16 at the time of the shooting, HAD to be considered for purposes of the YO status.
Even now, the New York Legislature is considering a bill pushing criminal liability age up towards the real adulthood, which is only reasonable.
If Anthony Pacherille is a minor child for purposes of child custody, he cannot be considered an adult for purposes of criminal liability.
I can only hope that, if adopted, this legislature will be declared to have a retroactive effect and cover Anthony Pacherille - not that the harm of a child being tried, convicted and sentenced as an adult and spending over 4 years by this time in a maximum security adult prison will ever be undone.
The information shows that the crime he is incarcerated for is "attempted murder 2nd", a Class B felony.
When Judge Burns coerced Pacherille to state at the plea bargaining that he committed the crime because of the race of the alleged victim, the attempted murder 2nd also became a hate crime pursuant to Penal Law 485.05 that is attachable to a conviction of attempted murder under Penal Law 125.25.
PL 125.25 is an A felony. An attempt under this section is one grade lower, a B felony.
Note that under PL 125.25 it is an affirmative defense that:
"(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime".
There is no question that Anthony Pacherille was acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance - as evidence by his attempt to shoot himself after shooting at the victim. The father provides claims on his website that the victim was allegedly cruelly taunting Anthony Pacherille at school for years, and finally the mentally ill boy snapped, which would be a reasonable explanation or excuse.
I think it was a mistake of epic proportions for the boy's attorney to accept such a plea instead of proceeding to trial.
It was certainly a mistake for Burns as a sentencing judge not to consider this emotional disturbance and victim's contributing behavior at the sentencing, and that mistake was apparently deliberate, because Burns wanted to take his own personal vendetta against the father of Anthony Pacherille on the child, and did that, so far with impunity.
At the time of sentencing, Burns never revealed that he felt intimidated by the letter of the father sent to Burns before sentencing of Anthony Pacherille and seeking compassion from Burns by pointing out that Burns himself is a father of a teenage boy.
Burns received 60 letters from members of the community before sentencing of Anthony Pacherille, all asking him to grant Anthony a youthful offender status, which the judge had to consider as a matter of statute.
All of those letters, including the father's letter, were pre-screened by Anthony Pacherille's attorney who obviously did not see anything wrong in the letters forwarded to the judge.
The father's June 1, 2011 letter, reportedly, stated this: "As a father of a boy Anthony's age, I hope you are able to see that a 16-year-old boy's mind is underdeveloped and perplexing, even in the absence of mental illness".
What the father said in 2011 was echoed nearly word for word by the dissent of two judges on the New York State Court of Appeals in 4 years' time, in May of 2015.
Burns proceeded to sentencing the child and denied the YO status to Anthony Pacherille. Once again, Anthony Pacherille was a minor child of 16 at the time of commission of the offense and a minor child of 17 at the time of sentencing.
At no time during the sentencing that occurred in July of 2011, did Burns reveal that he was upset by the father's June 1, 2011 letter.
Once again, here is the "letter timeline":
June 1, 2011 - the Pacherille father writes the pre-sentencing letter to Judge Burns that his son's attorney submits to Judge Burns along with other 59 letters from members of the community, which is a regular pre-sentencing procedure.
On July 22, 2011 Burns presides over sentencing of Anthony Pacherille without disclosure that he felt PERSONALLY intimidated by the father's letter.
On August 5, 2011 Burns submits a deposition under oath pressing charges against the Pacherille's father.
Burns knows exactly what he is doing, and timed his submission deliberately. Had he submitted his deposition before the sentencing, he wouldn't be able to preside over the sentencing, as his feeling of intimidation would then be known.
See how Burns describes, under oath, in his own words, just how upset he was, in his deposition submitted to the police pressing criminal charges against the father: