By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
Police speak of the theory of a crime, and lawyers have a theory of a case.
After a split jury delivered a partial verdict (guilty on one of four counts) in the Charles Schwarz trial, federal prosecutor Alan Vinegrad issued his theory about an obstacle he had faced in his relentless pursuit of Schwarz.
The defense, he said, had conducted "an extraordinary media campaign to promote a one-sided and slanted view" of the case.
Vinegrad is far from alone in crediting Schwarz's lawyer, Ronald Fischetti, with seducing some of the pressand Vinegrad himself has been the subject of criticisms here, and in a few other places. In the June 3 New York Times, William Glaberson wrote that this prosecutor "has become the object of unusual vitriol, much of it provoked by shrewd management of the news by Mr. Vinegrad's opponent, Ronald P. Fischetti."
If the press coverage had been part of the trial, one exhibit would be my citing of Victor Hugo's Inspector Javert in Les Misérables and my description of Vinegrad as similarly "the very model of a relentless, mean-spirited prosecutor."
And in the June 23 New York Times Magazine article "No Way Out" (a profile of the present-day Abner Louima), Jim Dwyer wrote that "a new opinion has taken hold among prominent members of the New York and national press: namely, that the wrong police officer has been named as an accomplice to the torture." Dwyer referred to Thomas Wiese's statement on 60 Minutes that "he, not Schwarz, had been in the bathroom with [Justin] Volpe." Dwyer does not appear to buy that theory.
Vehemently contemptuous of that theory are Andrea Peyser of the New York Post and other journalists, but the belief has taken hold that much of the New York press has been ensorcelled, to some extent, by defense attorney Fischetti.
The most persistent focus on Fischetti as Svengali has been by Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for The New Yorker and CNN. In his June 10 article, Toobin refers to Fischetti as a "sarcastic wise guy" who "built a thriving practice through the years, first as a Mob lawyer." But customarily, members of the mob are called "wiseguys," not their lawyers. And Fischetti has defended Schwarz for years without a feenot a practice of "mob lawyers."
Fischetti, who has taught at Fordham University law school and has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Cardozo, NYU, and Yale law schools, is hardly a role model for a character on The Sopranos. By the way, Fischetti's last "mob" case was 15 years ago.
In a June 4 WNYC appearance, as in The New Yorker, Toobin went so far as to claim that Fischetti has been so brilliant an orchestrator of "media-age advocacy" and had persuaded so many reporters that "the wrong guy had been convicted," that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals went along and gave Schwarz a new trial. This would mean that judges John Walker Jr., Jose Cabranes, and Chester Straub were also manipulated. Their "highly technical grounds [for reversing the convictions]," as Toobin has put it, were that Schwarz's lawyer in the first trial had a conflict of interest, thereby denying Schwarz an adequate defense. I wonder how carefully Toobin, and some other reporters on the case, read the full Second Circuit decision.
Actually, those three judges' questions of Fischetti during oral arguments were so harshly skepticalparticularly the ones from Chief Judge John Walker Jr. (who later wrote the unanimous decision granting the new trial)that I thought Schwarz would lose and stay in prison for many more years.
But in their decision, far from being influenced by Fischetti's "management of the news," the appellate judges didn't limit themselves to citing his original lawyer's conflict of interest in the first trial. The judges went on to emphasize that during its deliberations, the jury got word that Volpewho had been claiming he was alone in the bathroom with Louimahad said, after pleading guilty, that there was a second cop in the bathroom. But during the trial, Volpe had not been allowed to say this within the hearing of the jury. And what the jury did not hear during deliberations was that Volpe had also named Thomas Wiese, not Schwarz, as that second man.
The Second Circuit ruled, therefore, that the combination of the original lawyer's conflict of interest "and that jury's exposure to [only] portions of Volpe's plea, resulted in the worst of all possible worlds for Schwarz's defense." (Emphasis added).
And that's why, as Ed Bradley reported on 60 Minutes (February 18, 2001), "five jurors have come forward and two have signed affidavits, all saying that if they had known Volpe had said it was Wiese in the bathroom with him that night, they would never have convicted Schwarz." (Toobin did mention that in The New Yorker, but not on WNYC until Fischetti called the station to remind him.)
Nonetheless, in many of the press reports following that appellate decisionincluding accounts of Schwarz's new trialbroadcast and print reporters kept repeating that Schwarz's previous conviction had been reversed just on "technicalities" or "procedural grounds."