Memo to Mayor Bloomberg: Put a Sock in It

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:51:54 PM EST
Tags: Hiram Monserrate (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While I was gone last week, the judge announced the verdict in the "face slashing" trial of NY Senator Hiram Monserrate. (Background here.) Congrats to his lawyer, Joe Tacopina: it was not guilty on all felony counts, guilty only of the misdemeanor assault charge relating to the manner in which Monserrate forced his girlfriend out of the building to get her into the car to go to the hospital.

So, the state failed to prove Monserrate purposefully struck his girlfriend with a glass, broken or otherwise, or intended to hurt her. That hasn't stopped the domestic violence crowd from insisting Monserrate is an abuser and calling for his resignation from the Senate. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who's running for a third term for which he's invested $64 million so far, now adds his voice, calling Monserrate's actions "disgraceful, despicable, deplorable." I guess he thinks Monserrate should have left her on the floor bleeding instead of insisting she get medical care. What a cheap vote-getting ploy.

Tacopina responds politely, "...suggest[ing] Bloomberg is "another example of a politician speaking out without having a base of knowledge about the facts of the case or the law." I'll be less polite: The mayor should shut up. [More...]

This politician needs to get her facts straight as well:

“The justice system has determined that Mr. Monserrate has violated our laws and is guilty of a very disturbing and violent crime against a woman,” said Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat. “Domestic violence is domestic violence, guilt is guilt. "

Memo to Ms. Krueger: And not guilty is not guilty. Domestic violence is indeed a crime and a problem. Efforts to reduce it are not helped by inaccurate over-reactions to not guilty verdicts.

< Target and Others Halts Sales of "Illegal Immigrant" Halloween Costumes | Hospitals Restricting Visitors Due to Swine Flu >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Memo to Mayor Bloomberg: Put a Sock in It | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yeah, he's a big hero for taking her to (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by tigercourse on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 03:43:06 PM EST

see a doctor after he slashed her. Slow clap.

There's a difference between a court of law (where I likely wouldn't have voted to convict because the victim's new testimony created reasonable doubt) and the court of public oppinion where you can say what you want.

Oh that terrible, terrible "domestic violence crowd"

It's common enough (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 06:44:49 PM EST

for children to be taken for medical treatment after (my favorite) "she rode her tricycle down the stairs".

Taking someone to seek medical attention isn't proof they didn't intend harm - it sometimes means they were more afraid of the consequences if they didn't get treatment.


Bloomberg is an elected official (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:24:34 PM EST

with a duty to respect the law. He's not just a member of the public spouting off.


: Seems like he is respecting the law (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 10:13:23 PM EST

but voicing what he thinks of the guys actions. What exactly did he say that disrespected the law? This was said after the verdict, right?

not, however, the same (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 05:27:04 PM EST

as actual innocence.

And not guilty is not guilty.

this merely means the state failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of the charge, not that he didn't commit the act.

the girlfriend's refusal to participate, and her changing stories (not unusual in domestic violence cases) pretty much doomed the prosecution from the start.

i'll be curious to see how long it takes, before he has another "accident", resulting in physical harm to her.

: And, In Fact (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by The Maven on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 05:54:07 PM EST

State Supreme Court Justice William Erlbaum, who decided the case, made that very clear:
"The American verdict of 'not guilty' can indicate one of two things," he said. "Innocence, or the case is not proven. In the case of these [felony assault counts], the case has not been proven.
"There are only two people who have actual knowledge of what happened in that apartment. That is Karla Giraldo and the defendant."

This is not unlike a case on which I was once a juror, where we returned a verdict of not guilty for four homicide charges (relating to one death) because the prosecution's witnesses gave testimony that prevented us from crossing the 'reasonable doubt' threshold. All twelve of us, however, were convinced of the defendant's direct and willing involvement in the events of the murder, just not that he was the one who'd fired the fatal shots. Thus, not proven. Given the convictions on the misdemeanor counts, Monserrate should not be viewed as a persecuted innocent by any stretch and cannot credibly continue to hold office as a matter of public trust.

: no verdict in a criminal trial (none / 0) (#33)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:13:50 AM EST

is one of factual innocence. It's never guilty or innocent, but guilty or not guilty. Not guilty, as you point out, means the state failed to prove its case. Trials are merely a testing of the evidence: Did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? If yes, the person is guilty. If not, the person is not guilty. But one is presumed innocent until and unless a judge or jury returns a verdict of guilty. If that verdict never happens, the person remains innocent in the eyes of the law.

Riiiiiiight (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Astraea on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 05:33:38 PM EST

Just to be sure people know what you're claiming is the
act of a person concerned for a loved one:

"In the next segment, two hours later, Ms. Giraldo, in baggy pants and a coat borrowed from Mr. Monserrate, according to his lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, is seen holding a towel to her face, exiting the apartment and descending the stairs, followed by Mr. Monserrate in flapping shirttails and a baseball cap, carrying a jacket.

At the bottom of the landing, Ms. Giraldo lunges for a door -- she is frantically ringing Ms. Loudon's bell, according to the neighbor's testimony -- until she is yanked away by Mr. Monserrate. The towel falls onto a step. She grabs for the banister, but he has a firm grip on her arm, and propels her out as a leg flies to the side.

An exterior camera picks them up coming through the door. Ms. Giraldo's face, in close-up, is contorted as she appears to be crying. She tries to slow her exit by grabbing the door frame, but Mr. Monserrate pulls her out."

: That's actually in line (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 06:53:01 PM EST

with the self defense philosophy
"Don't go anywhere with an assailant. Help may not be at hand where you are, but the minute you get into a car, you do not know where you will end up, which may be far, far away from anyone and anything."
An argument so long and so loud that their neighbor put in earplugs to try to get some sleep? A loving relationship would be more plausible if it was the bed springs squeaking that kept her up!

Sure is a shame how OJ was called a murderer (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 08:14:30 PM EST

I mean he was acquited criminally.

why have trials at all (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:22:24 PM EST

when we could just call out the firing squad based on the public's personal dislike of the alleged offense? Who cares if they prove it in court with facts is what you seem to be saying.


OJ wasn't subjected to a criminal penalty, right? (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:25:59 PM EST

Last I checked, we don't all have to base our opinions on the outcome of court proceedings.

As to OJ, I have no comment.


you are free to express your opinions (none / 0) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00:10 PM EST

that someone found not guilty really is guilty on other sites. This is a criminal defense site whose central purpose is to preserve the rights of those accused of crime, support candidates and legislation that furthers those rights and oppose those that don't. I am not going to host comments that presume guilt or label beople guilty, before they have been found guilty and especially once they have been found not guilty.

If that stifles conversation, so be it. It is my blog. It's important to me that the site's central purpose not be weakened by those with a different agenda.

With respect to this post, which is about Mayor Bloomberg's comments, it's one thing to disagree with me about whether he should keep his mouth shut, it's another to insist Monserrate is guilty of something a court found him not guilty of.


Fair enough (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39:58 PM EST

Though I would point out you made no such defense of the "lifestyle guru" who had the clients die in the Sauna- going so far as to mock one of the proffered explanations.


: he hasn't been charged with a crime (none / 0) (#32)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:08:44 AM EST

and I did not opine on his criminal liability. I reported the news that the deaths are being treated as homicides. I sincerely doubt there was any intent to cause death so if charged, yes, I suspect I'll post in defense of him.
My "mocking" of the channeler had nothing to do with the guy who led the retreats. (The paper reported, "a channeler at the retreat last Friday said the deceased had an out-of-body experience during the sweat lodge ceremony and "were having so much fun that they chose not to come back.") I took that to mean the channeler was saying the people who died left their bodies in transcendental way but were having so much fun they decided to leave them permanently by dying. If you don't find that a curious explanation, I don't know what to tell you. If I read it wrong, please enlighten me (no pun intended.)

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#37)
by Watermark on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:23:57 AM EST

I'm not violating his rights. I agree that he is not guilty. But he does not have a right to prevent anyone from saying anything based on what probably happened, which is a different standard which I think should never be extended to jury trials. As long as it never extends to harassment or vigilantism, I think it's alright to hold a personal opinion about this.


hmmm... (none / 0) (#36)
by Watermark on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:19:54 AM EST

Jeralyn, I'm not hanging him here. Do I think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Do I think he probably slashed his girlfriends face? Yes. I agree that state shouldn't punish him, but where individual citizens draw the line is another matter (as long as they restrict it to vocal comments and don't resort to vigilantism).


Who will defend the good name of Ike Turner (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 08:30:48 PM EST

never convicted of spousal abuse.

: Don't forget Robert Blake. "I couldn't have (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by tigercourse on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 08:35:27 PM EST

shot her, I was getting my gun".

For the Record (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by