This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources .(September 2020) |
Paul G. Cassell | |
---|---|
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah | |
In office May 15, 2002 –November 5, 2007 | |
Appointed by | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | David Sam |
Succeeded by | Clark Waddoups |
Personal details | |
Born | [1] Orange,California | June 5,1959
Education | Stanford University (BA) Stanford Law School (JD) |
Paul George Cassell (born June 5,1959) is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah,who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in,and proponent of,victims' rights.
Born in Orange,California in 1959,Cassell received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University in 1981. [2] He later received a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School in 1984 and served as President of the Stanford Law Review. He was also a law clerk for Antonin Scalia,then a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,from 1984 to 1985. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger from 1985 to 1986. He was then an associate deputy attorney general in the United States Department of Justice from 1986 to 1988,and an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1988 to 1991. He was a professor of law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah from 1992 to 2002 and since 2007.
On September 4,2001,Cassell was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Utah vacated by David Sam. [3] Cassell was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 13,2002, [4] and received his commission on May 15,2002. While serving as a judge,Cassell wrote several opinions that received widespread attention,including the first detailed district court opinion [5] to declare the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional and a lengthy opinion decrying [6] a fifty-five year mandatory minimum prison sentence he was compelled to impose for a low-level drug dealer,Weldon Angelos. Cassell later wrote a letter to President Obama [7] requesting a sentence commutation,and thereafter prosecutors agreed to release Angelos. In December 2020,President Trump gave Angelos a full pardon,citing Cassell's opinion. In 2005,Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Cassell to serve as the Chair of the federal Judicial Conference's Committee on Criminal Law. On November 5,2007,Cassell resigned his judicial position to return to teaching at the S.J. Quinney College of Law.
Cassell has been a leading spokesperson for protecting the rights of crime victims during the criminal justice process. Cassell was involved in supporting Utah's Crime Victims' Rights Amendment, [8] which was passed in 1994. In 1996,Cassell represented victims and surviving family members of the Oklahoma City bombing [9] in efforts to obtain access to court proceedings. In 2008,Cassell unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, [10] seeking crime victims' rights for Sue and Ken Antrobus,whose daughter was murdered in a massacre at the Trolley Square shopping center in Salt Lake City. The Tenth Circuit said that the issue was a "difficult" one,with one judge dissenting. Also in 2008,Cassell obtained a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [11] that the rights of victims of 2005 BP oil refinery explosion in Texas City,Texas,were violated when prosecutors negotiated a plea bargain. In 2012,Cassell successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, [12] obtaining a ruling that lead to a district court decision that affected community members from pollution discharges by CITGO were "victims" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In 2014,Cassell argued on behalf of a child pornography victim [13] ("Amy") before the United States Supreme Court,arguing that she should receive extensive restitution. In 2018,Cassell filed a petition on behalf of four "Jane Does" [14] urging the Utah Supreme Court to appoint special prosecutors to pursue four rape cases. Cassell has testified before congressional committees [15] several times,supporting an amendment to the United States Constitution protecting crime victims' rights. Recently,Cassell has advocated [16] on behalf of Marsy's Laws in various states. Cassell is also a co-author of a law school casebook on crime victims' rights,Victims In Criminal Procedure. [17]
Cassell is a proponent of capital punishment [18] and has litigated for a victim's family [19] in a death penalty case.
Cassell was part of the legal team in a lawsuit against the United States by several alleged victims of registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,arguing that the government illegally concealed its non-prosecution agreement with Epstein from the victims in violation of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
A December 30,2014 filing in a federal civil suit in Florida against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act alleged that the United States,in giving Epstein a plea bargain in 2008,violated his victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The filing accused Alan Dershowitz,a lawyer who represented Epstein in his 2008 plea deal,of sexually abusing a minor provided by Epstein. The United Kingdom's Prince Andrew is also alleged to have had sex with underage girls provided by Epstein. Both have denied the charges. [20] [21] [22] Dershowitz threatened disbarment proceedings against Cassell and another lawyer on the alleged victim's legal team,challenging their filing on behalf of the victim. [23] Cassell countered:"We carefully investigate all of the allegations in our pleadings before presenting them. We have also tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects,although he has avoided those deposition requests." [24] Cassell and another lawyer filed a defamation lawsuit,and the case ultimately settled on confidential terms. [25]
Ultimately,following years of litigation,the Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 lawsuit lead to a district court ruling in February 2019 that the federal prosecutors had violated the victims' rights [26] in concealing the Epstein plea deal from the victims. But then in September 2019,the district court dismissed the lawsuit [27] as moot in the wake of Epstein's apparent suicide. Cassell and co-counsel Brad Edwards appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,which in April 2020 handed down a split decision, [28] spanning 120 pages,rejecting the appeal on the grounds that the crime victims never had any rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because prosecutors had never filed federal charges against Epstein. Cassell and Edwards filed a petition for rehearing en banc,which the Eleventh Circuit granted [29] in August 2020. In April 2021,the Eleventh Circuit en banc ruled 8-5 that the Crime Victims Rights Act does not extend rights to victims in federal cases before charges are formally filed. The Supreme Court later denied review in the case.
Cassell has led a legal challenge to the deferred prosecution agreement between Justice Department and Boeing concerning the crashes of two 737 MAX aircraft. In December 2021,Cassell filed a motion for fifteen families who had family members killed in the Lion Air and Ethiopian airlines crashes. Cassell argued that the Justice Department had violated the Crime Victims Rights Act by failing to confer with the victims' families. [30]
The Justice Department responded to the motion by arguing that the families did not represent "crime victims" under Act because the crime covered by the deferred prosecution agreement was Boeing lying to the Federal Aviation Administration;only the FAA was a victim. [31]
On October 22,2022,the judge handling the case agreed with Cassell and granted the motion. The judge concluded that the Boeing's crime of lying to the FAA had directly caused the two crashes and that the families thus represented "victims" of a crime. [32]
But on February 10,2023,the judge ruled that even though the families’rights had been violated by the Justice Department secretly negotiating the deal,he could not award any remedy to the family [33]
Cassell appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit,which held oral argument on the appeal on July 25,2023. [34]
On December 15,2023,the Fifth Circuit overturned the district court’s ruling that it could not award any remedy to enforce the CVRA,but held that any final decision on the proper remedy was “premature”until the Justice Department moved to dismiss charges under the CVRA. [35]
On January 5,2024,a doorplug blew off an Alaskan Airlines 737 aircraft,revealing problems with Boeing’s production processes. On May 14,2024,the U.S. Department of Justice determined that Boeing had breached its obligations under the DPA to implement an effective compliance program with U.S. fraud laws—making Boeing subject to prosecution for the pending criminal charge filed earlier. [36] Then,on July 7,2024,the Department of Justice notified the judge handling the case that it had reached a plea agreement with Boeing to resolve the matter. [37] Cassell filed objections to the plea agreement for victims’families and,on October 11,2024,argued to the judge that he should reject the plea agreement because it failed to reflect the deaths from the two MAX crashes. [38] The arguments are under advisement.
Cassell has argued that state exclusionary rules,including the rule implied in the Utah Constitution,unfairly harm victims of crime. [39] In 2017,Justice Lee of the Utah Supreme Court agreed with this view,citing Cassell,while the remaining justices did not reach the issue. [40]
Cassell has recently defended pro-active law enforcement investigation techniques,arguing that the 2016 Chicago homicide spike harmed many victims and was attributable to an "ACLU effect" restricting stop-and-frisk by Chicago police officers. [41] While the argument has been disputed,then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited it as a well-founded analysis. [42] [43]
In 2020,Cassell argued that the "Minneapolis Effect" was responsible for the homicide and shooting spike that occurred beginning in the summer of 2020. [44] His research paper contended that,following the murder of George Floyd during an arrest by a Minneapolis police officer,the ensuing anti-police protests caused law enforcement to reduce proactive policing,resulting in an increase in firearms assaults and homicides.
Cassell has also questioned the frequency with which innocent persons have been wrongfully convicted for crimes they did not commit,calling for close scrutiny of cases involving especially vulnerable defendants rather than a general approach to the issue. [45]
Cassell has also successfully served as a defense attorney in several cases where police officers were charged with crimes. [46]
Cassell has been a leading critic of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona . In 2000,the Supreme Court invited Cassell to argue in defense of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,which had held that a federal statute [47] had superseded the requirements of the decision. A majority of the Court ultimately rejected Cassell's argument,with Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting to endorse the position. Cassell has published a detailed empirical analysis [48] concerning the harmful effects of the Miranda decision,including a lengthy 2017 co-authored law review article containing regression analysis linking declining crime clearance rates after the Miranda decision to the restrictions imposed on police.
In United States law,an Alford plea,also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia,an Alford guilty plea,and the Alford doctrine,is a guilty plea in criminal court,whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence,but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution,and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.
A plea bargain,also known as a plea agreement or plea deal,is a legal arrangement in criminal law where the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to a charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor. These concessions can include a reduction in the severity of the charges,the dismissal of some charges,or a more lenient sentencing recommendation. Plea bargaining serves as a mechanism to expedite the resolution of criminal cases,allowing both the prosecution and the defense to avoid the time,expense,and uncertainty of a trial. It is a prevalent practice in the United States,where it resolves the vast majority of criminal cases,and has been adopted in various forms in other legal systems worldwide.
In law,a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction,additional pleas may be available,including nolo contendere,no case to answer,or an Alford plea.
Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436 (1966),was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them,or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically,the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning,and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning,and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban,often called the "Lautenberg Amendment",is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997,enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996,which bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor,Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Bill Clinton signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.
North Carolina v. Alford,400 U.S. 25 (1970),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty,while still protesting his innocence,under duress,as a detainee status. This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea,differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime,but does not admit guilt. Alford died in prison in 1975.
United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220 (2005),is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction,only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence,whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dickerson v. United States,530 U.S. 428 (2000),upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013,he taught at Harvard Law School,where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. Dershowitz is a regular media contributor,political commentator,and legal analyst.
Loretta A. Preska is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Born in Albany,Preska received law degrees from Fordham University School of Law and New York University School of Law. She practiced law in New York City from 1973 to 1992 at the law firms of Cahill Gordon &Reindel and Hertzog,Calamari &Gleason. President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the district bench in 1992. She served as chief judge of the court for a seven-year term from 2009 to 2016,and took senior status in 2017. President George W. Bush nominated Preska to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008,but the Senate did not act on the nomination.
Rene Alexander Acosta is an American attorney and politician,who served as the 27th United States Secretary of Labor from 2017 to 2019. President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Labor Secretary on February 16,2017,and he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 27,2017.
Pearson v. Callahan,555 U.S. 223 (2009),was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Marsy's Law,the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008,enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election,is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process,including the right to legal standing,protection from the defendant,notification of all court proceedings,and restitution,as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances,and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery,depositions,and interviews.
Stephanos Bibas is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before his appointment to the bench,Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,where he also served as director of its Supreme Court clinic.
Plea bargaining in the United States is very common;the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court,and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.
Yarborough v. Alvarado,541 U.S. 652 (2004),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to overturn a state court's conclusion that a minor was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview. Michael Alvarado helped his friend Paul Soto steal a truck in Santa Fe Springs,California. The truck owner was killed by Soto during the robbery and Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in the crime. The evidence for Alvarado's conviction was primarily based on statements given by Alvarado during a two-hour police interrogation that occurred when Alvarado's parents brought him to the police station. Alvarado was 17 years old and was not read his Miranda rights before questioning. During Alvarado's murder trial in a state court,motions to suppress the statements given by Alvarado were denied on the ground that Alvarado was not in police custody at the time of the interrogation and thus did not have to be read his Miranda rights. Alvarado appealed his conviction,claiming that the determination that he was not in custody was incorrect because the courts did not take his age into account.
Lafler v. Cooper,566 U.S. 156 (2012),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement,a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases,the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.
Virginia Louise Giuffre is an American-Australian campaigner who offers support to victims of sex trafficking. She is an alleged victim of the sex trafficking ring of Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre created Victims Refuse Silence,a non-profit based in the United States,in 2015,which was relaunched under the name Speak Out,Act,Reclaim (SOAR) in November 2021. She has given a detailed account to many American and British reporters about her experiences of being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
In the United States,the trial penalty refers to the difference between the smaller sentence offered to a defendant in a plea bargain prior to a criminal trial versus the larger sentence the defendant could receive if they elect to go to trial. It sits at the center of a legal debate over whether trial penalties abridge defendants' Sixth Amendment right to trial.
"The worst aspect is the utter irrationality of the system," said U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell from Utah, an appointee of President Bush and former law clerk to Antonin Scalia before Scalia joined the Supreme Court.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)