A SORA Loser

SORA Hearing Bronx Style
A complete transcript

Judge: What are we doing here, People? This is a SORA hearing?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: I see the Board is recommending level 1, but of course you’ll be seeking level 3, won’t you, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

A-S: Judge, the People haven’t given notice that they’re seeking a higher level, the statute says –

Judge: COUNSEL, DON’T INTERRUPT ME WHEN I’M TALKING, COUNSEL. It says here in the Case Summary: Defendant, Primitivo Washington pinched his 8-year old sister in the butt and said, “Go ahead and tattle to Mommy, you crybaby.” Obviously a violent pedophile, this calls for an override –

A-S: Judge, he was only 7 years old at the time –

Judge: COUNSEL, WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING! YOU’LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO ARGUE AFTER I’VE MADE MY DECISION! Now, People, you agree that the defendant’s statement falls under the automatic override category of threat of future sexual violence, is that your position, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: We’ll go through the points so the Appellate Division can rubberstamp – I mean, review – my findings of fact and law. Let’s see, 15 plus 15, carry the 1. . .

A-S: Judge, you haven’t heard anything about the case yet –

Judge: Counsel, this is not rocket science, counsel, do you agree that 15 plus 15 makes 30? Or are you disputing that, counsel?

A-S: Judge –

Judge: STOP TALKING WHILE I’M INTERRUPTING! People, I assume you’re seeking additional points for failure to take responsibility, based on the defendant’s statement, “go tattle to Mommy”?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: And I assume you want to assess points for “stranger victim,” is that what you’re saying, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

A-S: Judge, they’re brother and sister!

Judge: Obviously that doesn’t mean they knew each other prior to the sex offense. They could have been separated at birth. If not before. Is that your position, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: I find the People’s argument entirely persuasive. Now, what about prior offenses, People? Obviously, someone who commits an act like this has done it before, is that what you would say, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Accepting the People’s analysis, that makes him level 3 even without the override, is that your position, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: All right, based on the People’s showing by clear and convincing evidence, he’s a level 3 violent predatory Frankenstein. He can seek a lower risk level in 30 years.

A-S: But we haven’t made our case yet –

Judge: Counsel, I don’t know if you know this, counsel, but I’ve done over 500 SORA hearings and this is how they’re done, and if you don’t like it, that’s just too bad, counsel.

A-S: He should be level 1 because –

Judge: Counsel, I’ve already circled the 3 on the pink form, I’m not letting you relitigate the whole thing all over again, counsel. You can take it up with the Appellate Divsion. Is that all, People?

DA: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Another step forward for public safety!

About Appellate Squawk

A satirical blog for criminal defense lawyers and their friends who won't give up without a squawk.
This entry was posted in SORA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A SORA Loser

  1. Georgina Schaff says:

    This sounds exactly like the judge my son had but she decided to “retire” before she was prosecuted by the state. I thought she was one of kind but guess I was wrong.


  2. Pingback: THE BEST OF APPELLATE SQUAWK 2010-2020 | Appellate Squawk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.