Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 02:16 PM
I don't want Sam Alito to be a Justice of the US Supreme Court. I respect the man, but I don't like his politics and I think he will move the Court dramatically -- and unreasonably far -- to the Right. I wish he hadn't been nominated; I hope the nomination can somehow be scuttled.
But if it is to be scuttled, let it be done fairly. He has a lot to answer for in terms of the decisions he has rendered in his years as a Judge. One charge I've seen leveled against him, however, is at best unfair and at worst untrue and it really should be taken off the table.
The charge, or so I've read, is that Alito, during his tenure as US Attorney here, was responsible somehow for the acquittal of a bunch of mobsters in a sensational case tried here in the Federal Court in the District of New Jersey. The suggestion is that -- at best -- he was ineffective as US Attorney and -- at worst -- he somehow threw the case.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I was there. I know the truth. And that's just plain unfair.
The case at issue, against Jackie DiNorscio, Anthony Acceturo, Michael Tacetta and a bunch of other thugs, was initiated by indictment in 1985. It came to trial (or, to put it more accurately, trial began) in 1986. For a variety of reasons (including extraordinarily clever defense tactics and a Judge who did less than might have been expected to control the courtroom), it did not go to verdict until 1988. And, at that point, as anyone who had been in the courtroom even briefly during the 21 months of the trial could have predicted, the thugs were acquitted.
Was Sam Alito in any way responsible?
No.
First, the case was initiated, investigated and prosecuted by the Organized Crime Strike Force, and not the US Attorney's Office. At that time, the Strike Force was run separately out of Washington DC; the US Attorney had very little to say about what the Strike Force did. (That's no longer true, but it was true then.)
Second, the one thing the US Attorney did have to do at the time was a final sign-off on any indictment the Strike Force sought to bring. That was done here -- but not by Sam Alito. The US Attorney who approved the DiNorscio indictment was Tom Greelish, Alito's predecessor. Alito didn't become US Attorney in New Jersey until 1987 -- roughly a full year after the trial began.
Third, by the time Sam Alito became US Attorney, it was clear the case was a disaster. The lead defendant had been allowed to represent himself pro se and was having a field day in the courtroom. A team of exceptional defense attorneys was -- to put it mildly -- eating the lunch of a team of prosecutors who didn't begin to match the defense attorneys in numbers, experience or ability. Still, Alito did what he could to bolster the prosecution; if memory serves me correctly, more than one Assistant US Attorney was dispatched to help in any way the Office could.
In truth, the only thing about the case that happened on Alito's watch was that the verdict came down -- surprising no-one who'd been in the courtroom. Alito was the US Attorney at that point; he took the heat as the chief federal prosecutor. He didn't try to pass the buck; he didn't blame the judge (as he could have); he didn't blame the Strike Force lawyers (as he could have).
Moreover, independent of what the Strike Force was doing, the US Attorney's Office developed evidence that defendants from the DiNorscio case were continuing to run drug and related operations while in jail on the Strike Force case. That group of defendants was investigated under the direction of the US Attorney's Office, indicted, convicted and sentenced -- all before the "big" case even reached the jury.
So write that whole episode off from whatever you might think of Sam Alito. It ain't something he can be tagged with in any way, shape or form.
But if it is to be scuttled, let it be done fairly. He has a lot to answer for in terms of the decisions he has rendered in his years as a Judge. One charge I've seen leveled against him, however, is at best unfair and at worst untrue and it really should be taken off the table.
The charge, or so I've read, is that Alito, during his tenure as US Attorney here, was responsible somehow for the acquittal of a bunch of mobsters in a sensational case tried here in the Federal Court in the District of New Jersey. The suggestion is that -- at best -- he was ineffective as US Attorney and -- at worst -- he somehow threw the case.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I was there. I know the truth. And that's just plain unfair.
The case at issue, against Jackie DiNorscio, Anthony Acceturo, Michael Tacetta and a bunch of other thugs, was initiated by indictment in 1985. It came to trial (or, to put it more accurately, trial began) in 1986. For a variety of reasons (including extraordinarily clever defense tactics and a Judge who did less than might have been expected to control the courtroom), it did not go to verdict until 1988. And, at that point, as anyone who had been in the courtroom even briefly during the 21 months of the trial could have predicted, the thugs were acquitted.
Was Sam Alito in any way responsible?
No.
First, the case was initiated, investigated and prosecuted by the Organized Crime Strike Force, and not the US Attorney's Office. At that time, the Strike Force was run separately out of Washington DC; the US Attorney had very little to say about what the Strike Force did. (That's no longer true, but it was true then.)
Second, the one thing the US Attorney did have to do at the time was a final sign-off on any indictment the Strike Force sought to bring. That was done here -- but not by Sam Alito. The US Attorney who approved the DiNorscio indictment was Tom Greelish, Alito's predecessor. Alito didn't become US Attorney in New Jersey until 1987 -- roughly a full year after the trial began.
Third, by the time Sam Alito became US Attorney, it was clear the case was a disaster. The lead defendant had been allowed to represent himself pro se and was having a field day in the courtroom. A team of exceptional defense attorneys was -- to put it mildly -- eating the lunch of a team of prosecutors who didn't begin to match the defense attorneys in numbers, experience or ability. Still, Alito did what he could to bolster the prosecution; if memory serves me correctly, more than one Assistant US Attorney was dispatched to help in any way the Office could.
In truth, the only thing about the case that happened on Alito's watch was that the verdict came down -- surprising no-one who'd been in the courtroom. Alito was the US Attorney at that point; he took the heat as the chief federal prosecutor. He didn't try to pass the buck; he didn't blame the judge (as he could have); he didn't blame the Strike Force lawyers (as he could have).
Moreover, independent of what the Strike Force was doing, the US Attorney's Office developed evidence that defendants from the DiNorscio case were continuing to run drug and related operations while in jail on the Strike Force case. That group of defendants was investigated under the direction of the US Attorney's Office, indicted, convicted and sentenced -- all before the "big" case even reached the jury.
So write that whole episode off from whatever you might think of Sam Alito. It ain't something he can be tagged with in any way, shape or form.