After
Prisoner Beaten To Death In MCC
Jail US Attorney Moves To
Dismiss Citing Discretion and K2
By Matthew
Russell Lee
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 9 –
Roberto
Grant was killed in
a Multi-Inmate
Federal Jail
Cell in the
Metropolitan
Correctional Center
in lower
Manhattan by
"blunt force
trauma to the
head, neck, torso
and extremities."
His estate and
survivors sued
and on July 9
the Office of
U.S. Attorney
for the Southern
District of New
York Geoffrey
Berman urged
the dismissal
of the case, citing
the discretion
of those who
run prisons. There
were no
cameras. The
case is Williams
v. USA, et al.,
17-cv-06779
(Pauley).
U.S.
District Court
for the Southern
District of New
York William H.
Pauley III
asked Assistant
US Attorney Elizabeth
C. Simon how she
could claim there
was no negligence
given that Mr.
Grant was in
custody and
was beaten to
death. Ms.
Simon sought
to explain the
lack of
cameras as
based on
concerns for
personal
privacy.
Judge Pauley then
asked
plaintiff's
counsel Andrew
C. Laufer on
what basis he
was making a Bivens
claim; the
answer
referred to
the Eighth
Amendment. Neither
side mentioned
whether there
are cameras in
place now. The
government is
implying that
Grant died from
smoking
synthetic
marijuana or
K2, which one its its
cooperating
witnesses in US v.
Tapia
recently
testified to
smoking in the
MCC with
those on whome
he would subsequently
inform.
Inner
City Press reported
back in April
that Johnny
Morgan is suing
the United States
for a rectal search he
endured
in the
Metropolitan
Correctional
Center at 150
Park Row,
right next to
the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern District of
New York. On
April 4 before
SDNY
Magistrate
Judge Debra
Freeman, the
government
presented an
expert Roy
Lubit who said
that Morgan is
a "malingerer" and blamed
his pain on
abuse suffered
earlier at the
hand of
his own mother. But
even
government
expert Lubit
said that the
rectal entry
should not
have happened.
It is,
in fact, an outrage. While
some might
question
taxpayer money
going to pay damages for
what happened
to Mr. Morgan,
what about
public money
for an expert
witness to
insult the
torturee?
We'll have
more on this.
The
Federal
Defenders
scored a big
win in a
misdemeanor
proceeding
that only
Inner City
Press attended
and covered on
April 2. They
defeated the
U.S.
Attorney's Office
which argued
that the
simple assault
they agreed to
on a dispute
on a cruise
ship required
allocution to
actual
physical
conflict.
There was case law on
the Federal
Defenders'
side, and a
plea to making
a threat on
the cruise
ship - in
"international
waters" -- was
found
sufficient.
The case was United
States v.
Batista, 18
Cr. 730 (NRB). The
Federal
Defenders
lawyer was
Sabrina P.
Shroff, whom
Inner City
Press has
previously
covered in the
UN bribery
cases of
Patrick Ho
(new Hong
Kong documentary
here),
getting
bail for Cheikh Gadio, and
of Ng Lap
Seng,
representing
hapless Jeff Yin. The
issue in
Batista was whether
simple assault
requires the
defendant to
"strike or
choke." Ms.
Shroff cited
the US v
Denis and US v
Chestaro
cases, and the
matter was
quickly
disposed by
Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald in her
relatively
small
courtroom on
the 21st floor
of 500 Pearl
Street. The question
is why the
U.S.
Attorney's Office
in this case
had not
researched basic
case law - and
whether the
defendant
Carlos Batista, Junior,
from the Dominican
Republic, must
now be deported.
We hope to
have more on
this.
Earlier
on April 2, in
40 Foley: "I
was a street drug
dealer in from
of my building
in the Bronx,"
a defendant
told U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern District of
New York Judge
Paul A.
Engelmayer on
April 2.
Defendant Gonzalez
was pleading
guilty to a
lesser
included
charge, with a
guideline
sentence
of between 120
and 150 months
in jail. But
he won't be
sentenced
until July 11 at 2:30
pm, after the
Probation
Department
does its
interview and
issues a Pre
Sentencing
Report that
will remain
sealed until,
somehow,
Gonzalez
appeals. We'll
have more on
this - there
were no family
members in the
courtroom,
no media other
than Inner
City Press. Back on
March 28
an
insider
trading action
by the SEC was
under heavy
fire in SDNY
courtroom of
Judge Richard
M. Berman.
The SEC had in
2017 grand
alleged that
"Ariel Darvasi
and Amir
Waldman were
in possession
of material
nonpublic
information
about the
impending
acquisition
when they
purchased
Mobileye
securities"
just prior to
its
acquisition by
Intel.
But on March 28 the defendants'
lawyers,
moving for
summary
judgment,
mocked the
arguments. They
said Waldman
was "not a
direct insider;"
they said
suspicious
trades are
not enough,
mere contact
with an
insider is not
enough. The
SEC lawyer responded
with tales of
MobileEye's
founders
private jet
flight to New
York to nail
down the Intel
deal. Much of
the argument
came down to
whether a
response by
Waldman during
deposition,
that he had
been aware of
the trip -
"yes" - before
the words, for
the merger,
were said,
should go to a
jury.
The defendants
insisted on their video.
There was no
other media in the
court room
but Inner City
Press, still
without
its
electronics. So
what of
general deterrence?
What of
transparency?
In the SDNY
there is no
comprehensive
calendar,
and for now
the Press that
seeks to
report on as
much as
possible is still
restrained. We'll
have more on this.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
Box
20047, Dag
Hammarskjold
Station NY NY
10017
Other,
earlier Inner
City Press are
listed here,
and some are
available in
the ProQuest
service, and
now on
Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2019
Inner City
Press, Inc. To
request
reprint or
other
permission,
e-contact
Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
for
|
,
