Ethics Charge in D.A. Race

As everyone in NYC knows, and many outside it, there is a fierce battle for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan D.A.  Robert Morgenthau is stepping down at age 90 after 34 years. The candidates are Richard Aborn, a former Manhattan ADA and active in gun control; Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former state trial judge and Manhattan ADA; and Cy Vance, Jr., a former Manhattan ADA and for the last 20 years or so a lawyer in private practice (17 of them in Seattle). 

Each has many supporters. Among them: Vance from the three NYC dailies, Gloria Steinem, David Dinkins, and Morgenthau himself;  Aborn from former police commissioner Bill Bratton, 17 of the 21 elected NYC officeholders who made an endorsement, and the legal aid lawyers union; Snyder from many unions, Ed Koch, the Citizens Union, EMILY's list. Etc. 

Snyder ran against Morgenthau 4 years ago and got 40 percent of the vote. 

There's a lot one can say about the race but I won't because I only want to raise one question. 

In a televised debate tonight, in response to a question from a reporter, Aborn and Vance criticized Snyder for

 "accepting" the endorsement of the father of a young boy (Etan Patz) who was abducted from a Manhattan street some 20 years ago and never heard from again. No one was ever charged with the crime although there were some suspects. The case attracted worldwide attention and, in fact, someone just wrote a book about it year later.

The criticism was that a candidate for D.A. should not accept an endorsement from a victim (or victim's relative) where the unsolved crime was committed in the county where the candidate is running and, at least in theory, the candidate if elected may  have to decide whether to prosecute an alleged perpetrator if evidence emerges. It is unlikely that evidence will emerge that could support a prosecution at this late date, but it is certainly  possible that it could. 

Snyder's opponents said that if evidence ever did emerge against a suspect, Snyder would have to recuse herself (having accepted the endorsement of the father) and there would have to be a special prosecutor. I think they went further and said that Snyder could not even objectively decide whether to reopen the investigation if there were grounds to consider doing so because she would be seen as rewarding her endorser. 

In any event, their position was that a candidate for D.A. should not accept an endorsement from a victim or victim's family when the case is not closed.

I suppose a threshold question is what it means to "accept" an endorsement -- anyone can endorse anyone. Perhaps Snyder did more. Perhaps she attended an event where the endorsement was given or otherwise promoted it (it's not on her website). Put that aside, however. Assume Snyder publicly received the endorsement. Assume that the victim's father did not just call the papers and endorse. 

Was she wrong to do that? 

Comments

[Alice Woolley]

Stephen this raises a question which has been troubling me lately, which is the extent to which a "conflict" which is at a point in time only notional, but which has the ability to affect a lawyer's future judgment, is a problem. And also where the person creating the conflict appears to have consented to it (i.e., the father in this case).

A very well known Cdn. defence counsel, Eddie Greenspan (who represented Conrad Black in his US criminal trial) has recently acted for the family of victims who were violently murdered in Mexico. He also acted for two Canadian women who were being investigated by Mexican authorities for involvement with the murder. It is almost certain the women are innocent - Mexican judges have consistently refused applications for action against them, and the evidence was dubious. And presumably everyone consented to the representation. But I still can't see how you can properly act for both sets of people when if there is ever any evidence at all that the women were involved, your duties to your clients the family and your duty to your clients the women are automatically and irreducibly in conflict.

Similarly, here, it seems problematic to be involved (assuming, as you say, that the politician's role in an endorsement is somewhat active and not merely passive and something she can't help) in the family of the victim of a case which could end up active again - just look at the case of that young woman in California who was discovered 18 years later. But it is hard to conceptualize it in conflicts terms.

Maybe I'm making too much of this, maybe it is something that can be explained by the rules. But it's been bothering me - in part also because of another case which I had blogged on earlier, involving counsel who acted for a young woman resisting a blood transfusion on religious grounds and who also act for the Watchtower Society.

[George Conk]

The New York PBA finances the defense of police officers charged with crimes during the course of duty.

That sort of thing provides a much more troubling potential conflict, it seems to me.

See, for example, from Westchester DA candidate Dan Schorr's website:
PBA OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY, INC. ENDORSES DAN SCHORR FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Pleasantville, NY- June 29, 2009...Dan Schorr, the former Westchester and New York City prosecutor running for the office of Westchester County District Attorney (D.A.), today received the coveted Police Benevolent Association of Westchester, Inc. endorsement in his race to replace incumbent D. A. Janet DiFiore.

Mr. Schorr received the endorsement in a unanimous vote.

"The PBA of Westchester endorses Dan Schorr because of his deep prosecutorial experience and his commitment to fully charging violent felons for their crimes," said Joseph Giustino, Chairman of the PBA of Westchester Endorsement Committee. "The PBA of Westchester is also impressed by Mr. Schorr's commitment to crack down on sexual predators in Westchester and provide essential services and protections to victims of domestic violence. The PBA of Westchester is confident that Mr. Schorr will back up the police work of our members and make an outstanding DA."

"The PBA of Westchester endorsement means a great deal to me and I am honored to be running for district attorney with its support," Mr. Schorr said. "Police officers in Westchester risk their lives to protect the public from dangerous criminals, but their arrests need to be backed up in court with vigorous prosecutions. Violent felons receive lenient sentences in easy plea-bargain deals way too often in this county. I am going to change that the day I take office. Public safety requires toughness and vigilance."