In the summer of 1987, a chance comment after church by the
mother of my first girlfriend Sarah Zartman changed my life. Mrs. Zartman at the
time was the chairwoman of the Republican Party for Rochester and had a problem.
There was no one who wanted to run in the fall 1987 election against the
Democratic incumbent District Attorney Howard Relin – my soon-to-be ex-boss as I
was leaving the office after five years working there as an Assistant District
Attorney.
Though, I knew there was little chance of success, Ms. Zartman thought
the election would be an excellent opportunity to introduce me to the electorate
as a nice guy, homegrown candidate and would pave the way for the following
year’s election to the State Senate, where a seat was to be vacated and up for
grabs. The
last thing anyone wanted was for me to leave a bad taste in the voters' mouths as
first impressions are everlasting.
However, that was not to be. My former boss
and opponent in the race for District Attorney was Howard Relin. Mr. Relin had
authored a “Selection of the Jury” memorandum for his 40 Assistant District Attorneys directing them to remove “women and minorities” from the jury whenever
the defendant was of African descent. This appalling 1981-1986 policy of Mr. Relin’s
office was not only morally repugnant, it had been unconstitutional since 1965
when the Supreme Court held in Swain v. Alabama, that: a “State's purposeful or
deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in
the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause.”
After I
publicly raised this issue in the campaign and released the Jury Selection Memo
as proof, no present or former Assistant District Attorneys would collaborate
the existence of Relin’s Jury Selection Memo. I was socially and professionally
blackballed (not for the last time) for using unfair campaign tactics. I lost
the election by the largest margin in the history of Rochester, New York,
elections.
However, three days after the election, the highest court in New
York, in the case of People v. Knight, reversed a murder conviction obtained by
Howard Relin’s office stating: “We find that defendant articulated facts
sufficient to support the conclusion that the [Assistant District Attorney] exercised his
peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner, thereby shifting the
burden to the prosecutor to provide neutral explanations for his peremptory
challenges.” Subsequently, Relin’s Jury selection memo was introduced and its
authenticity confirmed resulting in a new trial for Mr. Knight.
I was, as
usual, vindicated ex post facto which is fine with me. 1 Corinthians 4:3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Play nice!