DOCSLIB.ORG

Here, the Series Is

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Here, the Series Is Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 43 PageID 283 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION LINDA FAIRSTEIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 20-cv-00180 v. ) ) NETFLIX, INC., AVA DUVERNAY, and ) ATTICA LOCKE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT NETFLIX INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AND JOINDER IN MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DUVERNAY AND LOCKE TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE OR TO TRANSFER VENUE Kelley Geraghty Price (Florida Bar #889539) Natalie J. Spears (pro hac vice) Eric S. Olson (Florida Bar #99079) Gregory R. Naron (pro hac vice) DENTONS COHEN & GRIGSBY P.C. Jacqueline A. Giannini (pro hac vice) Mercato - Suite 6200 DENTONS US LLP 9110 Strada Place 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Naples, Florida 34108 DeadlineChicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (239) 390-1913 Phone: (312) 876-8000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Kiran Patel (pro hac vice pending) DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Trial Counsel for Defendant Netflix, Inc. Phone: (212) 768-6700 [email protected] Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 43 PageID 284 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12 I. Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 12 II. Choice of Law .................................................................................................................. 13 III. The Dramatized, Opinionative Speech At Issue Is Protected by the First Amendment ...................................................................................................................... 13 IV. Powerful, Hyperbolic Language in the Dramatized Dialogue of Which Plaintiff Complains Cannot Be the Basis for Liability and Is Substantially True in Any Event ................................................................................................................................ 18 V. None of the Specific Scenes and Dialogue Plaintiff Identifies In the Complaint Are Actionable Defamation ............................................................................................. 21 A. Scenes Showing Plaintiff “At the Crime Scene” (Scene 1), “Drafting a Press Release” (Scene 2), and “Fighting With Nancy Ryan Over Who Would Prosecute Case” (Scene 5) Have No Plausible Defamatory Meaning ............................................................................................................... 23 B. It Is Not Defamatory to Portray Plaintiff As Expressing Views She Has Publicly Espoused for Decades ............................................................................ 24 1. “Putting Together a Timeline” (Scene 4) ................................................. 25 2. Interactions With ADA Lederer (Scenes 8 and 10) ................................. 26 3. Interactions With ADA Ryan (Scenes 5 and 11) ..................................... 28 C. The ComplainedDeadline-of Dialogue Does Not Support Plaintiff’s Claimed Defamatory Imputation That She “Violated the Law” ........................................ 29 1. No Claim Based On Purported Questioning of “Unaccompanied Minors” (Scene 3) .................................................................................... 30 2. No Claim Based on Purported “Directing” of Detectives (Scenes 7, 8) .......................................................................................................... 32 3. No Claim Based on Discussion of DNA Evidence (Scene 9) ................. 33 VI. The Purported Conspiracy Claim Does Not Exist Under Applicable Law ..................... 35 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 35 REQUEST FOR HEARING ……………………………………………………………………35 i Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 43 PageID 285 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES* Page(s) Cases Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y. 2d 592 (1985) .............................................................................................................22 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................12 Bordoni v. N.Y. Times Co., 400 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)...................................................................................31, 34 Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 116 F. 3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................5 Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 44 Cal.App.4th 572 (1996) ................................................................................................19, 22 Carlisle v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 201 Cal.App.2d 733 (1962) .....................................................................................................22 Carlson v. Am. Int’l Inc., 30 N.Y.3d 288 (2017) ..............................................................................................................35 Carto v. Buckley, 649 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ..........................................................................................21 Carver v. Bonds, 135 Cal.App.4th 328 (2005) ………………………………………………………………...20 Cerasani v. Sony Corp., 991 F. Supp. 343 (S.D.N.Y.Deadline 1998) ..............................................................................12, 18, 33 Chao v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 476 F. App’x 892 (2d Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................35 Chau v. Lewis, 771 F. 3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014)..................................................................................15, 17, 22, 32 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) .................................................................................................................31 Cole Fischer Rogow, Inc. v. Carl Ally, Inc., 29 A.D. 2d 423 (1st Dept 1968) .........................................................................................22, 23 *Citations in the Table of Authorities are hyperlinked to Westlaw. ii Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 43 PageID 286 De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal.App.5th 845 (2018) ..........................................................................................15, 17, 22 Degirmenci v. Sapphire–Ft. Lauderdale, 693 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ....................................................................................12 Deripaska v. AP, 282 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D.D.C. 2017) .........................................................................................13 Dobies v. Brefka, 263 A.D.2d 721 (3d Dep’t 1999) .............................................................................................35 Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 WL 1816180 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010) ................................................................................21 El Meson Espanol v. NYM Corp., 521 F. 2d 737 (2d Cir. 1975)....................................................................................................33 Ent’mnt Rsch. Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................35 Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394 (1999) ..............................................................................................29, 30 Goldman v. Barrett, 733 F. App’x 568 (2d Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................35 Idema v. Wager, 120 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ……………………………………………………….. 20 Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y. 2d 235 (1991) .............................................................................................................29 Issa v. Applegate, 31 Cal.App.5th 689 (2019)Deadline ......................................................................................................22 Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (2017) ....................................................................................................23 John E. Reid & Assocs., Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 2020 WL 1330657 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2020) ................................................................... passim Kimmerle v. N.Y. Evening Jour., 262 N.Y. 99, 186 N.E. 217 (1933) ...........................................................................................23 Lott v. Levitt, 556 F. 3d 564 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................12 iii Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 43 PageID 287 Love v. Wm. Morrow & Co., 193 A.D.2d 586 (2d Dep’t 1993) .............................................................................................18 Lovingood v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 800 F. App’x 840 (11th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. passim Masson v. New Yorker Magazine,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Race, Rape And, Media Portrayals of the Central Park Jogger Case
    Bard College Bard Digital Commons Senior Projects Spring 2016 Bard Undergraduate Senior Projects Spring 2016 Saintly Victim(s), Savage Assailants: Race, Rape and, Media Portrayals of the Central Park Jogger Case Thomas Palacios Beddall Bard College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2016 Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Beddall, Thomas Palacios, "Saintly Victim(s), Savage Assailants: Race, Rape and, Media Portrayals of the Central Park Jogger Case" (2016). Senior Projects Spring 2016. 194. https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2016/194 This Open Access work is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been provided to you by Bard College's Stevenson Library with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this work in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Saintly Victim(s), Savage Assailants: Race, Rape and, Media Portrayals of the Central Park Jogger Case Senior Project Submitted to The Division of Languages and Literature of Bard College by Thomas Palacios Beddall Annandale-on-Hudson, New York May 2016 Acknowledgements Thank you to my advisor
    [Show full text]
  • Supplement to the City Record the Council —Stated Meeting of Thursday, March 25, 2010
    SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY RECORD THE COUNCIL —STATED MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 The Invocation was delivered by Rev. Princess Thorbs, Assisting Minister, New THE COUNCIL Jerusalem Baptist Church, 122-05 Smith Street, Jamaica, New York, 11433. Minutes of the Let us pray. STATED MEETING Gracious God, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of We thank You, God, for another day. Thursday, March 25, 2010, 2:50 p.m. Now Lord, we ask that You would enter into this chamber. We welcome you, Father The President Pro Tempore (Council Member Rivera) that you would allow Your anointing Acting Presiding Officer and Your wisdom to be upon Your people. God bless those with Your wisdom Council Members that are going to be ruling over Your people. Give them your divine guidance according to Your will. Christine C. Quinn, Speaker Amen. Maria del Carmen Arroyo Vincent J. Gentile James S. Oddo Charles Barron Daniel J. Halloran III Annabel Palma Council Member Comrie moved to spread the Invocation in full upon the Record. Gale A. Brewer Vincent M. Ignizio Domenic M. Recchia, Jr. Fernando Cabrera Robert Jackson Joel Rivera Margaret S. Chin Letitia James Ydanis A. Rodriguez At a later point in the Meeting, the Speaker (Council Member Quinn) Leroy G. Comrie, Jr. Peter A. Koo Deborah L. Rose acknowledged the presence of former Council Member David Yassky and Council Member-elect David Greenfield (44th Council District, Brooklyn) in the Chambers. Elizabeth S. Crowley G. Oliver Koppell James Sanders, Jr. Inez E. Dickens Karen Koslowitz Larry B. Seabrook ADOPTION OF MINUTES Erik Martin Dilan Bradford S.
    [Show full text]
  • Through the Lens of Critical Race Theory
    AN ANALYSIS OF DUVERNAY’S “WHEN THEY SEE US” THROUGH THE LENS OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY by Uwode Ejiro Favour A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS Major Subject: Communication West Texas A&M University Canyon, TX May 2020 APPROVED: ___________________________ Date: _____________________ Chairperson, Thesis Committee ___________________________ Date: _______________________ Member, Thesis Committee ___________________________ Date: _______________________ Member, Thesis Committee _________________________________ Date: ___________________ Head, Major Department _________________________________ Date: ___________________ Dean, Graduate School ABSTRACT The film series, When They See Us, has been the most popular four part mini- series on Netflix since its release in 2019. It was produced and directed by Ava DuVernay and it touches upon true events that happened in 1989 at Central Park. The series presents the story of five black and brown boys and their brutal experiences in the hands of the American justice system. Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salam, and Antron McCray were all fourteen to sixteen years old when they were accused of raping and brutalizing Trisha Meili at Central Park. DuVernay crafts scenes that are raw and horrifying but points to the lived experiences of people of color in America. The purpose of this thesis was to explore Ava DuVernay’s movie, When They See Us and its portrayal of the bias nature of the criminal justice system in America against people of color. This study sought to explore the connection of microaggressions and racism to police brutality against people of color in the United States. By using both critical race theory and standpoint theory, the study analyzes the experiences of the men of color in the movie as it relates to racism and judicial inequality, and how this directly reflects the experiences of people of color within the American society.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study Guide for Place in the World CFI Education
    A Study Guide for Place in the World Prepared by Roberta McNair for CFI Education Table of Contents About the Film ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Central Park Five (2012) ..................................................................................................................... 4 Synopsis ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Critical Reception ...................................................................................................................................... 4 The “Central Park Five” Speak for Themselves ...................................................................................... 4 The Central Park Five ............................................................................................................................. 6 About the Filmmakers ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Ken Burns .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Sarah Burns ............................................................................................................................................... 8 David McMahon .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Park Jogger Case on December
    ROBERT K. TANENBAUM MY OPINION – A CRITIQUE: The injustice of a rush to judgment – The Central Park Jogger Case On December 19, 2002 a colossal injustice occurred when then Manhattan District Attorney Morgenthau consented to the Central Park jogger five defendants’ motion to vacate their convictions. During the trials of these five defendants, the Manhattan D.A. was well aware and presented evidence to the trial jurors that a sixth unknown assailant participated in the rape of the female jogger. The D.A. revealed at the defendants’ 1990 trials that with respect to the female jogger, semen was recovered at the crime scene not attributable to any of the five defendants, but to an unknown culpable participant. The defendants were also convicted for beating and robbing and attacking some of the eight other innocent defenseless victims during their vicious nighttime rampage through Central Park on April 19, 1989. Thirteen years later, with the statute of limitations having run, convicted and sentenced to serve a life term of imprisonment for rape and murder, the sixth assailant, Matias Reyes, whose DNA was found at the crime scene, has come forward to say he raped the jogger and he did it alone. With no hearing held, no testimony taken, no cross examination, and no corroboration of Reyes’ statement, Manhattan D.A. Morgenthau moved to set aside these jury verdicts. As a further reflection of the Manhattan D.A.’s abrogation of his duties and responsibilities, the vacatur was in violation of established legal precedent. By so acting, the Manhattan
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Fort Myers Division
    Case 2:20-cv-00180 Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 119 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION LINDA FAIRSTEIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No: ) v. ) ) NETFLIX, INC., AVA DUVERNAY, ) and ATTICA LOCKE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL As and for her complaint against Defendants Netflix, Inc., Ava DuVernay and Attica Locke, Plaintiff Linda Fairstein (“Ms. Fairstein”), by and through her undersigned counsel, Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. and Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This defamation action arises from Defendant Netflix, Inc.’s (“Netflix”) release of the limited film series When They See Us to its worldwide streaming service on May 31, 2019. A significant portion of the film series (three of four episodes) contains scenes that portray Ms. Fairstein in a false and defamatory manner. 2. Defendant Ava DuVernay (“Ms. DuVernay”) wrote, directed and produced When They See Us in collaboration with Netflix’s Vice President of Original Content, Cindy Holland. 3. Defendant Attica Locke (“Ms. Locke”) co-wrote and produced When They See Us in collaboration with Ms. DuVernay and Netflix. 4. When They See Us addresses the arrests, trials and convictions of five young men of color—Kharey (aka Korey) Wise (“Mr. Wise”), Raymond Santana (“Mr. Santana”), Kevin Case 2:20-cv-00180 Document 1 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 119 PageID 2 Richardson (“Mr. Richardson”), Yusef Salaam (“Mr. Salaam”) and Antron McCray (“Mr. McCray”) (collectively “The Five”)—who were accused of beating and raping a female jogger, in addition to rioting and attacking seven other victims, in New York City’s Central Park in April 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Middle District of Florida Fort Myers Division
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION LINDA FAIRSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-00180-JLB-MRM NETFLIX, INC., AVA DUVERNAY, and ATTICKA LOCKE Defendants. / ORDER On May 31, 2019, Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) released the four-part series When They See Us (“the Series”) on its global streaming platform. (Doc. 1 at ¶1.) The Series is a dramatization of the highly publicized case of the Central Park Five—a group of five African-American and Latino teenagers (“the Five”) who were tried and convicted on charges connected to the violent rape of Patricia Meili in New York City’s Central Park on the night of April 19, 1989. (Id. at ¶¶36–38.) In 2002, the Five’s convictions were vacated after Mattias Reyes confessed to attacking Ms. Meili, and his DNA matched samples taken from Ms. Meili and her personal belongings. (Id. at ¶41.) Twelve years after their convictions were vacated, the Five settled a civil suit against New York City for $41 million. (Id. at ¶43.) This case is not directly about the Five; it is about the Series’ depiction of Plaintiff Linda Fairstein, the former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit. (Id. at ¶32.) Ms. Fairstein’s character, played by actress Felicity Huffman, is essentially the “archvillain” of the Series—the architect of a racially biased and unethical prosecution against the Five. (Id. at ¶¶44–130.) This depiction, regardless of its factual accuracy, was not accidental. Both before and after the Series’ release, two of its creators—Ava DuVernay and Attica Locke (collectively, “the Writers”)—published multiple comments on social media suggesting that Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Marianne Wesson
    Marianne Wesson OFFICE ADDRESS: 401 UCB Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado Boulder,CO 80309 (303) 492-7547 FAX: 303-492-1200 E-MAIL: [email protected] WEBSITES AND WEB PAGES: http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=63, www.wessonbooks.com, www.mariannewesson.com, www.thehillmoncase.com CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: Professor and Wolf-Nichol Fellow, University of Colorado School of Law President's Teaching Scholar, University of Colorado Senior Scholar, Women Studies Program, University of Colorado at Boulder (appointed 2003) EDUCATION: J.D. University of Texas 1973 (with high honors)(Order of the Coif, Chancellors, Consul) A.B. Vassar College 1970 (cum laudi generali)(National Merit Scholar, Matthew Vassar Scholar) LEARNED SOCIETIES: Member, American Law Institute (elected 1989) PAST EMPLOYMENT: Interim Dean, University of Colorado School of Law (1995-96) Visiting Professor, Washington University School of Law (summer 1995) Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Colorado (January 1989-August 1990) Assistant United States Attorney, Criminal Division, District of Colorado (1980-82) (while on academic leave) Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas (1976) Law Clerk, Honorable William Wayne Justice, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (1973-75) CONSULTING AND PRACTICE: Credentialed correspondent for National Public Radio; frequent legal correspondent for NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday National Conference of Bar Examiners, Criminal Law Test Development Committee (1978- present)(chair, 2000-2005)(this committee writes, edits, and selects the criminal law and procedure items for the Multistate Bar Examination) Volunteer counsel in Kikumura v. Hurley, et al, No. 98-B-1442, U.S.D.C., Colo. (concerning maximum security prisoner’s access to spiritual counseling)(July 2001-November 2002) Script consultant to Rainy Day Films of Los Angeles, California on Women of Mystery, a documentary film about women mystery novelists in the United States (film released 2000) Appointed co-counsel in People v.
    [Show full text]
  • THE UN-HEROIC ACT Representations of Rape in Contemporary Women’S Art in the U.S
    PRESS KIT, SEPTEMBER 1 30, 2018 THE UN-HEROIC ACT Representations of Rape in Contemporary Women’s Art in the U.S. curated by Monika Fabijanska exhibition accompanied by a fully-illustrated catalog September 4 – November 2, 2018 Anya and Andrew Shiva Gallery John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York New York City The following material contains 1/ press release 2/ public programming 3/ the outline of the exhibition structure, with all artworks accompanied by an image, caption, and description 4/ artists’ biographies Public programming details will be announced at the press preview Captions must be used as provided in this document. For website and print quality images, please contact [email protected] Please contact the gallery at [email protected], 212.237.1439 for inquiries, images and interview requests. You may also direct questions to the curator, [email protected] For more information, visit www.shivagallery.org, detailed updates at www.monikafabijanska.com ARTISTS IN THE EXHIBITION (in the chronological order of the work creation): Yoko Ono Natalie Frank Ana Mendieta Jennifer Karady Senga Nengudi Sonya Kelliher-Combs Suzanne Lacy Andrea Bowers Lynn Hershman Leeson Ada Trillo Carolee Thea Kara Walker Guerrilla Girls Roya Amigh Jenny Holzer Naima Ramos-Chapman Kathleen Gilje Bang Geul Han Angela Fraleigh Guerilla Girls BroadBand 1 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THE UN-HEROIC ACT: Representations of Rape in Contemporary Women's Art in the U.S. curated by Monika Fabijanska September 4 – November 2, 2018 opening reception: September 12, 5:30-8:30 PM symposium: October 3, 5-9 PM tours & artists talks: September 26, 6-8 PM, October 24, 6-8 PM gallery hours: Monday-Friday 10-6 Suzanne Lacy, Three Weeks in May, 1977, paper, ink ©1977.
    [Show full text]
  • 9:42 / 9:42 #CNN #News Officer Disputes Netflix Portrayal of Central Park Five Case 360.611 Weergaven •15 Jun
    9:42 / 9:42 #CNN #News Officer disputes Netflix portrayal of Central Park Five case 360.611 weergaven •15 jun. 2019 2,3K5,8KDELENOPSLAAN CNN 10,7 mln. abonnees ABONNEREN The Netflix limited series "When They See Us" tells the story of five teen boys of color who were wrongfully convicted in 1990 of raping and leaving a white female jogger for dead in New York City's Central Park. CNN's Michael Smerconish talks with a former NYPD officer who made arrests in the case. #CNN #News MEER WEERGEVEN 9.560 reacties SORTEREN OP Voeg een openbare reactie toe… travisti1 jaar geleden (bewerkt) If they we're so convincingly guilty? Why were they awarded the money by the state? 237 BEANTWOORDEN 68 antwoorden bekijken ——————11 maanden geleden I’m impressed cnn even had this guy on. Whatever actually happened, this doesn’t fit with the cnn narrative. 158 BEANTWOORDEN 47 antwoorden bekijken ms_Coco Spice2 maanden geleden In Korey Wise's "confession tape" at 29:39 you can clearly hear the scream of another boy saying "Stop, you're breaking my arm" look it up! They're not old enough to smoke, drink or vote but can sign away their right to legal counsel and be questioned for hours without their parents?? There's a special place in hell for all the grown people involved in violating these kids 9 BEANTWOORDEN Officer disputes Netflix portrayal of Central Park Five case 1 2 antwoorden bekijken Y B1 jaar geleden (bewerkt) 5:19 "Kevin Richardson had a scratch on his face" 9:13 "If you look at those pictures not one of them has a scratch on them" LIAR! 111 BEANTWOORDEN 14 antwoorden bekijken Don Genio1 jaar geleden I believe that every single one of those boys would have mentioned Reyes if I could help them get out of trouble, but not one of them ever brought him up! all lies from the cops! 3 BEANTWOORDEN Monica S.1 jaar geleden It’s 2019, you can stop lying now.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Park Five: Breaking the Barriers of Closed Interrogations
    The Central Park Five: Breaking the Barriers of Closed Interrogations Madeline Buckwheat Junior Division Historical Paper Paper Length: 2491 Thesis In April 1989, four Black and one Hispanic boy were arrested for assault in New York City. Law enforcement targeted them because of their race and their age. They were later interrogated and indicted with crimes such as rape, assault, and burglary. The Central Park Five broke barriers by advocating for entire interrogations to be recorded, allowing thousands of others to not have to go through what they had to. Who are the Central Park Five? When the raped and beaten body of 28-year-old Trisha Meili was found on the morning of April 20, 1989, the lives of five young and unsuspecting Black and Hispanic boys were forever changed. Before the attack on Meili, Antron McCray, 15, Kevin Richardson, 15, Korey Wise, 16, Raymond Santana, 14, and Yusef Salaam, 15, along with a group of approximately 30 young boys had been seen throwing rocks at cars, causing tension to arise between the boys, the community, and law enforcement. After the group of boys were arrested, they were expected to be released shortly with only a ticket to family court but that unfortunately never happened. This group became known as the Central Park Five. Racism in New York, 1990 New York is a melting pot for different ethnicities. Even though it has been a place for people of different races and background, it has also been a major hot spot for racism among its residents. The Central Park Five was one of the first times that law enforcement racism was exposed to people living outside of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime, Surveillance, and Communities Bennett Ac Pers Brooklyn Law School
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 40 Number 3 Cooper-Walsh Colloquium, Legitimacy and Article 2 Order: Analyzing Police-Citizen Interactions in the Urban Landscape March 2016 Crime, Surveillance, and Communities Bennett aC pers Brooklyn Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Bennett aC pers, Crime, Surveillance, and Communities, 40 Fordham Urb. L.J. 959 (2013). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol40/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAPERS_CHRISTENSEN (DO NOT DELETE) 6/26/2013 8:31 PM CRIME, SURVEILLANCE, AND COMMUNITIES I. Bennett Capers* ABSTRACT We have become a surveillance state. Cameras—both those controlled by the state, and those installed by private entities—watch our every move, at least in public. For the most part, courts have deemed this public surveillance to be beyond the purview of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it goes largely unregulated—a cause for alarm for many civil libertarians. This Article challenges these views and suggests that we must listen to communities in thinking about cameras and other surveillance technologies. For many communities, public surveillance not only has the benefit of deterring crime and aiding in the apprehension of criminals.
    [Show full text]