Sigh. Another drop-dead letter from the NY Court of Appeals, the second one this week. The first denied leave to appeal where our client got 107 years after a trial that he spent mostly down in the courthouse pens because the judge was pissed off at him. That’s not like sending a bad child to his room, yo. To justify kicking an accused out of his trial, his conduct has to be so disruptive that it’s impossible to continue with him in the courtroom. Even Bobby Seale wasn’t kicked out, just gagged. Here, the judge wouldn’t even let our guy watch his trial over closed circuit t.v. Must be a dangerous lunatic, you say? Yes he is, and he’s still on the bench.
The second blow was when the Court blew off our due process/scientific challenge to the so-called Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) used in SORA hearings. The RAI is so bogus and so universally rejected by the relevant scientific community that not even the People can manage to dig up an “expert” to defend it. It’s totally skewed towards finding sex offenders likely to recidivate, like a drug test that gives only positive results. But the Court has elevated it into a presumptively accurate measure, shifting the burden to the defendant to somehow prove he’s not as dangerous as the RAI makes him out to be. How does he do that? Maybe with a scientifically validated instrument? The Court doesn’t want to hear about that either.
Well, nuts to them all.
New York survived this one.