« "Trial Ambivalence" | Main | "The Sense of an Ending" »
May 17, 2024
World's greatest (golf) driver gets (over?) charged for reckless driving on way to PGA Championship
I have been looking forward to spending my weekend mostly ignoring work while watching the PGA Championship to see if World No. 1 golfer Scottie Scheffler could secure the second leg of the Grand Slam after his impressive Masters victory last month. But an unfortunate incident, as detailed in this Fox News story, now has me thinking about work in conjunction with Scheffler as I trying to figure out Kentucky criminal procedure and sentencing law. Here are some particulars in a story that I still find stunning:
Scottie Scheffler ended Thursday within striking distance of the lead in hopes of winning the first PGA Championship of his career, but Friday got off to a rough start. Scheffler was arrested and charged after he allegedly failed to follow police orders as he was about to enter Valhalla Golf Course in Louisville, Kentucky, for the second round of the tournament. He released a statement before he teed off in the second round.
"This morning, I was proceeding as directed by police officers. It was a very chaotic situation, understandably so considering the tragic accident that had occurred earlier, and there was a big misunderstanding of what I thought I was being asked to do," he said. "I never intended to disregard any of the instructions. I’m hopeful to put this to the side and focus on golf today...."
ESPN reported that Scheffler drove past a police officer in his SUV with markings on the door indicating it was a PGA Championship vehicle. The officer screamed at him to stop and then attached himself to the car until Scheffler stopped his vehicle about 10 yards later. ESPN reporter Jeff Darlington characterized it as a "misunderstanding with traffic flow" as authorities were investigating a traffic fatality earlier in the morning.
"Scheffler was then walked over to the police car, placed in the back, in handcuffs, very stunned about what was happening, looked toward me as he was in those handcuffs and said, ‘Please help me,’" Darlington said on ESPN’s "SportsCenter." "He very clearly did not know what was happening in the situation. It moved very quickly, very rapidly, very aggressively."
Scheffler was booked into the Louisville Department of Corrections later Friday. He was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer (a felony), criminal mischief, reckless driving and disregarding signals from an officer directing traffic.
A police report said a detective was knocked down after Scheffler refused "to comply and accelerated forward." The detective was allegedly dragged to the ground and he suffered injuries to his wrist and knee."
Scheffler’s attorney, Steve Romines, released a statement on the incident. "In the early hours of the morning in advance of his tee time Scottie was going to the course to begin his pre round preparation," he said, via Sports Illustrated. "Due to the combination of event traffic and a traffic fatality in the area it was a very chaotic situation He was proceeding as directed by another traffic officer and driving a marked player’s vehicle with credentials visible. In the confusion, Scottie is alleged to have disregarded a different officer’s traffic signals resulting in these charges. Multiple eyewitnesses have confirmed that he did not do anything wrong but was simply proceeding as directed. He stopped immediately upon being directed to and never at any point assaulted any officer with his vehicle. We will litigate this matter as needed and he will be completely exonerated."
Scheffler was coming off of four victories in the last five tournaments, including a second Masters title. He was home in Dallas the last three weeks waiting for the birth of his first child, which occurred on May 8.
I have already seen various conflicting reports about how Scheffler was driving, but even the worst version of the story leaves me puzzled by a felony second-degree assault charge which in Kentucky carries a prison term of five to ten years and requires intentionally or wantonly causing injury. The other lesser charges seem potentially a bit more fitting, though this still sounds a lot more like an unfortunate misunderstanding than a criminal episode calling for multiple charges including a very serious felony count. Given that a police officer was injured in this unfortunate incident, I can understand why it is being treated seriously. But I would like to think a lot of matters can be treated seriously without the filing of multiple and serious criminal charges.
Even without knowing anything about criminal Kentucky criminal procedure and sentencing law, I am fairly confident that Scheffler and his lawyer(s) will get this matter straightened out relatively quickly. (And, notably, as I write this post, Schefller is under par through his first five holes, so he seems to be coping well.) But one always wonders about an array of collateral consequences from criminal justice involvement. For example, this new article in its headline highlighted that Scheffler may have to worry about a unique kind of collateral consequence: "Paris Olympics: Will Scottie Scheffler be Denied Entry After Arrest Scandal?"
May 17, 2024 at 11:51 AM | Permalink
Comments
This story deserves comment:
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2024/05/17/black-caucus-asks-biden-to-pardon-marilyn-mosby-n3788564
Why would the CBC be fighting for her?
Posted by: federalist | May 17, 2024 12:15:40 PM
Apropos of federalists very topical response I thought I'd offer one of my own LOL
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/17/politics/paul-pelosi-attacker-david-depape-sentenced/index.html
30 years! If some scruffy faced rat took a hammer to Mike Johnson's wife, how long a sentence do you think he'd get?
And what if MTG did it? I can't even imagine LOL
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 17, 2024 3:27:35 PM
I have no prob with 30 year sentence.
Posted by: federalist | May 17, 2024 5:30:36 PM
Talk about jumping to alarmist conclusions. Yikes.
As we all ought to know, the charges THAT GO TO COURT (if any wind up going to court here) are filed by the prosecutor, not the police. To start scaremongering about 10 years in prison is absurd. My guess is no jail sentence at all, and that's if the prosecutor actually brings a case, which I will take even money right now doesn't happen. Any takers?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 17, 2024 7:17:14 PM
MAGA 2024 --
After repeatedly and gratuitously bringing Trump into virtually every comment you make, you are less than ideally positioned to go after federalist by sarcastically dinging his "very topical response."
Yikes. Clean up your own house first.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 17, 2024 7:22:05 PM
I am curious, Bill, as why you are eager to bet that no charges will be filed. Are you of the view there were likely no actual crimes here that could be proven BRD or are you of the view that prosecutors are likely to give this (rich prominent) defendant a break even though he likley committed crimes that could be proven BRD?
Posted by: Doug B | May 18, 2024 9:29:55 AM
Doug --
Glad to see that you don't dispute that any charges THAT GO TO COURT would need to be filed by the prosecutor, not just written down on the police blotter. Thanks!
"I am curious, Bill, as why you are eager to bet that no charges will be filed."
Well you could take the bet and find out. But no one here ever seems to want to take my bets. Phooey.
Still, I'll make it easy: The tapes make it look more like an accident than a crime.
"Are you of the view there were likely no actual crimes here that could be proven BRD...[?]"
Pretty much. Or that even if there were, this kind of stuff -- low speed traffic run-in's in darkness and bad weather -- just don't have the kind of malice in them that typically gets prosecuted. Prosecutors all the time leave minor stuff on the editing room floor.
"....or are you of the view that prosecutors are likely to give this (rich prominent) defendant a break even though he likley committed crimes that could be proven BRD?"
Yeah, yeah, yeah, prosecutors are Really Bad People who get dazzled by rich, prominent defendants. You should ask Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken about that.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers are pure as the driven snow.
HAHAHAHA
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2024 12:17:08 PM
It's an interesting discussing. I'm thinking of Maslow's hammer law.
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by: beth curtis | May 18, 2024 1:00:28 PM
Its like the old joke about you and your buddy having to run from an angry bear in the woods.
I don't have to be ethical by any objective standard, I just have to be more ethical than I think you are LOL
MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 18, 2024 1:00:36 PM
MAGA 2024 --
I didn't say and don't believe that Doug is unethical. But I think he's wrong, indeed silly, to be breathless about the possibility of a 10 year sentence when, in fact, there's no realistic possibility of that whatever. It's just out-of-the-blue scaremongering.
As you also know, don't you?
Of course if you doubt me, you can take my offered bet. Gonna?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2024 3:48:18 PM
Bill, did you actually read my post carefully (or at all)? How do you get the cockamaime view that I was "breathless about the possibility of a 10 year sentence"? I just said I was "puzzled by a felony second-degree assault charge which in Kentucky carries a prison term of five to ten years and requires intentionally or wantonly causing injury," and I followed up by noting that "I am fairly confident that Scheffler and his lawyer(s) will get this matter straightened out relatively quickly." Any sober reader would understand I just provided a description of the charge as well as suggesting it would not stick. In what universe is that a form of "scaremongering about 10 years in prison" and can you provide any explanation for that misrepresentation of the post?
Meanwhile, I find it unseemly to bet on legal matters, but I appreciate your explanation that "Prosecutors all the time leave minor stuff." It will be interesting to see if, as it seems you are predicting, the prosecutor here is prepared to drop all the charges. That would seem to me to be the sound outcome, but still one I have no interest in betting on.
Posted by: Doug B | May 18, 2024 9:49:52 PM
Doug --
Why even mention a ten year sentence when you know -- as we both know -- that it's not going to happen? What's the point except to get readers roiled up about the supposed excesses of the system?
Not only is that sentence not going to happen, it's less than clear that a court case is going to happen at all. The police blotter is not a court case -- something you and I know, but many of your readers might not know. IMHO, you should have explained that.
As for the bet, I knew you wouldn't take it. If anyone else cares to -- maybe MAGA, if he can unglue himself from DJT for ten seconds -- it's still open.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2024 11:47:15 PM
Bill, I was obviously explaining why I was "puzzled" by Scheffler being subject to a serious felony charge for what seemed "more like an unfortunate misunderstanding than a criminal episode calling for multiple charges including a very serious felony count." How did I know, and how could I explain, that a felony second-degree assault charge in Kentucky was quite serious? By researching and then noting that, in KY, this crime "carries a prison term of five to ten years." Mentioning the statutory prison time that KY attaches to this crime explains why it seems serious, not being "breathless" or "scaremongering" in any way. And, again, I followed up noting that I "am fairly confident that Scheffler and his lawyer(s) will get this matter straightened out relatively quickly."
The only person who seems "roiled up," Bill, apparently is you --- and only because you are apparently unable to pay attention to actual words and context. And I sense it is likely because you realize this matter does serve as a high-profile example of the "excesses of the system," and so you are eager pretend that Scheffler being arrested, jailed and booked on serious criminal charges is not all that notable. (And, among the collateral consequences, it seems to have contributed to Scheffler having his worst round of tournament golf this year at the worst possible moment.)
Posted by: Doug B | May 19, 2024 8:46:41 AM
Doug --
"The only person who seems "roiled up," Bill, apparently is you --- and only because you are apparently unable to pay attention to actual words and context. And I sense it is likely because you realize this matter does serve as a high-profile example of the "excesses of the system," and so you are eager pretend that Scheffler being arrested, jailed and booked on serious criminal charges is not all that notable."
"Not all that notable" is why this makes the SIXTH time I've addressed it on this thread.
The thing that's out-of-kilter here is your over-eagerness to jump at anything in order to portray the cops/system as heartless, nasty thugs without any serious attempt to take a moment to understand (1) what lay behind their initial reaction, or (2) why that reaction is very likely to change (hence my bet offer).
Just continuously painting the cops as thugs can be just as wearing as MAGA's jamming Donald Trump into a post about traffic enforcement (well, OK, not THAT wearing).
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2024 9:57:20 AM
As Doug knows, I live in Kentucky and have worked on criminal defense matters since moving back to the state in 2009. I have been told that Scottie Scheffler was given inconsistent instructions by two police officers close together in time, which led to his arrest by the second officer, Det. Gillis [who was in uniform directing traffic due to the shortage of officers in Louisville after the Breonna Taylor debacle]. I am told that the charges will be dismissed on Monday, so there will be no arraignment on Tuesday at 1 p.m. The amazing thing here is that Scottie spent only about 1 hour in jail, before being released on his own recognizance (ROR), without having to post any financial bond, despite being a resident of Texas and being charged with 2nd degree assault on a police officer. Scottie was picked up from the jail and was back at Valhalla Golf Club about an hour before his 10:09 a.m. tee time. The President of Valhalla Golf Club personally made phone calls to the highest levels of law enforcement, the Judge and the County Attorney's Office to make that happen fast. Normally, I would have expected Scottie's bond to be set at $25,000 to $50,000 on those charges. Scottie is represented by Louisville criminal defense lawyer Steve Romines, who the readers here would know because he represented Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who shot and wounded a police officer the night the police executed the NO KNOCK search warrant that resulted in her death. Walker was originally charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but the charges were dismissed with prejudice within 2 weeks, because of Mr. Romines' work. Walker did not realize it was the police that night, but rather thought there was a home invasion robbery taking place. Under Kentucky law, the "Castle Doctrine", one can use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, in case of violent instrusion at home. While there is an exception in the Castle Doctrine statute that forbids use of deadly force against the police, there is a major ambiguity when the police are executing a NO KNOCK search warrant and the occupants of the apartment don't know it[s the police, but think it's a home invasion robbery. A new tee shirt is now popular in Louisville; it shows Scottie's mug shot picture in the orange jumpsuit, with the slogan "Free Scottie" - sure to becoem a collector's item.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 19, 2024 3:25:38 PM
JIm Gormley --
"I am told that the charges will be dismissed on Monday, so there will be no arraignment on Tuesday."
This will surprise no one. Some things are crimes and some are accidents. The balance of evidence, reviewed after the event, is that this episode was the latter. All the talk of the system's sending Scheffler to jail for years was just huffing and puffing.
Not for nothing is no one taking my bet.
The system sometimes does get things very wrong, as all institutions crafted by human beings do. But this deal isn't and could never plausibly be painted as a scandal, and still less as a monstrosity.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2024 5:51:55 PM
Bill::
"Just continuously painting the cops as thugs can be just as wearing as MAGA's jamming Donald Trump into a post about traffic enforcement (well, OK, not THAT wearing)."
Except I didnt, Bill.
First out of the gate at May 17, 2024 12:15:40 PM was federalist, bringing up Marilyn Mosby, Joe Biden, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Then I showed up at May 17, 2024 3:27:35 PM with Paul (and implicitly Nancy) Pelosi, David DePape, Mike Johnson, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene.
Then you blow in at May 17, 2024 7:22:05 PM talking about...Donald Trump.
Sure, I bring up Trump a lot but one of the times I don't is the time when you feel obliged to? Curious.
With you acting like that its no wonder nobody takes you up on your wager. Maybe we dont have confidence in you to remember which way you bet LOL
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 19, 2024 7:53:21 PM
Bill, you fret about "All the talk of the system's sending Scheffler to jail for years." Can you point to any such talk here? It is entirely a figment of your imagination.
What is not imaginary is what I actually said in the post, which is that this incident did not seem like a criminal episode and so ought to have been handled without "multiple and serious criminal charges." According to Jim, it now seems Kentucky prosecutors entirely agree with my take that criminal charges are not justified.
I sense, Bill, that we both agree that it was a mistake for cops to subject Scheffler to arrest, jailing and booking on serious criminal charges. That does not make them "heartless, nasty thugs," but it does show how a split-second, simple misunderstand can result in "multiple and serious criminal charges" for even a seemingly innocent person. And you continue to ignore my clear statement that I expect this matter not to proceed ("I am fairly confident that Scheffler and his lawyer(s) will get this matter straightened out relatively quickly.") I am pleased that, in this case, misguided charges apparently will be dropped, but that does not erase the fact this matter could have surely been handled better.
Posted by: Doug B | May 19, 2024 8:02:36 PM
Doug --
You say (emphasis added): "Bill, you fret about 'All the talk of the system's sending Scheffler to jail for years.' Can you point to ANY SUCH TALK here? It is entirely a figment of your imagination."
The fact that you now omit it (why is that?) doesn't erase the fact that you wrote it: "I have already seen various conflicting reports about how Scheffler was driving, but even the worst version of the story leaves me puzzled by a felony second-degree assault charge which in Kentucky carries a prison term of five to ten years..."
What's the purpose of ANY reference to five to ten years when you knew or at the minimum had strong reason to believe that no such sentence was ever going to exist in this case? To rush to judgment against the cop who got hit?
"That does not make them 'heartless, nasty thugs,' but it does show how a split-second, simple misunderstand can result in "multiple and serious criminal charges" for even a seemingly innocent person."
When I was an AUSA, a felony "criminal charge" was not what the agent/officer wrote in his report. It was what the grand jury alleged in its indictment, usually weeks or months later. Could you link to the indictment here?
Didn't think so.
You just wanted to jump the gun.
Nor is it a figment of my imagination that the cop got hit and dragged (a short distance). As I've said, it seems to me in light of a review of the evidence now in the public sphere that it was an accident not a crime.
So I'll offer another prediction (since you prefer not to bet). There isn't going to be a wrongful arrest suit and if there is, it should be and is going to be dismissed. Do you disagree?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2024 11:14:22 PM
MAGA 2024 --
"With you acting like that its no wonder nobody takes you up on your wager. Maybe we dont have confidence in you to remember which way you bet."
Actually, it's a lot easier than that. You won't take the bet because you know you'll lose.
And it's true my memory, while pretty good, is imperfect -- but it's better than yours was when you were going on about my non-existent "failed confirmation hearing."
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2024 11:20:20 PM
Bill, as I explained before, but as you still seem to not understand (or want to ignore), I referenced the statutory punishment range for the felony charge to explain why the CHARGE was serious. Nowhere in my post or in any of my commentary is there any "talk of the system's sending Scheffler to jail for years." Nor can any sober person find any "breathless" "scaremongering" about a decade in prson. I know you know better, and you really seem quite foolish here in your eagerness to misrepresent the post.
As for referencing "charges," all the press on Friday, including the article quoted in the post, reported that Scheffler "was CHARGED with second-degree assault of a police officer (a felony), criminal mischief, reckless driving and disregarding signals from an officer directing traffic." Now multiple press reports are predicting "charges will be dropped." Use of the term "charges" here appears entirely accurate given all the reporting, and you are showing another measure of foolishness complaining about the use of the term "criminal charges" in this context.
You (and KY prosecutors) now seemingly recognize that this was a non-criminal accident, which was the obvious point of my whole post. I was especially noting that, even if this was a criminal traffic mistake by Scheffler, the worst possible version of the facts still did not seem to reasonably support a serious felony charge --- which I called serious based on the statutory sentencing terms. (Meanwhile, I share your sense Scheffler's lawyers are unlikely to sue over his mistreatment, likely because they would wisely rather defuse rather than escalate a mistake.)
You really can be quite silly sometimes, Bill.
Posted by: Doug B | May 20, 2024 9:41:15 AM
Doug --
You asked me to point to ANY talk you undertook in your post about the system's potentially sending Scheffler to jail for years. I did so. Indeed I quoted it. The fact that you wrote those words in order to explain why the basis for the police action was serious is correct -- but it doesn't erase the words you put on the page. Why you want to insist otherwise is quite the mystery.
"As for referencing 'charges,' all the press on Friday, including the article quoted in the post, reported that Scheffler "was CHARGED with second-degree assault of a police officer (a felony), criminal mischief..."
It's quite true that the press, which is often unaware of the finer points of criminal law and has lay audience anyway, uses colloquial terms like "charge." But lawyers like you and me know that isn't actually correct, no matter how (understandably) loose and rushed beat reporters are. Nobody is "charged" with any felony that could send them to jail for ten minutes, much less ten years, without the action of a grand jury. Here, there hasn't been any such action and it certainly seems like there won't be. So there never was and apparently won't be any CHARGE posing legal jeopardy of prison.
I've seen several reports in the press that Trump has been charged in "91 indictments." That's an innocent mistake, but it's still a mistake. He has been charged with 91 COUNTS (six since dismissed in Georgia) in FOUR indictments. The fact that the press uses loose language is not exactly new, or rare.
The police action here was hasty (if understandable -- it's no fun to get hit by a car even if going slowly), but it wasn't malicious or over-the-top in the way your recounting of it seems to imply. That's really the main point here.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 20, 2024 12:42:15 PM
Not having paid that close attention (having been at a conference last week), this matter seems to be what should have been, at most, a traffic ticket blown up into serious charges. Given that officers knew where the defendant was going to be for the next three days, it seems like a more deliberate approach would have been appropriate as the risk of flight before Sunday afternoon was slim and the danger to the public was also slim.
Posted by: tmm | May 20, 2024 1:30:27 PM
Bill: You sneak in the word "potentially" at the start of your latest comment, when you actually spoke before of talk about "the system's sending Scheffler to jail for years." That you now sneak in "potentially" is a telling indication you cannot defend your prior statement or any of your previous silly nonsense about "breathless" "scaremongering." Again, Bill, here you are being quite a silly person making quite a silly claim and doing so quite poorly.
That said, your "charges" talk somehow is ever sillier and more misguided. As for how to describe the four criminal charges that did actually land Scheffler in jail for more than 10 minutes --- he was in jail for around an hour early Friday AM, according to reports --- how would you describe them? What word is more fitting for what has been called "charges" by everyone --- including the local police report? Can you explain what you consider a more fitting term for what the police report repeatedly describes as the four "charges" in this case? Please let me know ASAP what magic word you think is the more proper legal term in this case (not Trump's, since MAGA will love that reference).
And, Bill, you still fail to read the post with a sober eye. I never suggested the felony charge --- or whatever magic words you strangely want to use here --- was "malicious," just seemingly ill-fitting given the apparent facts (see my next phrase descrbing the misdemeanor charges that "seem potentially a bit more fitting"). And what, again, do think think we should be calling the misdemeanor charges rather than charges?
Posted by: Doug B | May 20, 2024 1:35:18 PM
Bill:
"Actually, it's a lot easier than that. You won't take the bet because you know you'll lose."
If your so good at knowing your opponent's mind for certain in a wagering situation, why haven't we seen you on the World Series of Poker? Or have we? Have you been dating Jennifer Tilly under a hoodie and Ray-Bans? I thought your name was Phil "Unabomber" Laak LOL
"And it's true my memory, while pretty good, is imperfect -- but it's better than yours was when you were going on about my non-existent "failed confirmation hearing.""
I think I can see why Congress would think twice about putting the Unabomber on the U.S. Sentencing Commission LOLOL
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 20, 2024 6:05:58 PM
"What should we be calling the misdemeanor charges rather than charges?"
I figure if you asked Det. Bryan Gillis of the Louisville PD, who got dragged by Scheffler's car, he'd call 'em "penny-ante b***s**t."
The cops are out there trying to keep order during a circus and suddenly some moron runs your ass down? I'll bet Detective Gillis is mad as a hornet and rightfully so.
Scheffler's lucky Gillis or his buddies didn't unload their clips into him. And no doubt the Louisville Chamber of Commerce is thanking their lucky stars they didn't.
Betcha theyre staring down a huge bill for their pants at the dry cleaner's though LOL
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 20, 2024 6:17:18 PM
MAGA --
You do have the most charmingly elliptical way of admitting that your claim about my "failed confirmation hearing" was just made up. Still, some admission is better than none. Thanks!
As for "why Congress would think twice about putting the Unabomber on the U.S. Sentencing Commission," yup, for sure -- the Unabomber having been dead for a while now. You can see why he'd have a hard time deciding how to vote.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 20, 2024 8:13:16 PM
Bill :
The dead know enough to come out and vote illegally for Democrats!
Not this year, tho. Stop the steal MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 20, 2024 8:17:29 PM
UPDATE: As of Monday, Scottie's Tuesday arraignment has been postponed until June 3, 2024, upon motion of the defendant's counsel. The County Attorney's office says that they are gathering additional information about the situation/ incident. I still think that the most Scheffler will get will be careless driving, which is a citation (traffic) offense. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 20, 2024 9:07:47 PM
Jim Gormley --
That's what I'm seeing as well. My guess is that they'll negotiate a deal in which Scheffler will apologize to the cop he hit, pay for any damages, and in return the state will either drop the case or settle for an admission to careless driving and impose a $1 fine -- all of which will be perfectly sensible.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 20, 2024 9:25:14 PM
FURTHER UPDATE: In Louisville, police Internal Affairs are investigating the arrest of golfer Scottie Scheffler early last Friday morning, with an eye to determining whether the arrest was justified; in particular, whether there was probable cause to believe that he had either intentionally or recklessly struck Detective Willis (who was directing traffic) with his vehicle, which is the basis for the felony, 2nd degree assault charges. The witnesses have been adamant about the fact that Scottie did not drive his car into or strike the officer with his vehicle. Rather, the witnesses say that the Detective attached himself to Scottie's courtesy car [which was conspicuously marked that he was associated with the PGA Tournament at Valhalla Golf Club] by grabbing the driver's side mirror and/or window frame. The Detective suffered minor injuries and had his uniform trousers ripper when he was dragging 15 yards while trying to hold onto the side of the vehicle. If these facts are accepted, then there is no sufficient factual basis for Detective Gillis to have charged Scottie with 2nd degree assault. The false felony charge would violate Detective Gillis' oath and serve as a basis for internal discipline.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 21, 2024 1:24:14 PM
Scottie Scheffler was only arrested because of the felony 2nd degree assault charge. The other charges are misdemeanors or citation offenses, for which it is unlikely that a defendant would be arrested. Rather, beginning with COVID-19 protocols in March 2020, most misdemeanor charges only result in a defendant receiving a Summons to appear for arraignment, and not any arrest. The ethical concern about Detective Gillis in this case is that he was pissed off that he got hurt and had his uniform pants ripped in the rain and early-morning darkness while directing traffic, so he created a false charge just so that he could justify arresting the driver.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 21, 2024 1:32:10 PM
The Louisville police chief and the County Attorney cannot tell what really happened between Detective Gillis and golfer Scottie Scheffler last Friday morning because Detective Gillis failed to activate his body-word camera before or while arresting Scottie. While Department Policy would not have required Detective Gillis to have had his body-worn camera activated while directing traffic, he should have activated the camera when he began having dealings with Scottie. Certainly, after he was allegedly dragged and hurt by Scottie's car, he should have activated the body-worn camera before he told Scottie to get out of his car, and hand-cuffed his hands behind his back and arrested him. From my criminal defense work, I can tell you that failing to activate the body-worn camera as required by police department policy is a problem with about every police force in America. Here in Lexington, Kentucky, there is a schedule of disciplinary punishments for failing to activate a body-worn camera as required by policy. First offense in a year results in a reprimand and counseling. The second offense results in a one-day suspension without pay, and it escalates from there. The absence of body-cam video that should exist is giving defense attorneys opportunities to make arguments that were not previously available - usually that the police are trying to hide what they really did to a defendant. Most recently, I have seen this when an officer went to a victim's place of employment to take her complaint and interview her about an alleged road-rage incident. The officer gets out of her car and the woman comes out of the building where she works. They meet and talk on the sidewalk, and then walk around the corner ot inspect the alleged spit on the woman's car window. But where is the body camera video of the officer arriving and calling the victim to tell her she is there and asking her to come outside? She didn't activate her body cam while she made that call from her cruiser, so we don't know what was really said. In this same case, the victim's 911 call from her car was deleted 60 days after the call, despite the fact that it resulted in an arrest and should be part of the defendant's discovery. At the preliminary hearing, the police officer said that there was a 911 call and that it should be preserved, but it was not. No one from the County Attorney's office contacted 911 to ask them to preserve the 911 call before it was automatically deleted after 60 days. By the time the case reached the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to be presented to a Grand Jury, the 911 tape had already been deleted. The issue is whether the victim claimed on the 911 tape that the defendant pulled a pistol on her, while he was standing in the street next to her car at a streetlight, and threatened to kill her. The defendant insists that he had no gun and wouldn't have done this because he has been on parole for the last 8 years (successfully) and has no history of ever having a gun in 48 years of life. The prosecutor has made a 10-year plea offer, and defendant would be exposed to 20 years if convicted at trial. This is just a "he said - she said" case, without the original 911 tape. A missing evidence jury instruction doesn't really fix this gap in the potential evidence.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 21, 2024 2:20:34 PM
Jim,
Thanks for staying on top of this with the follow ups. For some its prolly "TL,DR" but speaking for myself I appreciate it.
"The ethical concern about Detective Gillis in this case is that he was pissed off that he got hurt and had his uniform pants ripped in the rain and early-morning darkness while directing traffic, so he created a false charge just so that he could justify arresting the driver."
I dunno if that's an "ethical concern" so much as what we expect from cops. Their job is to KEEP ORDER. Ever heard the saying "if you give me a problem, I'm gonna make it YOUR problem"? Thats basically cops 24/7. Thats the job. Its not to walk up to people going wild or showing contempt for public order and talking to them like Mr Rogers or a guidance counselor. Its not the time or place for that. People forget that American cities are a tinderbox. You never know whats going to set off another Watts or South Central or Ferguson.
The first responsibility of any police officer is to go home safe at the end of their shift. Thats also part of the training. They face down lunatics every day, many of them armed. It takes a fair amount of force just to keep a lid on the cauldron of resentment and criminal scheming that infests every U.S. city.
"First offense in a year results in a reprimand and counseling."
Does that even go in their personnel file? Does anyone outside the PD ever even have access to those records? I thought a major purpose of PBAs was to keep a tight grip on that stuff because of the ease of its abuse to paint cops in a bad light by, sorry to say it, but guys like you.
Anyway that sounds pretty light to me. Do we have any figures on how many officers reach each disciplinary level in this area?
If a reprimand or counseling or suspension just plain doesn't happen, is there even any way to find out?
I find all this really bureaucratic and thinks its better to just let cops DO THEIR JOBS.
Regarding the other case you raise :
"The defendant insists that he had no gun and wouldn't have done this because he has been on parole for the last 8 years (successfully) and has no history of ever having a gun in 48 years of life."
IMO that's enough reason to suspect he had a gun right there. We already know from this that he was a bad guy. He plays for team scum as Bill would put it.
And again we see how bureaucracy screws things up.
"In this same case, the victim's 911 call from her car was deleted 60 days after the call, despite the fact that it resulted in an arrest and should be part of the defendant's discovery. At the preliminary hearing, the police officer said that there was a 911 call and that it should be preserved, but it was not. No one from the County Attorney's office contacted 911 to ask them to preserve the 911 call before it was automatically deleted after 60 days."
Did the perp's attorney contact the County Attorney? At what point did the perp get representation?
It sounds to me like the perp slept on his rights and an innocent mistake by the 911 office should not prejudice the prosecutions case.
I think we can generally trust prosecutors to be candid with the court. Well except for Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and other rat prosecutors. Hm. So I guess we need to know the party affiliation of the Jefferson County (or wherever) Attorney.
Doing my own research, its Mike O'Connell. A rat! Well OK we cant believe a word he says LOL
https://ballotpedia.org/Mike_O%27Connell
MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 21, 2024 3:16:13 PM
MAGA --
"He plays for team scum as Bill would put it."
Really? When did I say that? At my "failed confirmation hearing"???
HAHAHAHA
Still, I don't want to preempt your answer. I've posted here hundreds of times. Please cite JUST ONE where I said, "team scum." And no cheating or wiggling. That's the specific phrase you attribute to me -- let's see it.
Your adventure in Making Stuff Up is unfortunate, particularly in this comment, which is in many (although hardly all) ways serious and responsible by the standards I have seen from you. So I'll say just a few more things.
1. I'll renew my offer to bet that there will be no wrongful arrest suit here or, if there is one, it will lose. I'll bet $100 right now (Jim Gormley can take the bet too, if he cares to). Are we on?
2. "I think we can generally trust prosecutors to be candid with the court. Well except for Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and other rat prosecutors."
Oh man are you ever throwing together three very different people. Fani Willis I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw her, which is about three inches (that's without the boyfriend she put on the payroll). Alvin Bragg I also wouldn't trust farther than I could throw him, which is about half an inch. I didn't know they had that many Krisp Kremes in Manhattan. Jack Smith follows the rules as far as I know. Whether he exercises his discretion the same way I would is, of course, a different question. But variations in prosecutorial discretion are inevitable.
3. As to "rat prosecutors": The last one I worked for was Helen Fahey, the Clinton-appointed US Attorney for the EDVA. A crackerjack lawyer and a wonderful human being. We're still good friends after all these years. Having the chance to work for her was a professional blessing like few I have had.
P.S. If you'd care to give us your name and background, like Jim Gormley does and Doug does and I do, I don't think anyone's going to beat you up for it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 21, 2024 6:20:16 PM
Bill -
Not much time right now. Ill do what I can.
The "team" and "playing" metaphor is my thing. Sorry, "scum" seems to be federalists term. I get you 2 confused sometimes LOL
"Fani Willis I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw her, which is about three inches (that's without the boyfriend she put on the payroll). Alvin Bragg I also wouldn't trust farther than I could throw him, which is about half an inch. I didn't know they had that many Krisp Kremes in Manhattan."
Sounds like you decided there's not much difference between Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg after all hahahaha
"Jack Smith follows the rules as far as I know."
I've had a big problem with Jack Smith since I found out he went after NYPD officers for giving Abner Louima a rough ride on a broom handle. Just vindictive and vicious to go after cops for doing their jobs. Officer Volpe is finally out.
"If you'd care to give us your name and background"
No thanks bro, it might limit my job opportunities with liberal sleazebags. You know how cancel-happy they are. A mans gotta eat! And I got a woman I aim to keep happy LOL
MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 22, 2024 2:51:07 PM
MAGA --
"I've had a big problem with Jack Smith since I found out he went after NYPD officers for giving Abner Louima a rough ride on a broom handle. Just vindictive and vicious to go after cops for doing their jobs."
I went after corrupt cops, and nailed them, while Jack Smith was dating cheerleaders, United States of America, , v. Fred Muscarella, Carl Veller, Anthony Vymola and Ronald More, 585 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1978), availabler at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/585/242/424518/.
But you'd defend corrupt cops (and child rapists, etc.) with all the zeal you've got, no? Because, although you continue to insist on the anonymity so many others here seem to be able do without, you're a defense lawyer, aren't you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 22, 2024 6:43:57 PM
No, Bill, I do not practice criminal defense, and that's the only guess I'm giving you.
Meantime I have an update on the topic of the post. Remember that? LOL
"“Detective Gillis should have turned on his body-worn camera but did not,” Police Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel said. “His failure to do so is a violation of LMPD policy on uniforms and equipment.”
The report on the internal investigation said Gillis should have at least had his camera on in standby mode while directing traffic before the incident with Scheffler.
Gwinn-Villaroel said Gillis “received corrective action” for the violation. The document released Thursday said Gillis completed a “failure to record” form as required by policy, was “counseled by a member of his command” and that a “performance observation” was completed."
https://apnews.com/article/scottie-scheffler-police-arrest-louisville-a781915453b0c1889d44ef47d707856b
Would be curious to know what you think, Jim, about how often such "corrective actions" are undertaken and how many of them rise to the level of getting a public statement made about them.
"Police did release video Thursday from a street pole camera that appears to show Scheffler’s SUV turning into the golf club entrance, prompting an officer to run toward the vehicle and seemingly strike it as it comes to a stop. The camera is too far away to capture the full details of the encounter."
Well if Det. Gillis has to retire from the force, he may have a future in insurance fraud as one of those pedestrians who camps out on the curb and jumps in front of a car and tumbles over the hood, rolling on the ground like an English premier league player going for the Oscar LOL
Have to wonder how things would have gone if they'd just gone ahead and shot the golf pro dead. MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 23, 2024 6:46:11 PM
MAGA --
"No, Bill, I do not practice criminal defense, and that's the only guess I'm giving you."
I shouldn't have to guess at all. You should just tell us your identity, as Jim Gormley, Doug and I (and lots of others) do. Hiding raises what I'd have to think are, in your case, needless questions.
Still, I appreciate your concession that, between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually took corrupt cops to court and made them pay.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 23, 2024 10:58:49 PM
Bill, how do you know MAGA 2024 is not a Ben-Crump-like figure who seeks to take "corrupt cops to court and made them pay"? I have no idea who MAGA 2024 is and what's motivating his/her form of engagement, but I do know he/she could have all sorts of reasons (like federalist and TarlsQtr and others) for identity hiding here.
Posted by: Doug B | May 24, 2024 9:42:11 AM
Doug,
That’s an awfully generous description of Crump. I’m pretty sure “charlatan” is a required adjective. He also loves the camera and his name out there, which definitely isn’t like MAGA.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 24, 2024 10:51:30 AM
Doug --
-- If MAGA has ever taken action against corrupt cops, he can (1) say so and (2) provide evidence. He has done neither, although for sure he would win plaudits from both Left and Right if that's what he does.
-- Signing your name to what you write is an important form of making yourself accountable, and people should make themselves accountable, right? Masking yourself, whether while robbing the bank or posting on the Internet, is not a good thing.
-- I'm pretty sure both of us know the real names of TarlsQtr and federalist. They're hardly hiding; indeed, I wish I saw more of them. TarlsQtr has unique experience quite valuable on this blog, and federalist is one of the very few commenters who knows law and takes it seriously.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 24, 2024 10:58:23 AM
Bill, the average reader of this blog does not know the real names of TarlsQtr and federalist, nor would it be easy to find out who they are or what various professional connections they may have. They would surely be more accountable to the world at large if they used their real names. But it's just fine with me if they do not --- or, to use you phrase, I am not troubled that they are "masking [themselves] ... while ... posting on the Internet." I feel quite strongly that cultivating a robust environment for free speech includes creating spaces for people --- TarlsQtr and federalist and MAGA 2024 --- to share their thoughts while masked. But if you want to provide thier real names in order to make them more accountable, I hope you will get their permission first.
Posted by: Doug B | May 24, 2024 3:07:56 PM
Doug --
"I feel quite strongly that cultivating a robust environment for free speech includes creating spaces for people --- TarlsQtr and federalist and MAGA 2024 --- to share their thoughts while masked."
I'm all for free speech, but free speech and accountability can and should exist at the same time: Say anything you want, then be willing to be responsible for it.
"But if you want to provide thier real names in order to make them more accountable, I hope you will get their permission first."
If a commenter wants to lie about another commenter, he has a special obligation to be accountable (unless you think lying is OK). MAGA has talked about my "failed confirmation hearing," which he simply made up; and has stated that I refer to Democrats as "team scum," which he also made up. I have never done any such thing. It's just a smear, as you know and he intended.
Is that OK with you? Did you teach your kids falsely to smear other people and then just walk away from it? Of course no responsible parent does that, knowing that in order to raise honest kids, you need to make them responsible for what they do and say. If you want to encourage a different and lower standard here, it's your blog, but it's the wrong choice.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 24, 2024 8:11:28 PM
Bill :
"I appreciate your concession that, between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually took corrupt cops to court and made them pay."
Youll notice I didn't concede that. I simply didnt address it. These comments are not reply briefs, they are comments on a blog. No one is under any obligation to engage with any person or point. You yourself frequently fail to engage the points people actually make. You tend to substitute other points instead (example infra). Ordinarily this would be fine, its just the rough and tumble of the Internet. But if your gonna get your panties all bunched about it like some womens studies professor that just reflects badly on you. Look at you, running to the blog owner like Melissa Click at U of Missouri. "Can we get some muscle over here?" Pathetic.
Its no wonder the GOP lost confidence in you BEFORE sending you to floor for a confirmation hearing. Man up, bro.
Doug said: "how do you know MAGA 2024 is not a Ben-Crump-like figure who seeks to take "corrupt cops to court and made them pay"?"
Talk about hitting below the belt LOL
back to Bill: "MAGA has talked about my "failed confirmation hearing," which he simply made up;"
No that was a mistaken conclusion I drew when I did an Internet search on your name. I later did another search and guess what showed up.
https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2020/05/with-his-return-to-blogging-is-bill-otis-no-longer-a-potential-nominee-for-the-us-sentencing-commiss.html
That site might look familiar. Come next year President Trump is going to need people on the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere who are made of sterner stuff than you are.
"stated that I refer to Democrats as "team scum,""
Yeah and I also said "The "team" and "playing" metaphor is my thing. Sorry, "scum" seems to be federalists term. I get you 2 confused sometimes LOL", May 22, 2024 2:51:07 PM above
At this point your raising doubts that you can even read with attention. So cut it out with the histrionics.
Anyway on a somewhat related subject, Bill, you unreasonably muddied the waters regarding the original post.
"I went after corrupt cops, and nailed them, while Jack Smith was dating cheerleaders"
"Corrupt cops" were never at issue here. Not in the OP and not in any of my comments. Nor anyone elses. I brought up the Abner Louima case, which did not involve police corruption. Justin Volpe was guilty at most of overzealous efforts to obtain compliance from a resisting subject. No one in that case ever said any police officers illegitmately handled or took money. Night and day from your mobbed up Chicago PD case.
I wonder what EVIDENCE you have that Jack Smith ever dated a cheerleader. Letting your imagination run away with you again? hahahaha
"But you'd defend corrupt cops (and child rapists, etc.) with all the zeal you've got"
Uh huh. All your talk about accountability rings hollow, Broseph.
But Ill keep in mind for any more tangles with you that I can immunize myself from your hipocritical hysteria by adding...
",no?"
MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | May 25, 2024 12:54:51 AM
Bill: federalist misrepresents what I say frequently. Do you believe that creates for him a "special obligation to be accountable" by using his real name in comments?
What is OK with me is letting folks comment as they see fit, urging folks to be respectful and responsible, and seeing what a free exchange of ideas in this scape produces. I find it quite interesting that some are put off by MAGA 2024 as parody and some are put off just by what is said by MAGA 2024. Attaching real name could end these interesting dynamics, though the author can make whatever choice(s) they want.
As you have done in the past, Bill, if/when you find this comment space not to your liking, you can opt out. You can also assail folks for not using their real names, but your double standards in this refrain is quite notable.
P.S. I thought the 2024 standard for accountability involves saying one's spouse did it. :-)
Posted by: Doug B | May 25, 2024 10:24:50 AM
Doug --
"...federalist misrepresents what I say frequently. Do you believe that creates for him a 'special obligation to be accountable' by using his real name in comments?"
You ALREADY KNOW his real name and have known it for years, so you know exactly where and to whom to address your complaints. And, for reasons I've gone over and over, you are not ideally situated to complain about misrepresenting what gets said here. I've had my views mangled dozens of times.
A question: Do you think people should sign what they write for public consumption and hence make themselves accountable? Not once in my life have I failed to sign what I write for public consumption, and I'll bet the same is true of you. No? And there's good reason for that.
"I find it quite interesting that some are put off by MAGA 2024 as parody..."
Astonishingly, you have more than one commenter who doesn't even recognize it as parody. Yikes. You might want to let them in on it.
"...and some are put off just by what is said by MAGA 2024. Attaching real name could end these interesting dynamics..."
Or could just as easily enhance them.
"As you have done in the past, Bill, if/when you find this comment space not to your liking, you can opt out."
Calling me (and Kent Scheidegger, of all people) Nazis, and repeatedly making anatomical and religious insults directed at my wife is a little more than just "finding the comment space not to [my] liking," wouldn't you say? Why are you putting it in such a deceptively bland way?
"You can also assail folks for not using their real names, but your double standards in this refrain is quite notable."
It's hardly a double standard. For example, I never criticize tmm for not using his real name, because he's obviously a serious commenter, makes fair-minded arguments, and stays away from ad hominem stuff. So anonymous as he is, he's one of the best commenters you have. MAGA, by contrast, is as unserious as you get, seldom to never makes a legal argument, and has taken dishonest swipes at me and others. Giving him and tmm different treatment is not a double standard; it's a thoroughly unremarkable recognition that, as commenters, one stands on one footing and the other on a very different footing. Was I supposed not to be able to notice? Am I supposed to believe that you don't notice? Riiiiiiiiiight!
"I thought the 2024 standard for accountability involves saying one's spouse did it. :-)"
I would dearly love to be able to claim the accomplishments my wife has, but like every other commenter here, I cannot honestly do so. And yes, I know you're not referring to her, but I'm not going anywhere near what you are referring to for reasons you can probably guess. At some point, I might take in on in my Substack.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 25, 2024 8:33:10 PM
MAGA --
"But if your gonna get your panties all bunched about it like some womens studies professor that just reflects badly on you. Look at you, running to the blog owner like Melissa Click at U of Missouri. "Can we get some muscle over here?" Pathetic....Man up, bro....Come next year President Trump is going to need people on the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere who are made of sterner stuff than you are....All your talk about accountability rings hollow, Broseph."
Well golly, MAGA, I can see that you're one tuff dude -- certainly compared with a wuss like me!!!
So tell ya what: We can put on display your relative, highly impressive manliness by having a live, in-person debate. Any criminal law topic you like, e.g., the death penalty, use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, appeal waivers, mandatory vs. advisory guidelines, fixed vs. second-look sentencing, etc. The only conditions are that each of us will give his real name, will appear full-face on camera, and that a tape of the debate will (with Doug's permission) be shown here.
Since you're so macho and I'm so lacking in "sterner stuff," I'm sure you'll kick my backside! That'll show me!!!
Are we on?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 25, 2024 8:59:28 PM
Bill: my possibly knowing the real names of federalist, TarlsQtr, tmm or MAGA 2024 is, as yo know full well, not at all the same as them using their real names in (all) their comments. Using a real name in a public forum here makes you known to the whole world through a google search, producing a broader accountability. If you sincerely think such broader accountability through the use of real names is important, it should be important for all, not only for those you decide are "unserious."
Meanwhile, I consider freedom to express views here --- even via dumb or silly or deeply misguided comments --- with or without real names to be important, so I let everyone use the space and sign (or not sign) their names as they see fit. I always consider uncivil and malicious comments troublesome (and, candidly, I had forgotten the specifics of the ugliness that prompted you to withdraw before). But that some turn to making ugly comments serves itself to showcase how different people respond to different ideas.
I look forward to seeing what you run up the flagpole at your Substack.
Posted by: Doug B | May 25, 2024 10:09:13 PM
Doug --
"If you sincerely think such broader accountability through the use of real names is important, it should be important for all, not only for those you decide are 'unserious.'"
It is important, but HOW important vastly differs. It has very little importance for, for example, tmm, because his intelligence, experience, on-topic orientation and fair-mindedness are obvious. It has much more importance when accountability is more needed, as it (equally obviously) is for those who fall far short of those characteristics. Thus, there are some anonymous commenters I virtually never bug about it (not just tmm) but others who, for all I can tell, know little to nothing about law, are not that interested in it, and are here for some different agenda, including but not limited to poking at Trump or Biden or some other candidate.
Federalist can speak for himself to say the least, but he knows a lot of law and is curious about it. He asks pointed legal questions, including questions directed to me. His name is not important because he talks intelligently about legal substance as much or more than any commenter.
"I look forward to seeing what you run up the flagpole at your Substack."
Me too.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 25, 2024 10:48:15 PM
Bill: identity context always has important impacts on views and understanding of all comments. Knowing, eg, the age, gender, parental status, educational/professional backgrounds, involvement with CJ systems, political party affiliation and other identity markers can importantly impact, consciously and unconsciously, how various readers will understand and interpret (and sometimes respond to) various comments.
That you are eager to have certain identity information about some commentors (but not all) is evidence that you see important connections between identity and understanding. I do, too, but I also see real value in letting all folks --- even those who might "know little to nothing about law, are not that interested in it, and are here for some different agenda" --- write comments without any identity disclosure requirements or expectations.
Of course, other folks can and do make other choices. And folks here can ask for identity information from others. For example, especially if you are planning to write about Justice and Mrs Alito, I would be interested to hear about whether you have spent much time with the couple. (I would understand, of course, if you would rather not provide that identity information.) For the record, I believe I met Justice Alito only once over 30 years ago when he was Judge Alito (and one of my favorite co-authors clerked for him in that era, and two of my favorite former students more recently clerked for him on SCOTUS).
Posted by: Doug B | May 26, 2024 10:20:55 AM
Doug --
You view it as more complex than I do. I (1) just want to know who I'm talking to, and (2) I want commenters to take responsibility for what they say, of which signing one's name is the elemental first step (unless you already know them).
Also, I've decided not to say anything on the flag stuff, since on reflection I think it's not a class move for me to speak on the Internet about public figures who are friends of mine. It feels exploitative of friendship and not in keeping with trust.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 26, 2024 6:09:07 PM
Fair enough on all fronts, Bill, though you can always opt to use a pen name if you want to talk about me on the Internet. :-)
Posted by: Doug B | May 27, 2024 9:26:30 AM
Doug --
OK, I guess I have to admit it: My next entry will be, "America's Leading Sentencing Mavens, Starting with Doug Berman," signed "Darth Vader."
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 27, 2024 6:05:47 PM
