DOMINIC CARTER, CRIME AND CHANGING PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA

AN ESSAY

A few months ago, I wrote a short article about Dominic Carter, the former New York 1 anchorman who allegedly beat his wife. I used Mr. Carter's story to illustrate how difficult it is to "prove" things in our empirically-based evidence system. Now, a State court in New York has sentenced Mr. Carter to an unusual punishment for attempted assault. This presents compelling new issues.

Just as Mr. Carter's case provided an excellent vehicle to discuss evidence law, his sentence now provides an excellent vehicle to discuss criminal penalties in modern America. Put simply, criminal penalties are changing in America. And they are drifting far from their traditional purposes. In my view, this is not a good thing.

According to the New York Post, Mr. Carter was convicted of attempted assault for pervasively abusing his wife since 1997. See N.Y. Post, Crying shame of jailed NY1 journo, Jan. 15, 2010 at 5. Although his wife denied that Mr. Carter beat her, the trial judge--Arnold Etelson--referenced police reports detailing marital strife in the Carter home for over a decade. Id. He sentenced Mr. Carter to 30 days' imprisonment. Id. He also ordered Mr. Carter to "stay away" from his wife for two years unless "he is prescribed medication by a psychiatrist able to assure the judge that [he] is well enough to see her." Id. Additionally, the judge gave Mr. Carter an article from New York Magazine detailing Matt Damon's views about "honesty and humility." Id. During sentencing, he told Mr. Carter: "Try some humility and honesty--it goes a long way." Id. Finally, the judge gave Mr. Carter's wife a sticker with the words "Attitude Makes the Difference. " Id. He instructed her to affix the sticker to her bathroom mirror so that Mr. Carter can see it when he visits. Id.

This is highly irregular judicial work. As a general rule, the criminal law forbids specifically defined conduct. The criminal justice system decides whether the defendant engaged in that conduct, then neutrally decrees the legal consequences. While morality animates all criminal codes, it is not for judges in the criminal justice system to pontificate about it, let alone publicly scold criminals for sport. This New York judge transformed his courtroom into an entertainment circus. And the spotlight was not on Mr. Carter--it was on the judge.

To start, it is strange that Judge Etelson characterized these facts as "attempted" assault. At common law--and under New York State law--an assault means an intentionally harmful or offensive touching. See, e.g. NYPL § 120.00, et seq. Any intentional crime can be "attempted" if the defendant intends to achieve the bad result envisioned in the criminal code, then takes some action corroborating that intent. But it is no longer "attempt" when the defendant achieves exactly what the law forbids. Here, the judge relied on police reports that detailed Mr. Carter's abuse. They all but verified that he had routinely hit his wife since 1997. If the judge believed those reports, then he should have convicted Mr. Carter of assault, not attempted assault. If Mr. Carter succeeded in harmfully or offensively touching his wife, it was no longer attempted assault. It was just plain old assault--and it's a worse crime than attempted assault.

But Judge Etelson's legal errors pale in comparison with his bizarre approach to criminal penalties. Traditionally, criminal penalties in America--as in all Western countries--target the body and property. The law assumes that people do not want to suffer bodily pain or lose their property, so penalties targeting those things ostensibly dissuade potential criminals from making "bad choices." The death penalty, imprisonment, fines and corporal punishment encompass everything a State can realistically do to penalize crime.

In modern America, imprisonment is the preferred penalty. Fines follow in second place. Most consider corporal punishment an archaic penalty; it really never happens anymore. The death penalty is more common. Still, State-ordered death is quite a rare punishment, too.

Judge Etelson did not give Mr. Carter a traditional punishment. Rather, he theatrically used Mr. Carter as an instrument. The only traditional part about Mr. Carter's sentence was his imprisonment. To some, thirty days in prison for attempted assault might appear harsh. But no one would call it bizarre. People expect either fines or imprisonment for crimes in America. The criminal justice system works in part because the public knows what to expect for certain transgressions. They trust judges to declare penalties that everyone expects. At the same time, they understand that even a convicted criminal is entitled to some dignity before the law. He need not be publicly humiliated, ridiculed or belittled in the courtroom. His prison term and social ostracism accomplish that on their own. It is not the judge's role to morally grandstand or scold. He simply must pronounce sentence. Legislators moralize when they write the laws. Judges should not.

What does a New York Magazine article or a sticker have to do with the law? When did Matt Damon become a legal authority? True, "honesty, humility and a good attitude" are virtues. But it is not the law's role to chastise people for failing to be virtuous. The law's only role is to decree whether a person acted in a defined way. It does not matter whether he was virtuous or not when he did. A defendant suffers enough when a judge declares the penalty for violating the law; he does not need to "rub it in" by acting the moralist. In fact, I argue that judges overstep their bounds when they do.

I understand that people like to see criminals squirm. But their convictions should make them squirm, not a judge's moralizing antics. If every judge took it upon himself to act like Judge Etelson, our criminal justice system would look more like a Catholic school than a neutral forum for just laws. In a word, it is not a judge's job to castigate a convict's moral failings. Moral failings are irrelevant to the law. And the law is the only thing that judges are constitutionally empowered to decide. Anything else they say is unauthorized fluff.

Judge Etelson-style grandstanding is not the only abomination that occurs in our criminal justice system. Now, criminal penalties also increasingly intertwine with psychiatry. Mr. Carter's case is no exception. In his sentence, Judge Etelson conditioned Mr. Carter's future with his wife on his agreement to take psychiatric medications. He also retained discretion whether to permit Mr. Carter to see her, depending on whether a psychiatrist could assure him that he was "well enough."

Are these judicial inquiries? If they are, do they not negate the State's moral outrage against Mr. Carter? After all, if the court believes that Mr. Carter needs psychiatric medication, that means he is mentally ill. If he was mentally ill at the time he struck his wife, that makes him far less morally blameworthy. After all, the criminal law depends upon free, rational choice for its moral strength. It is easy to condemn someone who knowingly makes a bad choice. But it is not easy to condemn someone who lacked the mental composure to make choices, let alone recognize they were wrong.

In this case, Judge Etelson tried to wear too many hats. He wanted to punish Mr. Carter for doing something that violated the law. But then he stepped back and ordered Mr. Carter to take psychiatric medications for his "mental problems." Put simply, judges are not psychiatrists. They are not social workers. It is not their job to monitor people's behavior once they serve their sentences. Nor is it their job to declare whether people are "normal." Rather, they are mere judicial officers, and it's not a complicated job. It is not about management; it is about judgment: Did the defendant do this or not? If he did, he goes to jail. If he didn't, he goes free.

There is undoubtedly a relationship between law and psychiatry. But a judge's only concern with psychiatry is to determine whether a defendant is mentally well enough to be criminally responsible. If he is, that ends the inquiry. In fact, judges must be extremely wary when dealing with psychiatry in criminal cases. After all, the entire rationale for criminal punishment collapses as soon as psychiatry shows that the defendant cannot make rational choices. In that light, judges should tread lightly when tampering with psychiatric issues. They might just discover that the "evil defendant" is really no ogre at all. He might just be "sick." And it is not proper to morally condemn sick people, let alone jail them for choices they could not make. For better or worse, the law only works on sane people.

I doubt that Judge Etelson understood all these issues when he entertained the news media during Dominic Carter's sentencing last week. From his perspective, he was in the spotlight and he was going to relish the moment. He was not content to play the neutral magistrate who calmly decrees the legal consequences of statutory violations. No, he had to play the scolding father, too, as well as the psychiatrist and the actor.

I do not like this. While it may be impossible to separate law from popular morality, judges should consciously try to do so. True, laws enshrine popular morality. But they are not moral weapons. They are technical guidelines. It does not matter whether a law-abiding citizen is moral; he must merely not violate the technical guidelines. Morality is about character. Law is about conduct. It is much easier to control conduct than character. And a judge simply declares whether the individual in question violated the conduct guideline.

Well, at least that's what a judge is supposed to do. American criminal law is changing for the worse because the distinction between morality and law is eroding every day. Just look at the Carter case. It's all right there to see.

DOMINIC CARTER, EVIDENCE LAW, HEARSAY AND TRUTH : IT IS NEVER EASY TO SAY WHAT "ACTUALLY HAPPENED"

AN ESSAY

Earlier this week, I read about Dominic Carter, a disgraced New York TV anchorman. Last year, authorities charged Mr. Carter with domestic abuse after his wife complained that her husband tried to strangle her during a fight. She later recanted her story, claiming that a mysterious "day laborer" was the assailant, not her husband. That did not faze the prosecutor. He proceeded with the case against Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter appeared in Queens County court to answer the charges last week. In addition to flatly denying that he "had done anything wrong," he begged the judge to dismiss the case because he was "too important" and had "many friends in New York State government." He dropped several names, including Judith Kaye, the Chief Judge of New York's highest court. The judge was flabbergasted, admonishing Mr. Carter: "Don't drop names in here! You know better than that!" She did not dismiss the case. Mr. Carter's employer publicly condemned his conduct and appeared ready to fire him.

Mr. Carter decided to fly to Kansas City after his hard week back home. While waiting to take off, he stood up and made his way toward the restroom. Although no one exactly knows what happened next, a flight attendant screamed: "I want this man off the plane. He tried to assault me." Mr. Carter vigorously denied the accusation, explaining that he "must have bumped into her" while "bending over to tie his shoes." In any event, the flight attendant won the debate and Mr. Carter was ejected from the plane.

Police arrived to investigate the complaint. They determined that the flight attendant caused the altercation. They did not file charges. Mr. Carter took the next flight without incident.

I recount this story because it made me think about proving things. Evidence law represents our legal system's attempt to inscribe past events with "truth." I have written many times that it is impossible to know "the truth" about anything without being personally present to perceive it with our own senses. Yet we must rely on reports to formulate our beliefs about almost every event in our lives. We cannot sense everything that happens on earth. So we must put our trust in stories. Evidence law tries to assign credibility to stories. It also tries to screen out information likely to confuse the truth rather than find it.

Consider Mr. Carter's relatively banal story. The question is "what happened on the plane as he walked down the aisle?" Did he "deliberately assault" the flight attendant? Or did he really bend over to tie his shoes? Was it an accident? How do we know? We certainly weren't there. I read about the conflicting stories in the newspaper. How, then, can we satisfy ourselves about "what actually happened?"

Let's suppose the authorities decided to put Mr. Carter on trial for assault. To prove assault, the State would have to show that Mr. Carter intended to touch the flight attendant in a harmful or offensive way, and that he did touch her in such a way. From a philosophical standpoint, it is extremely difficult to prove intent, because intent exists solely in another person's mind. When threatened with punishment, a person rarely confesses to what he "actually intended to do," so evidence law requires us to look to external factors to "infer" intent. In other words, we must look to observable facts (ie, behavior, words) to conclude an unobservable fact (the actor's intent).

Mr. Carter's defense would depend upon his ability to show he did not "mean" to offensively touch the flight attendant. That is an intent defense. But to prove his intent, he would have to point to external factors. The best way to do that would be to call witnesses who directly perceived the event, preferably from a close distance. They could say what they saw: Did he slap the woman? Did he raise his arms in a threatening way? Did he "look angry?" Did it "look like he meant to hit her?" These are visual perceptions, and they carry the most weight when attempting to convince a listener to adopt "the truth" about a particular event.

But what about words? We can correctly infer a person's intent based upon his verbal conduct. What people say (and how they say it) can lead us to guess what they feel, intend and think. Still, whenever words enter an evidence question, the analysis becomes much more complicated. Everyone knows the word "hearsay," but fewer know the legal definition. In popular understanding, "hearsay" simply means "reported speech from someone else." In evidence law, however, it has a much more technical meaning. It means any "out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." See Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). "Statements," in turn, mean "oral or written assertions or nonverbal conduct of a person, if intended by the person as an assertion." See Fed. R. Evid. 801(a). Applying these definitions, we see that even the defendant's own words can be hearsay if he repeats them in court. In short, hearsay does not have to come from "someone else," nor does it even have to be verbal.

This introduces a serious problem in criminal cases in which the defendant tries to explain what he intended to do. At the same time, the prosecution has an advantage over the defendant because another evidence rule permits a "party-opponent" to introduce an "opposing party's statement" against him. See. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). This means that the opposing party here (namely, the prosecutor) could use Mr. Carter's statements against him, but Mr. Carter could not use his own statements to defend himself. For example, if Mr. Carter wanted to prove that he said "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" after the flight attendant accused him, he could not testify that he said it because it is "hearsay." But if the prosecutor brought in a witness who said Mr. Carter exclaimed: "Get outta my way, biatch" on his way down the aisle, it would be fully admissible against Mr. Carter as a "statement by a party-opponent."

This is a bizarre result. It almost seems unfair. After all, shouldn't people get to say what they said on earlier occasions in order to explain themselves? When the question involves individual intent, the individual is really the only one who can confirm or deny it. Yet evidence law turns away from this "best source" because it presumes that accused individuals will not tell the truth.

Thankfully, evidence law offers another way for Mr. Carter to get his statements before the jury. Although he could not testify that he said: "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" after the flight attendant accused him, a different witness could. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for statements relating to the "declarant's then-existing state of mind," including their "intent." In this case, if a nearby passenger heard Mr. Carter say: "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" immediately after the flight attendant screamed at him, it could be admitted to show that Mr. Carter did not intend to harmfully touch the flight attendant. It would not be hearsay because the defense does not offer it to prove the "truth" that Mr. Carter actually tied his shoes. Rather, it would offer the statement to prove the declarant's (ie, Mr. Carter's) then-existing mental state: Namely, that he did not intend to offensively touch anyone.

I mention all this to show how difficult it is to prove things. It is even more difficult to prove them according to technical evidence rules that prohibit people from explaining what they actually said, yet permit others to use their words against them.

Do all these rules bring us any closer to the "truth?" I don't think so. In the end, ascribing truth to a story depends as much on available evidence as it does to pure intuition. In my view, lawyers make a colossal philosophical blunder when they think they have a greater claim to "uncovering truth" because they apply technical evidence rules. No man-made rule can change the fact that human beings have limited senses. When it comes to believing something that allegedly happened outside those senses, one man's guess is virtually as good as the next man's.