This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Much of the criminal justice systems operates on an assumption (or rather, an aspiration) that prosecutors and law enforcement should be trusted to carry out their duties honestly. While I don't believe this assumption is worth much, it's the reality we live in given the limited avenues for redress available. For one, prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity for misconduct, and law enforcement has qualified immunity for misconduct (
which, practically speaking is basically absolute immunity with a few extra stepsEdit: as @Gdanning mentions here, I significantly overstated the equivalence here). If you get fucked over by any of them, tough luck. Two, law enforcement has a close working relationship with prosecutors, and most judges are former prosecutors. Because of how the adversarial system is structured, there's a systemic bias against ruling in favor of defendants' (read: criminal's) rights. This is especially a problem when you consider that literally the only source of search and seizure precedent comes by definition from criminals asking a court to ignore damning evidence because it was illegally seized.I just described a system where the levers of power are held by a fairly cloistered group of people, and it all skews heavily on the side against the meek defendant. There are indeed some attempts to artificially inject fairness into the system. Because civil lawsuits are assumed (not always reasonably) to involve two opposing parties on roughly equivalent footing, the evidentiary standard there is preponderance, which is basically 50% plus one. But for criminal trials, where it's the full weight of the government bearing down on a single person, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, which is basically you better goddamn be real fucking sure. Another difference pertinent for this post is what would be referred to as Brady obligations, where prosecutors are obligated to turn over every evidence which might be helpful to the defendant (who, unlike a civil litigant, has no equivalent obligation to the other side).
For the most part, verifying that a prosecutor has met their Brady obligations is near-impossible. Prosecutors are considered part of law enforcement, and they naturally have access to an entire universe of information which the other side will never see (for example, details about ongoing investigations which would tip off the subjects if it was revealed prematurely) so whether or not they've turned over every Brady material is an exercise in trust. I have to trust that the prosecutors aren't lying, and that they reviewed all the evidence they have and made a fair assessment on whether or not it's exculpatory. This is why virtually every Brady scandal involves exculpatory evidence that came to light accidentally. A fuck-up, in other words.
And oh man was there ever a fuck-up.
This happened this week during the jury trial of Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boys leader charged with seditious conspiracy stemming from his actions in January 6th. I haven't followed his case at all, but his defense attorney just filed this banger of a notice regarding the testimony of FBI agent Nicole Miller. As a government witness, Miller has an obligation to turn over any written statements she made regarding the subject of her testimony (this is known as a Jencks obligation). FBI agents use an instant messaging system called Lync, and Miller handed over a spreadsheet with 25 rows of Lync messages. Miller testified that this was her entire Jencks obligations, and she denied withholding any messages about Nordean's conspiracy charges, denied withholding any messages about whether anyone listened in on attorney-client calls, and denied withholding any messages about whether any reports (dear heavens) were falsified. And so forth. Miller just said no, absolutely not, no way.
Normally this is where the story would end, except Nordean's attorney revealed that the spreadsheet Miller had sent contained about a thousand hidden Excel rows, many of which absolutely one hundred percent directly contradicted Miller's testimony. For example, there were messages about:
An agent asking Miller to edit a confidential informant report to remove mentioning the agent was present
An agent reviewing attorney-client communication about trial strategy
Agents openly expressing doubt about a Proud Boys leader's involvement in a conspiracy
And so on.
I'm certainly excited to see how Miller tries to get out of this vise. My assumption is that the prosecutor will dismiss charges against Nordean in a feeble attempt to make this go away (or a judge can do it for them, which is what happened with the Bundy ranchers).
It's certainly fucking funny that an FBI agent tried hiding Excel rows thinking they were deleted (this is known as the peek-a-boo fallacy). More seriously, FBI agents are acting this brazenly even though they're well aware how much public scrutiny is directed towards J6 cases. I think one can reasonably assume they'd have even fewer scruples in cases involving defendants no one gives a shit about.
Some jurisdictions (starting with North Carolina in 2004) have what's called an open-file discovery rule where everything in the case file (no matter how banal) is provided to the defendant by default. Tucker Carlson got access to and released footage of Jacob Chansley (aka QAnon shaman who was sentenced to 41 months in prison) calmly walking inside the capitol, which appears to contradict his charging documents. More relevantly, Chansley's attorney apparently never got that footage before. I assume the government will now argue that the footage they kept hidden wasn't that exculpatory but really, that should always be up to the defense attorney to decide.
Of course, even if open-file became the norm, law enforcement will get wise not to put incriminating statements on paper (hot tip: when doing FOIA requests, pay attention to any email or text that asks to speak on the phone about a sensitive subject). So beyond open-file discovery, I'd also keep riding my other cute little hobby horses and argue this is another reason to jettison qualified/absolute immunity. Anyone disagree?
My law practice is not criminal-focused, and I'm not an expert on immunities. So caveat emptor.
With that said, your post really reads like a really interesting story about open and obvious law enforcement malfeasance, with a complete non-sequitur tacked on at the end. Ending qualified immunity (as I understand that doctrine to exist) would not change the result of this investigation. It would not provide any additional substantive or procedural rights to Mr. Nordean with regard to his membership in the Proud Boys, his actions on or relating to J6, or any other conduct of his that is at issue here.
The only thing it would do would be to enable Mr. Nordean to personally sue individual agents/officers for money damages arising from their bad conduct. And given that law enforcement is a decently-paying, but not overwhelmingly-lucrative profession, the likelihood of Mr. Nordean actually being able to recover any sizeable amount pursuant to a judgment in his favor would seem to be rather small.
Getting money damages against the agents wouldn't get them fired, and such a judgment wouldn't even necessarily result in policy changes at the agencies in question. So I fail to see how ending qualified immunity would resolve the issue of FBI agents behaving badly and hiding Brady info. Even if you want to argue that exposing agents to individual liability would incentivize them to change their behavior, I fail to see how that kind of bankshot is better than the more obvious remedy of directly attacking the problem through suits against the governmental agencies themselves (e.g. "pattern and practice" civil rights litigation).
Can you tell me what I'm missing?
The purpose of these lawsuits isn't so much to make the victim whole as it is to serve as a deterrent for future bad behavior. No, a police officer probably isn't ever going to be able to pay a two million dollar judgment. But in some ways that's a stronger deterrent—any officer who gets such a judgment against him will spend the rest of his life hiding from it. He wakes up every morning not knowing if the contents of his bank account will gone, the subject of a court levy. Any property he owns will have liens on it. If he lives in a state with wage garnishment, he'll see 25% of his paycheck cut out until the judgment is paid off. And since he's never paying it off, it's going to accumulate interest at a statutory rate (usually around 6%) every year; on a cop's salary, he won't be able to even service the interest on a multi-million dollar judgment let alone make a dent in the principle. And bankruptcy? Judgments for intentional torts aren't dischargeable. And if by some grace of God it's not an intentional tort, he better pass the means test for Chapter 7 because he's over the debt limits for a 13 and will be forced into an expensive and grueling personal Chapter 11.
The thought is that police departments will be forced to provide liability insurance to cover such verdicts, and as such will be under pressure from insurance companies to make sure that officers with a ton of complaints will be too risky to insure and this will force police departments to either get rid of them or put them on desk jobs where they can't do any real damage. The reality is that joint and several liability would largely protect individual officers anyway; since most lawsuits will also name the department as a defendant the department will be liable for the whole award regardless of its individual contribution to the damage. The vast majority of states have limited this doctrine under the guise of tort reform, but one area where it's still largely unchanged is intentional torts. That being said, if departments can offload the insurance burden on to individual officers, they might do it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link