Both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times recently featured in-depth profiles on Samuel A. Alito Jr. who has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States (see previous post). Both articles show the judge in a fair and mostly positive light, digging all the way back to his childhood to foreshadow the brilliant judge he would one day become:
Alito, who was valedictorian, excelled to such a degree that teachers at Steinert were forced to adjust their grading curves to exclude his marks. “Sam almost always scored 100, so the teachers responded by giving him an A and then determining the curve for everyone else,” McDonald said.
For college, he chose the lone Ivy League school in New Jersey. At Princeton, Alito majored in an elite public affairs program in the Woodrow Wilson School. He shunned the university’s selective private clubs and instead belonged to Stevenson Hall, a social and eating club that was more egalitarian because it was open to all students. He participated in the debate club. [Link]
Dave Sidhu of DNSI noticed something in both articles that he researched some more and then brought to our attention. It seems that Alito’s career had one small scandal that was connected to his days as a tough Justice Department attorney in the state of New Jersey. From the LA Times:
The Alito era did suffer a measure of scandal and embarrassment. One of the prosecutors in the office was charged with faking death threats against herself in the course of a case against two Sikhs accused of being terrorists.
What’s this all about? The New York Times fills in more detail:
In one of his office’s more difficult moments, Judy G. Russell, a special prosecutor who was a former assistant United States attorney, was found to have sent death threats to herself and the magistrate hearing an extradition case.The threats came in the matter of two Sikhs facing extradition to India on terrorism charges. Mr. Kuby, a member of the defense team, faulted Mr. Alito for not having the prosecutor arrested and for failing to uncover the false threats more quickly.
<
p>Dave found that the two Sikhs in question were Sukhminder Singh and Ranjit Singh Gill. A 2003 article about Gill adds some background:
“A militant, who gunned down Congress M.P. Lalit Maken and his wife Geetanjali 18 years ago, was today sentenced to life imprisonment by a city court. Ranjit Singh Gill, who on Saturday had been convicted for murder and attempt to murder, was also given a 10-year rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences would run concurrently. He was also ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 each for both charges. Additional Sessions Judge R.K. Jain refused to award the death penalty to Gill. ‘There are not only chances of his being reformed and settled in life peacefully but he already appears to be a reformed person and therefore, I do not intend to award him capital punishment,’ the judge said. The judge hoped that the state would sympathetically consider Gill’s request to release him after 14 years. Gill has been in jail for 16 years.” [link]
The problem was that when Alito’s subordinate faked death threats against herself, it resulted in unprecedented security at the courthouse, including the chaining and shackling the two defendants. The defense argued that this prejudiced the entire proceedings (which was probably Russell’s intent). What happened next is crucial. The major criticism against Alito is that he is a lifelong federal employee. Recent critics say that his loyalty lies with the government and that this fact is reflected in his “pro-government” rulings. If you remember, one of Harriet Miers “attractive” qualities was that she was from outside the federal judiciary. In this case some implied that Alito protected his government subordinate by not dealing with her more severely. In the end he urged the judge to re-hear the case and make a new independent finding to eliminate any doubts.
The case was mainly handled by Justice Department officials out of Washington and not by Mr. Alito. Ms. Russell was allowed to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and was acquitted of obstruction of justice.“Her conduct was outrageous,” Mr. Kuby [of the defense team] said. “It turned the courtroom into an armed camp, and our clients were blamed.” Mr. Kuby, who said he had considerable personal affection for Mr. Alito, said more generally of his tenure in the Newark courthouse: “As a prosecutor he was nonideological. He tacked toward the conservative side, because people who go into federal law enforcement tend to be on the right side of the line.” [Link]
<
p>For the lawyers: Matter of Extradition of Singh, 123 F.R.D. 140 (D.N.J. 1988).
<
p>Special thanks to Dave Sidhu.
<
p>
<
p>
I think Alito is being smeared for his own Italian-American ethnicity. The charge that he has differentially prosecuted South Asians or others sounds trumped-up. This accusation follows an attempt to say he rolled over on a mafia prosecution when he was a New Jersey prosecutor in 1988. The very fact that he became a prosecutor, of mafia, and in New Jersey (!) speaks strongly for his courage.
Accsusing your target of racism is a good way of hiding your own.
Whoops, when I said “your own” referring to racism, I referred not to Mr. Sidhu, who has uncovered an interesting story, but to the peddlers of the mafia prosecution slander against Alito.
I found this interesting, if only for the fact that I had this “crazy” prosecutor as a law school professor in the early 2000’s.
I don’t think the important part is that the prosecutor was “crazy” as much as comparing her actions to that of other lawyers. I think there is a double standard, that the lawyers who represent the status quo in the US are seldom prosecuted for their bad actions, while defense lawyers are held to a higher standard. I was involved in the case, as a paralegal for the defense and found the entire process very disturbing. The US was giving weight to evidence gained under torture, and frankly I find that as disturbing as Judy Russell’s actions. All the best Lorcan Otway