I am told that if you can sign into any zoom account you should be okay. I have no idea what that means but give it a try. The lectures are being recorded so maybe I will be able to post them in some form. It was not this complicated when I started teaching in 1955😇
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Ok, thank you.
I will give it a try.
Prof. Wolff, thank you for these lectures.
Some of you watching the news yesterday may have seen the report about Crosley Green, an African-American who had been convicted of murder in a Florida state court and sentenced to life in imprisonment, but whose conviction was set aside by a Federal District Court judge on a writ of habeas corpus based on allegations that the prosecutor had failed to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence to the defense attorney (referred to as a “Brady” violation), pursuant to which Mr. Green had been released from prison; on appeal, two years later the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s reversal and ordered that Mr. Green be returned to prison to serve out his life sentence; the S. Ct. had denied his petition for certiorari, so Mr. Green was preparing to return to prison. His appellate rights had run out.
The news report sparked my curiosity, so I decided to take a look at the 11th Cir. decision to find out why they reversed the District Court decision reversing Green’s conviction. The decision reads like a fascinating who-done-it, combined with the frailties of the legal system; the tragic consequences of having attorneys who do not provide effective assistance of counsel; and the inability/refusal of the legal system to correct its errors. As a result, I believe a person who was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is being returned to prison for the rest of his life. The case is an object lesson in the flaws in our criminal justice system and how a person can get railroaded for committing a crime whose guilt, in my opinion, was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are interested, you can read the decision at the link below. Although the decision is long (84 pp.), and has some complicated legalese, the first 11 pages are easy reading and set forth the purported facts of the case and the evidence which resulted in Mr. Green’s conviction.
https://casetext.com/case/green-v-secy-dept-of-corrs?jxs=11cirapp&p=1&q=Crosley%20%2F4%20Green&sort=relevance&type=case&ssr=false&scrollTo=true
(Continued)
The case involved a 21-year male (the murder victim) named Chip Flynn, and his 19-year old girl-friend, Kim Hallock. (The following is derived from Hallock’s version of what occurred.) At 10 P.M. on April 3, 1989, they drove out to a secluded park, parked the vehicle around 11:25 p.m. smoked some weed, and talked about their 1 ½ year open relationship. Flynn told Hallock that he had been having relations with several other women. [A patrol car passed through the area of the park sometime between 11:30 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.] Hallock claimed that while they were talking, a Black man walked by, warned them about police in the neighborhood, and then walked away. At some point, Flynn got out of the vehicle, barefoot, to urinate. In the process, he was confronted by the same Black male who had warned them about the police. He was holding a gun. Hallock took a handgun out of the glove compartment and placed it under a pair of jeans which was lying on the seat next to her.
The gunman told Flynn to get on his knees and ordered Flynn and Hallock to give him their money. Flynn said he had no money; Hallock gave him $5.00. The man told Hallock to give him a shoe-lace from one of Flynn’s shoes, which was on the floor of the vehicle. He then used the shoelace to tie Flynn’s arms behind his back. [Consider: How would it be possible for a man holding a gun, facing a kneeing individual, simultaneously tie the kneeling man’s hands behind his back?] At this point, a wallet dropped out of Flynn’s pocket; the gunman picked it up and gave it to Hallock to take the money out. He then got in the vehicle, with Hallock sitting next to him, and Flynn next to her. The gunman drove away, holding the gun to Hallock’s side. He drove to an orang grove, stopped and pulled Hallock out of the vehicle. She broke free and tried to run away. While the gunman was trying to regain control of her, Flynn, with his hands tied behind his back, grabbed the gun from under the pants [Consider: How did he know it was there?], and exited the vehicle with the gun (behind his back?) He fell to the ground and tried to shoot the gunman. When the gunman turned to confront Flynn, Hallock jumped back in the vehicle and drove off. As she was driving away, she heard gunshots.
Hallock drove past a hospital, but did not stop there. She drove to a friend’s house and called 911. [The distance from the orange grove to the friend’s house is not in the decision.] The phone call was documented as received at 1:11 a.m., on April 4. Two sheriff’s deputies responded to the call and drove to where Hallock had told the dispatcher the incident had occurred, but the deputies could find no indication of any incident when they arrived at the location. At the same time, another deputy, Wade Walker, went to the trailer park where Hallock was with her friend. Walker and Hallock met up with the other two deputies and Hallock directed them to where Flynn was located. Walker and Hallock stayed behind, while the other two deputies, Clarke and Rixey, walked further into the orange grove and found Flynn lying on the ground bleeding. He was still alive; his hands were tied behind his back; a .22 caliber revolver was a few feet away from his body. They untied his hands and asked him what had happened. He sole response was, “Get me out of here. I want to go home.” The deputies called for an ambulance, but Flynn died before the ambulance arrived, with a single gunshot wound to the chest. [Hallock declined to walk down to where Flynn’s body was located, and never asked how he was.]
(Continued)
Walker took Hallock to the precinct station, where she gave a tape-recorded statement regarding what occurred to Agent Nyquist at 4:45 a.m., April 4. She was unable to identify the assailant from an array of mug shots. A canine officer had his dog smell a tennis shoe track at the scene where Flynn’s vehicle had been parked. The canine tracked the scent to the house of Green’s older sister, Celestine Peterkin, who said that her brother stayed there on occasion. [Consider: Since the assailant, whoever he was, did not arrive in a car, and Hallock drove away in the only car on the scene, the assailant had to walk away from the murder scene on foot.]
Hallock met with a police sketch artist, who prepared a composite of the assailant based on Hallock’s description. Hallock told the police artist that the assailant “has a wide nose like a flaring nose … His eyes were not big but not small … His lips weren’t big.” She asserted that he was wearing “a green like army jacket, jeans, and shoes like a work boot because it was heavy.” The composite sketch was published in the local newspaper on April 5, and two people called the police and said the sketch looked like that of Crosley Green, known as “Papa Green.” They both also reported that they had been at a baseball game the evening of April 3 and had seen Green there.
The police obtained a photograph of Green which had been taken of him from a previous incarceration. On the evening of April 5, they showed Hallock photographs of six Black males, including Green’s. They told her that the photograph of the assailant “may or may not be” included. She identified the photograph of Green as the assailant. Green was arrested and charged with murder.
During the police investigation, they identified three individual who told them that Green had confessed to them that he had committed the murder: Sheila Green was Crosley’s younger sister; Sheila had been charged and convicted of possession and distribution of cocaine, and was awaiting sentencing when she testified for the prosecution; her boyfriend, Lonnie Hillery, had also been charged with possession and distribution, but had been acquitted; Jerome Murray was intoxicated and hanging out with some “cocaine heads” when he claimed Green confessed to him.
[Curiously, there is no mention in the decision of forensics performed on the weapon which was found lying a distance from Flynn’s body. Did the caliber of the bullet which killed Flynn match the caliber of the bullet(s) in the handgun a distance from his body? Whose handgun was it – Flynn’s, or the assailant’s? According to Hallock’s version there were two guns involved in the incident. Where was the second handgun? If the handgun that Flynn picked up with his hands behind his back was the gun a distance from is body, how did it get there? There is no mention in the decision whether the handgun was even brushed for fingerprints.]
(Continued)
The prosecution presented the above evidence to the jury. Green’s attorney [likely a public defender] called 5 witnesses. The first witness was an expert in the “field of shoe and tire impressions.” He testified that the four plaster casts of the shoe impressions which were taken at the scene of the crime were all of tennis shoes. [Note: Hallock stated that the assailant was wearing heavy work shoes.] Charles Smith was the chief umpire at the baseball game the night of April 3 and knew Green. He talked to him between innings and testified that he was wearing tennis shoes, but was not wearing a field or army jacket. Green left the park a few minutes after 9:00 p.m.
James Carn was a maintenance mechanic who got off work at 11:00 p.m. on April 3. He then went to the house of Carleen Brothers, Green’s cousin, whom he was dating. They went to a house across the street and then returned to Brothers’ house around 12:30 a.m. Green showed up at the house about five or ten minutes later [approximately 12:40 a.m.]. Carn went to bed at 1:45 a.m., and Green was at the Brothers house the entire time. [So, the murder would have to have occurred sometime between 11.25 p.m. on April 3 and before 12:40 a.m. on April 4, but not at the time when the police drove through sometime between 11:30 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.; Hallock had to drive from the murder scene when the shots were fired to her friend’s house by 1:11 a.m.; Green would have had to leave the scene on foot and arrive at Brothers’ house by 12:40 a.m.]
Celestine Peterkin, Green’s sister, that when she visited her younger sister Sheila in prison, Sheila never told her that their brother had confessed to the murder. Sheila was facing sentencing for cocaine distribution, and would do anything to be with her children.
The prosecution called agent Nyquist in rebuttal, who testified that the distance from the orange grove to Brothers’ house was 1.5 miles [which Green would have had to walk on foot]. On cross-examination, he testified that the distance from the park to the orange grove was 2.9 miles, and he had driven it in 5 to 6 minutes. [There is no indication in the decision regarding how far Hallock’s friend’s house was from the orange grove.]
(Continued)
In his closing argument, Green’s attorney called Hallock’s perception and memory in question, by virtue of the fact that she had been smoking marijuana; he questioned her selection of Green’s photo out of the line-up, arguing that she was influenced by the police telling her that the assailant’s picture was one of the photos, which the police then confirmed her selection as being correct; the confession witnesses were not reliable – Murray was drunk and testified that Green had confessed at 10:30 p.m. on April 3, before the murder had occurred; Sheila Green never told her sister that her brother had confessed and testified to get a lighter sentence to be with her kids; her boyfriend and father of her children manufactured the confession to help his girlfriend. He pointed out several other inconsistencies. Green’s attorney implied, without asserting, that the real killer was Hallock, angered at what she regarded as Flynn’s infidelity [the only evidence that they had an “open” relationship was Hallock’s assertion].
The jury convicted Green and sentenced him to death. His appeals in the Florida court system were all rejected, but his death sentence was reduced to life in prison.
Note: There were sufficient inconsistencies in Hallock’s version of what occurred to raise, in my opinion, reasonable doubt regarding Green’s guilt: her claim that Green tied Flynn’s hands behind his back while holding a gun on him; her testimony that he was wearing work boots, when all of the prints at the scene were of tennis shoes; her testimony that he was wearing an army/field jacket, contradicted by Chares Smith; the fact that she drove past the hospital, rather than rushing to the hospital to get medical help (she only heard shots; so she did not know if Flynn had been shot, and, if so, how seriously); since she had not seen him shot, why didn’t she want to go to see where he was lying and whether he was still alvie, and why didn’t she ask about his condition? It was the testimony of the three witnesses that Green had confessed to them which pushed the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Without their testimony, I believe Green would have been acquitted.
(Continued)
Green’s appellate attorney raised several bases for reversal in the Florida appellate courts. Three main issues were raised before the Florida appellate courts, all of which were rejected: did the prosecutor fail to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence to the defense which would have changed the outcome (referred to as a “Brady” violation); was there ineffective assistance of counsel; were the statements by the three witnesses who testified that Green confessed to them recanting their testimony admissible.
Regarding the Brady violation, after the trial Green’s attorneys obtained a police statement via a state FOIA request which had been written by the prosecutor which had not been turned over to the defense, as is required for all material evidence. The statement was: “Mark [Rixey] and Diane [Clarke] suspect girl did it, She changed her story couple time … [?] She [?] said she tied his hands behind his back.” The defense attorney (Parker) argued that had he had this statement, he could have impeached Hallock when she testified. But he could not do this without first calling Rixey and Clarke to confirm that Hallock had said this to them. The prosecutor argued that he had not committed a Brady violation, because the opinion of Rixey and Clarke regarding whom they suspected would have been inadmissible. But this is not to the point. The inconsistency in Hallock’s claim that Green had tied Flynn’s arms behind his back while holding the gun (a physical impossibility) and her initial statement that she had tied his hands behind his back would have raised questions regarding her credibility. As the decision points out, however, Rixey and Clarke were not told this by Hallock. They learned it from Walker, who had been told it by Hallock and wrote it in his notebook. But Green’s attorney knew that it was Walker who had written this in his notebook, because he deposed him. Walker asked him if he wanted his notebook, and he told him to hold on to it. He never took it. So, there was no Brady violation – the defense attorney had the information prior to the trial, but he failed to use it at the trial. While the Federal District Court concluded there was a Brady violation, the 11th Circuit reversed on the ground that the disparity between what Hallock told Walker, and what she later claimed occurred regarding who had tied Flynn’s hands behind his back was already known to Parker, but he failed to cross-examine Hallock on the disparity.
What Parker should have done was, during his cross-examination of Hallock, he should have asked her if she had ever told officer Walker that it was she who had tied Flynn’s hands behind his back – which she would have denied, since she had already testified that it was Green who did it. Then Parker could have called Walker in his case in chief and asked him if Hallock had told him that she tied Flynn’s hands behind his back. Walker’s affirmative answer would have seriously discredited Hallock as a reliable witness.
(Continued)
Since this was not what Parker did, the appellate attorney who replaced him alternatively tried to argue that Parker’s failure to cross-examine Hallock regarding the inconsistency constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating his 6th Amendment constitutional right. An evidentiary hearing was held to determine this question. In order to prove the ineffectiveness assistance of counsel, the appellate attorney had to prove that Hallock had actually told Walker a different version of what occurred. But the appellate attorney failed to have Walker testify at the evidentiary hearing. Moreover, had Walker been summoned to testify, and had he forgotten what Hallock told him, the appellate attorney could have used Walker’s notebook to refresh his memory. Alternatively, the notebook itself may have been admissible under an exception for a business record. But Parker had never taken the notebook from Walker, and by the time the appeal process began, its whereabouts were unknown. So the Florida appellate court denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Next, Green’s appellate attorney offered statements by Murray, Sheila Green and Hillery, recanting their trial testimony that Green had confessed to them that he had committed the crime. Murray signed three post-trial statements that his entire testimony was a lie, that he had been pressured by law enforcement personnel to fabricate the confession. At the evidentiary hearing, Murray testified that he did not remember making the statements, and then refused to testify, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Sheila Green testified at the evidentiary hearing that he had lied at the trial. The appellate court found her recantation was not credible, that she recanted “in an effort to please her brother and her family.” Sheila’s boyfriend Hillery also testified that he had fabricated the confession as part of a plea deal to help Sheila receive a more lenient sentence. The appellate court likewise rejected Hillery’s recantation as not credible and ruled that even if he had not testified, it would not have changed the outcome of the trial. But, of course, the appellate court could not know that.
After Green had exhausted his state appeals, his attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The law regarding writs of habeas corpus is extremely convoluted and almost byzantine. Reading the 32 pages of the decision dealing with the habeas petition can leave even an attorney’s head spinning. It is filled with arcane and hyper-technical procedural distinctions between exhausted and unexhausted claims that can make your head explode, regarding what issues Green’s attorneys had waived by not raising the same precise issues in the Florida appellate courts, and affirming the Florida appellate courts’ decisions on the issues he did not waive. Of the 19 claims that Green raised in his habeas petition, the Federal District Court concluded that only one had merit – the Brady claim, and it ordered Green’s release. The 11th Circuit reversed that ruling on the basis that Parker already had the information from Walker that Hallock had told him a different story, therefore there was no failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence.
(Continued)
What do I conclude? I conclude that Crosley Green was never at the scene of the crime. Kim Hallock, being told by her boyfriend that he was having sexual relations with several other women, became incensed, opened the glove compartment, removed the handgun and ordered Flynn to drive to the orange orchard, where she ordered him out of the vehicle, shot him, and tied his hands behind his back with the shoe lace. Then she brushed the handle of the gun to remove her fingerprints and threw it on the ground, a few feet from his body. She drove away, and did not seek medical help because she did not want him to live to tell what had happened.
What are Crosley Green’s options? He has none. He has exhausted all his appeals. His only possible hope is if Gov. DeSantis grants him a pardon, not likely under ordinary circumstances, and certainly not in an election year. An innocent man is gong to die in prison.
Marc,
It's admirable that you've researched this case in such detail and are able to warn us of a possible injustice.
You really should communicate this information to other media and/or to organizations which defend the rights of Blacks. None of us here are in any position to modify the results of this possible injustice, so you have to reach a wider public.
Hi Marc,
i see it like s.w.
why don't you make your own blog? You have something to say and that may be important, but these texts are in my opinion in length and scope, unsuitable as comments here in the blog of Prof. Wolff. A link to your own blog would then be enough and everyone who is interested would then be informed.
Of course, I always like to read your comments on the topics here, even if we are sometimes a little far from the origin in the discussion.
Marc:
I would read a "Lawfare" type blog from you.
Achim K. is right. Marc should start his own blog and then he can advertise, so to speak, his posts via brief comments here that alert people with a link to his own blog.
Starting a blog is not hard. I've done it twice (first on Blogger, now on WordPress, though I post only very sporadically).
There is really no justification for these *very* long posts in the comments section here.
The key feature of the blogosphere is precisely that it allows anyone with an Internet connection to start their own site and put up basically whatever they want, provided it does not advocate criminal activity. (And even that caveat can't really be enforced across the whole Internet.)
As to the substance, I only skimmed the posts but it's abundantly clear that the U.S. system for charging and prosecuting and punishing crimes is an inequitable mess.
Thank you all for your comments. Just a few words in my defense regarding why I posted this comment.
There is a close relationship between law and philosophy, particularly regarding epistemology and ethics. Law is an effort to apply the principles generated in these disciplines to real life predicaments. If one accepts that laws and courts are necessary in order to realize the just society which philosophers like Prof. Rawls envisioned, then it does not seem inappropriate to me to analyze a case in which epistemological concepts like guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are sought to be implemented, and to evaluate how well it succeeded or failed. Although I believe justice failed in Mr. Green’s case, I do not believe that it fails in every criminal case. But certainly it fails in more cases than one would want.
I thought that a discussion of Mr. Green’s case, having recently been reported in the news, was a timely topic for discussion. The Prisoners’ Dilemma is interesting to study as a though experiment, but Mr. Green’s, predicament, with friends and relatives offering testimony that he confessed to a crime it appears he did not commit, and then trying to recant their testimony, and their recantations being rejected by the appellate court, raises serious issues both philosophical and legal. On what basis should a court reject a recantation, and on what basis should a recantation be accepted, especially when an individual’s life, and future freedom, is at stake?
I am considering offering my analysis to other media outlets. Watching CBS this morning they indicated that they were going to have a special program analyzing Mr. Green’s case. As I said at the close of my comment, unfortunately I do not believe Mr. Green has any viable options left. Which leaves the question whether there were ways in which his situation could have been avoided; what reforms in the legal system might have prevented it, or are they not preventable, where one person, the sole living witness to a murder, sets her mind to frame another person for the crime she committed.
Racism seems to be the chief factor here.
If you (Marc) can see through this woman's false story, so can the cops.
I was once interrogated by the NYPD homicide squad owing to the factor that my ex girl friend's father detested me and blamed for his daughter's almost fatal suicide attempt.
I was cited to a precinct and interrogated for about an hour by two guys with guns in their holsters. Since I was innocent, I did not go with a lawyer.
The two cops struck me as being very astute, very good at questioning, without the prejudices that one at that time (1973) would have expected to find in cops (I had long hair), very knowledgeable about society and human psychology and at the end we shook hands and that was that.
So there is something weird when the cops did not see through this woman's fishy story.
s. wallerstein,
For your future reference: “I was innocent, so I did not go with a lawyer.” Not a good idea. If you are called in for an interview by law enforcement in the future, even in Chile, you should be accompanied by an attorney. You may not always be interviewed by police officers with the integrity of those you encountered in N.Y.C.
The police officers were suspicious of her story. That was the point of the note in Walker’s notebook. Green’s attorney failed to take possession of the notebook – which Walker offered to him, and then he failed to use the comment in the notebook to cross-examine Hallock. This was compounded by the three witnesses who claimed that Green had confessed to them. Once they testified, it was difficult for their recantations to be accepted.
Marc,
The cops don't scare me.
It's the tax people who do. If I were called in for a tax audit, here or in the U.S. I'd be sure to go with an attorney. The tax people are likely to screw you if you forgot to declare 10 cents. I know a guy in Chile who declared 1 dollar more income than he had and was hassled by the tax people for years. They're much worse than the cops.
They're trying to get rid of academic tenure in the North Carolina public university system.
https://ncnewsline.com/2023/04/19/new-bill-targets-tenure-calls-for-scrutiny-of-research-at-unc-system-campuses-community-colleges/
This particular bill is also trying to eliminate any state funding for "activities related to political, social, or religious issues, including special interest clubs and other student organizations," but excludes sports programs (naturally).
It also seems to be gunning for faculty engaged in "noninstructional research" and includes a requirement that each institution produce "recommendations to increase instructional time for students and faculty."
https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H715v0.pdf
Marc, did the police do a GSR on anyone/thing?
aaall,
There is no mention in the decision of a gun shot residue test having been done. Nor is there any mention of their having dusted the handgun found near Flynn's body for fingerprints. Nor is there any mention that they compared the caliber of the bullet which killed Flynn with the bullets in the handgun, if there were still any. If the bullets matched, then this would have supported my conclusion that Hallock killed him. According to her, the Black assailant had his own gun =he would not have shot Flynn with Flynn's gun. In sum, there were a lot of holes in the investigation.
Marc,
Aaall is asking about a lie detector (google GSR).
Maybe you can ask Professor Wolff to do a guest post on this subject. This seems too important and the case seems too fishy for the information to be buried at the end of this comment thread.
Maybe you draw up a petition calling for a new trial or a federal investigation or what the best legal possibility is. I'll sign, no problem.
s. wallerstein,
I thought GSR stood for gunshot residue. If aaall was asking whether a lie detector test was administered to either Hallock or Green, the decision does not say, so I assume the answer is No.
There is one more thing which is very curious. There is no indication that the police brushed the .22 caliber revolver found near Flynn’s body for fingerprints. Very strange. If Hallock had shot the revolver, she may have wiped the handle clean before she threw it downs. However, the decision does report that they found no fingerprints on the vehicle. I believe that is very odd. According to Hallock, three individuals drove the vehicle that night-morning – Flynn, the assailant, and Hallock. Hallock was the last person to drive the vehicle. Unless they were all wearing gloves (in April, in Florida?) how is this possible – unless Hallock, realizing that if a third person’s fingerprints were not found on the steering wheel, and Flynn’s and hers were found on the steering wheel, she could not implicate an unknown assailant. So she wiped the steering wheel clean before she went into her friend’s home. Too savvy for a 19-year old?
I will look into other ways to get publicity, including generating a petition – although the courts are generally not amenable to bowing to public pressure. There are strict procedural requirements to obtain a new trial, and since Green’s attorneys already moved for a new trial, and it was denied, in the legal system you generally only get one bite of the apple.
This case is one of the best arguments against capital punishment around.
s.w., GSR in forensics stands for gunshot residue. when a firearm is discharged the products of combustion spread out. Besides the muzzle, these products also exit the breech in a semi-automatic pistol as the weapon cycles and the gap between the barrel and cylinder in a revolver. These products attach themselves to a person's body and clothing and are somewhat persistent. There are collect kits available and Green should have been tested before being transported as well as Hallock, their clothing and the vehicle.
aaall,
Thanks.
I had googled GSR police and found this:
https://homework.study.com/explanation/when-using-a-polygraph-the-galvanic-skin-response-gsr-is-recorded-from-the-hand-and-measures-a-muscle-tension-b-sweating-c-temperature-d-sensitivity-to-pain.html
I don't think it is appropriate for "us" to post commentary unrelated to the Professor's post, especially following the Professor's explicit statement indicating his annoyance with the practice.
As I recall, he admonished those who believe their maundering constitute a Plato-like "lucky strike extra" to the platform, "to get a life."
What's not to understand?
The suggestion that those among us who can't zip it to create their own platform is a good one.
Jerry Fresia,
I agree with you that this is not the place for comments about the TV show someone saw last night or the Sunday football game, as has occurred.
I also agree with you that Marc should create his own blog about legal issues, which I would read.
However, the case that Marc mentions above is that of a black man most probably falsely accused of a crime and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Florida of Ron DiSantis. The black man in question has no possibility of "getting a life".
I would have thought that such an issue would outweigh considerations of classroom room among those who read this blog.
I may be wrong about that, but at this point in life not much surprises me.
my error:
I meant to write "considerations of classroom order", not "considerations of classroom room".
Jerry Fresia,
If I were to conduct a search of your name on Prof. Wolff’s blog, could you give me a 100% assurance that every comment you have posted was directly related to Prof. Wolff’s original post? Instead of complaining about me, why don’t you kick in some money to support the DLCC campaign, as Prof. Wolff has requested.
I have to say this about s. wallerstein - as much as we have disagreed in many instances on various issues, he has remained true to his principles. Have you? As he points out, my comment regarding the legal plight of Crosley Green is about a gross injustice resulting in the life imprisonment of someone who I believe has been wrongly convicted. You have railed frequently on this blot about inequities in the United States, both legal and political. What could motivate you to refer to my comment as “maundering,” other than petty spite?
"If I were to conduct a search..."
I seem to recall a JF comment on the comedic genius of Joe Rogan.
Perhaps there's a difference between a comment that interrupts an active, on topic comment thread and an occasional aside at the tail end of a comment thread that has otherwise run its course?
aaall,
Your criterion mentioned above sounds very reasonable to me, but of course it's not my blog.
I genuinely think that it would be best if Marc were to start his own blog, dedicated to legal matters, but also allowing more leeway for we maundering and wander spirits to maunder and wander.
Jerry, I, for one, am glad that you reminded us of Professor Wolff's dismay that his blog gets so completely taken over by those with ideological or egoistic axes to grind pursuing their own self-assigned topics. I imagine he is also a bit dismayed that some respond to criticism in a very personal, intemperate fashion. I guess some of us just have this great need to be heard--heard as they demand that we hear them. Too bad.
I shouldn't continue this argument, but it's beginning to piss me off.
All of us have a need to be heard. That's why I'm writing here, that's why you (anon) commented here, that's why Professor Wolff posts here and lectures.
Is it an egoistic ax to grind that someone calls to our attention the case of a black man unjustly convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment?
What is egoistic about taking the time to study that case and telling us about it?
Unless your position is that of Nietzsche in his early work Human all too Human where he traces all human action, even the most ostensibly benevolent, to egoistic motives. And if that is the case, what I'm writing here is motivated by egoism, as is your comment (anon) and as are all of Professor Wolff's posts.
Of all the off topic comments that folks have made in this blog during the 7 or 8 years I've followed it, Marc's investigation in the Florida framing of this black man seems to me to be one of the most well-intentioned and noble.
s. wallerstein,
Some (like anon. and Jerry Fresia) will take this comment as nothing short of callow toadying, thank you for your eloquent and authentic defense of my advocacy on behalf of Crosley Green.
Hey Bob, if you need any help uploading the recordings, I'm happy to give you a hand.
-Alex Campbell
Post a Comment