Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has been making a public show lately of his connections with incoming Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.
Stringer particularly has been trumpeting his support for Vance's alleged plans to expand the fight against domestic violence.
I therefore sent a message to Stringer, copied to everybody in his office, alerting them to possible corruption on Cyrus Vance, Jr.'s transition team.
The possible corruption involves the Manhattan-based criminal defense firm Clayman & Rosenberg, which donated at least $42,750 to the Vance campaign.
Note that Vance was the candidate of choice for the Morgenthau establishment, Morgenthau being the outgoing district attorney. This is to suggest that improper relationships Clayman & Rosenberg have had with various employees in the district attorney's office could be reinforced and continued at this time of transition.
Indeed, Clayman & Rosenberg attorney Isabelle A. Kirshner is serving on Vance's transition team. We might ask ourselves why a criminal defense firm gave $42,750 to a district attorney candidate. We might note the coincidence that one of that firm's attorneys is now serving on that candidate's transition team. We might note that that attorney, Isabelle A. Kirshner is simultaneously receiving paychecks from her criminal defense firm and from Vance, the incoming D.A.
Why is this of concern in the fight against domestic violence? In Manhattan Criminal Court case number 2007NY070791, Clayman & Rosenberg represented domestic violence offender Bradley Ingalls, aka Brad Ingalls. Though the victim alleged two years of horrendous abuse and in the end suffered a ruptured spleen, Ingalls was convicted only of a misdemeanor assault and given a wrist-slap sentence. The D.A. Did not develop a full array of evidence leads in the case.
One possibility is that there was corruption between Clayman & Rosenberg and the District Attorney. Another possibility is that faced with the formidable powers of Clayman & Rosenberg's attorneys, the D.A. Decided that conducting the most vigorous possible prosecution would not be worthwhile.
However that might be, the case certainly demonstrates that the Manhattan D.A. Must present more vigorous prosecutions, if the safety of the community is to be protected. The D.A., for example in this case did not even seek security camera videos from the offender's building, though those videos would have served for bringing extra charges.
And Isabelle A. Kirshner actually asked the judge to remove from Ingalls' sentence a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. Keep in mind that when the victim was in the surgical intensive care unit, an attending nurse said "If that victim goes back to living with the abuser, the next time, you'll get a call that they're dead. It's very sad; we see it all the time."
This is one of the reasons why it's troubling that Isabelle A. Kirshner is on district attorney-elect Vance's transition team after her criminal defense firm donated at least $42,750 to his campaign. Domestic violence victims are being murdered in New York City, and the D.A. Isn't doing everything it could do to stop the murders.
The firm did not give that money to Vance and Kirshner is not now on Vance's transition team out of the goodness of their hearts. They are seeking some bottom-line advantage for themselves, and that bottom line advantage is coming at the expense of the safety of the community.
A district attorney who sincerely wanted to expand the fight against domestic violence would not be in cahoots with a criminal defense attorney who takes wealthy abusers' money to ask judges to remove from their sentences court-ordered psychiatric evaluations.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer made no acknowledgement of my communication with his office expressing these concerns. I sent a follow-up e-mail requesting the courtesy of a reply, and I also called Stringer's office and left a voice message requesting a reply. I have received none.
The appearance of corruption does not disappear just because Stringer does not answer me. There should at least be acknowledgement of a possible problem and some intent to keep an eye out that no improper relationships pertain between Clayman & Rosenberg and the Manhattan District Attorney.
0 comments