Judge Chews Out Lawyers For Child Murder Suspect Levi Aron

Accused killer Levi Aron, with attorneys Jennifer McCann and Pierre Bazile, in court earlier this month (AP)

The attorneys for Levi Aron, the man who confessed to killing and dismembering 8-year-old Hasidic boy Leiby Kletzky, have already defended themselves from criticisms once—but it seems they had to do it again yesterday, as a Brooklyn judge laced into the two for how they've handled the case so far. "What I am questioning is whether counsel has enough experience for a trial of this type of case," said Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Neil Firetog.

Justice Firetog called the hearing to reprimand attorneys Pierre Bazile and Jennifer McCann for a series of goofs and gaffes during the pre-trial for Aron. According to the Times, he scolded them for complaining about the release of public documents, for discussing the case on their Facebook pages, and for not providing the Department of Correction an approved list of visitors for their client. He also questioned them over why they didn't stop Aron from giving an interview to the Daily News while in Rikers: "You're claiming your client's incompetent, and you're relying on him to make decisions?"

McCann defended using Facebook, saying she was responding to a group that was harassing her: “It was the quickest, easiest way to resolve my issues so the phone lines aren’t clogged up. I have a business to run, Your Honor.” The judge also wagged his finger at Bazile for misspelling “canon,” as it relates to ethics: “Two N’s means a cannon that shoots at something.”

Separate from their court apperance, McCann and Bazile gave formal notice that they would introduce psychiatric evidence at the trial, a filing necessary to pursue an insanity defense. Aron was previously found mentally competent to stand trial, despite a psychiatric evaluation which found that he has a personality disorder.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Yakas in News on August 24, 2011 1:32 PM

Comments [rss]

FU Boy

Is it possible to motion for a mistrial later in the proceedings if you screw up this much in pretrial?

Guido Gabriele

ineffective assistance of counsel.
the judge is being hyper-vigilant because he doesn't want this guy to go free someday because his lawyers screwed up so badly in his defense. he's killing the defendant with kindness.

FU Boy

Yeah, that's what I was worried about. Still concerns me, since it wouldn't surprise me if they did a 'public opinion was skewed because of his Daily News interview' plea or appeal.

TimeDown

I wouldn't be too worried about that. He would never win for that reason on appeal because it was his own decision to do that interview. It has nothing to do with how he is actually represented. Ineffective assistance of counsel requires that the lawyers actually screw up.

But contrary to what the general public thinks, it is very difficult to win an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal especially in a case with so much evidence. To win the appeal the defendant "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome." Meaning even if his attorneys screw up, the defendant would have to show there is a high chance he would not have been convicted if they hadn't screwed up. The more evidence against a defendant, the less likely to win an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.

FU Boy

I just want this guy to go away for a long time. Considering the case I'm worried about cheap legal tricks to prolong / invalidate a trial. If you say that's not possible, great, but I'll remain skeptical until a 'guilty' verdict is handed down and the sentence is in.

schmeep

I think they need Highlights Magazine's Guide to Lawyering.

"Goofus allows his client to speak on record to the Daily News; Gallant spells 'canon' correctly."