I consider the new amendments a very bad idea and am vigorously opposing it - since it is going to be populated with the same players who routinely cause wrongful convictions, it blocks the public from participating in the work of the Commission (all members of the Commission are to be licensed attorneys or ABA-approved law professors who will never deign to criticize or prosecute "their own" or get to the true causes of wrongful convictions - prosecutorial and judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct, lack of transparency in criminal cases and lack of equal-with-civil cases discovery rights in criminal cases).
The DA Association, whose lawsuit has triggered the pre-agreed-upon (according to insider Jeffrey Deskovic,
and without telling the public before Cuomo's reelection about that pre-agreement) shelving of the initial bill for the Commission - declared as a "revolutionary", "first-in-the-country" legislation to deal with wrongful convictions, ask Cuomo to veto the legislation as still unconstitutional.
Albany DA Soares, presuming guilt of all criminal defendants, claimed that;
“That investigation may include hearings attended by the defendant at which the prosecutor, victims, witnesses, and police officers may be compelled to testify about sensitive aspects of the defendant’s ongoing case,” Soares wrote. “These consequences will chill lawful prosecutorial conduct, impair prosecutorial discretion, and interfere with the operation of District Attorneys’ offices".
As I said before, Soares should be removed from office for this phrase alone - since he PRESUMES GUILT of the defendant by presuming that complaining witnesses in criminal cases are "victims" - before the conviction by a jury.
Unfortunately, the amendments to the bill ARE, indeed, very, very bad - and it does not save the bill that
- it has on its banner a declared purpose of supposedly "fighting wrongful convictions" (the way it was passed it has no potential of doing that), nor that
- a famous New York exoneree, the 3rd year Pace Law School student Jeffrey Deskovic has called upon the public to support the amendments, while, after initial superfluous engagement in answering criticism of the amendments, refusing to debate crucial flaws of the amendments as "minor" and not worthy of his attention at this time.
- licensed attorneys and
- law professors - and law professors only from law schools accredited by the Illinois corporation (ABA) sued for discrimination against law schools in order to block the poor from getting legal education
- has spent 16 years in prison for the crime he did not commit, who
- received a large settlement from New York taxpayers for that (not from the actual perpetrators), who
- is now getting paid for lecturing about his case to those who routinely cause wrongful convictions in New York - judges, prosecutors and the police, who
- awaits to get a license from the New York judiciary, and thus must abstain from criticizing the judiciary - even if they are causing wrongful convictions (as Jeffrey Deskovic must know they are).
- answer an ad on Craigslist for a million-dollar project?
- to agree to finance a TV show - big time - in order to bring more fame to himself and his "non-profit" corporation?
- to hand over a million and twenty thousand dollars to two strangers for mere promises - without a written contract?
- has this many unreconcilable conflicts of interest,
- is this hungry for fame and money no matter how they come by, and who
- runs from public debates of what may be wrong in the legislation he is so ardently trying to push through, after a self-aggrandizing campaign, with multiple pictures of himself at the New York Senate, or himself lecturing to police or judges, or himself accepting various "awards" - only because a DNA test showed that he was not the perpetrator of the crime he was convicted for, only because he was released, sued, got a settlement from the County taxpayers and used the money for his education and for promoting his BUSINESS?
- prosecutors, in the presence of immunity of judges for civil lawsuits, are the only people at this time to be able to investigate and prosecute judges (yes, I know, it ended really well for Pennsylvania AG Kathleen Kane, who was suspended, prosecuted and convicted on a fabricated felony case, incarcerated and disbarred because she investigated judges, and it resulted in public discipline for Soares himself for criticism of a judge) by bringing criminal charges against them, including with the help of grand juries which prosecutors now are legal advisers of;
- judges control prosecutors' livelihood and behavior by:
- having control of their law licenses - worked well in Kathleen Kane's case;
- bribing prosecutors with
- absolute immunity (through a court precedent, not statutory law) for malicious and corrupt acts while prosecuting a case, and
- with an unspoken, but universal, across-the-country, policy of not using attorney discipline against prosecutors (if they do not criticize or investigate judges, of course, then all bets are off).