There is a growing scandal in the Bronx that has led to the resignation of two legal aid attorneys (Ryan Napoli and Kumar Rao) and calls for the defunding of Bronx Defenders, an organization that represents over 35,000 indigent persons each year under a $20 million annual contract with the city. The controversy erupted after the release of the video below entitled “Hands Up” featuring a popular rap artist and noting sponsorship and participation by the Bronx Defenders. The video includes repeated images to two African-American men about to shoot a white police officer and lyrics call for the shooting of police officers.
Napoli and Rao appear in the video and an investigation found that Bronx Defenders were fully informed of the lyrics of the song. Both the audio and written lyrics were attached to the invitation email and then discussed by lawyers in the office, according to an investigation. Napoli appears the first to have been contacted through the girlfriend of producer James Barrett who works in the office. The group’s executive director, Robin Steinberg, is also under fire. Steinberg will be suspended for 60 days without pay, but some have said that a suspension is insufficient given Steinberg’s approval for the participation in the video.
In watching the video, I was at first skeptical of the criticism of the young lawyers. They are not participating in the anti-police language and are merely shown counseling a client. However, the investigation showed that the lyrics and audiotape were given to the office, including both lawyers, and that there was a full discussion over the lyrics and the participation of the office. Rao has been with the Bronx Defenders seven years after leaving a commercial law firm. He insists that he never saw the images (which is perfectly believable) and expected to be able to edit the lyrics. However, there remains a question on why the office would participate in the first place given such offensive and loaded lyrics (even on the chance that they might be edited later). Bot Rao and Napoli admitted that they were fully aware of the cop-killing language before seeking approval for their participation.
The rap song in the video for retribution against police for the shooting of unarmed black men. It features images of both shootings of black suspects and an image (that we have previously seen) showing two black men about to shoot a helpless white officer in the head. “Cause I’m black, police think they got the right to shoot me,” the lyrics say. “Time to start killing these coppers.”
The lyrics by the song by “Uncle Murda” include:
I spit the shit the streets got to feel Fo’ Mike Brown and Sean Bell a cop gotta get killed Cuz I’m black, police think they got the right to shoot me No jail fo’ them, their punishment is death’s duty They’re either killin’ us or throwin’ us in the cage Martin Luther King is rollin’ ova in his grave (What happened to the dream?!) Time to start killin’ these If Malcolm X was alive, he’ll be next to me with them choppers (At the window) By any means necessary lets make em respect us These cocksuckers supposed to protect us Killin’ unarmed black men, makin’ mothers holla And this what the government payin’ with our tax dollars?! (Crazy!) All these unjustified shootins Then they call us animals when we start lootin’ Those kids ain’t had no gun and the police knew it Jay need to talk to Obama or let me do it!
I find the decision of the group to participate in such a rap video to be incomprehensible and reprehensible. However, there is a move to defund the group which supplies legal representation to thousands of indigents in the area. This is an office — and attorneys — who have spent their careers working for indigent people at a fraction of what they could earn in the private sector. Defunding such an office is not as easy as people suggest. There are thousand of ongoing cases and those people will require continued representation. The question is what should be deemed sufficient punishment. There have been two resignations and a suspension from this group. What should be deemed sufficient to close this matter?
Here is the video: Hands Up Video
Source: NY Times
Richard,
How exactly would they benefit?
I can’t help but note that many of those who are most loudly calling for defunding the office are those who would benefit from criminal defendants receiving less zealous and competent representation.
Richard – I would like to have both prosecutor and defender’s offices closed. Then we go to the British system with attorneys taking turns prosecuting and defending.
Paul C Schulte,
I might be really showing my ignorance here but wouldn’t that be kind of confusing
happypappies – probably the best TV example of how this works is Rumpole of the Bailey. Although Rumpole only defends the other members of his Inn take both sides. Rumpole is written by a British barrister who has been through it all. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte
ohhhhh okay got it now. Thought it was something like that. 😉
So much for Turley’s stated devotion to free speech. It’s perfectly understandable why these attorneys would be willing to appear in such a video- it has a target audience of people that will require their services- people that are routinely racially profiled, beaten, murdered by the nypd.
Those lawyers ought to be commended. If a prosecutors office fails to prosecute police officers that kill and assault the public with wanton disregard, then the public will eventually be pushed so far that they will begin calling for the murder of those police officers, and that is perfectly acceptable and justifiable. Going further, the murder of any cop that engages in that violent belligerence is a service to the community.
That may be ugly, but that’s life. If the law is only a weapon used against a population, then those that enforce that law deserve to die. It wasn’t the population of new york that made the nypd’s bed, the nypd did that themselves, and there’s no tragedy when they’re made to lie in it.
as is so often the case, nick spinelli has erred once again, writing “Legal Aid does all types of work for the indigent. Public Defenders strictly do criminal defense.”
spinelli obviously believes that his limited experience qualifies him to say anything.
in new york state, ***outside of new york city***, each county has an office of public defenders. however, in new york city, the legal aid society handles both civil and criminal work. of course, the bronx, where the case at bar arose, is within new york city.
see: http://www.legal-aid.org/en/ineedhelp/ineedhelp/criminalproblem/faq/howdoifindoutwhomycriminaldefenselawyeris.aspx
“The people who will suffer if the contract gets pulled are the poor who have few other options and had nothing to do with the video.”
Exactly.
So the actors involved are in fact committing evil.
They have hurt the very people they claimed to want to help.
No different from the Ferguson rioters wrecking their own town.
Heinlein said this is known as “bad luck.”
“no one should be denied that service.”
I agree, especially when one cannot afford representation.
My question is, this behavior shows such spectacularly poor judgement, how do the taxpayers know that Bronx Defenders is actually doing a good job in their supposed primary mission?
Their actions make it no longer permissible to assume that Bronx Defenders are spending taxpayer money wisely.
If other performance measurements used to evaluate the contract are being met or exceeded, then I would not expect further action be taken.
I don’t like the video and I question Steinberg’s judgment. But whether she generally has good judgment or bad judgment ought to be evaluated against how well she’s meeting the contract’s specifications. If she’s failing or performing sub-optimally relative to the contract specs, then this would be a good time to make a change. But if she’s meeting he contract specs, leave her be.
If the contract gets pulled she’ll find another job. As will the attorneys who resigned. The people who will suffer if the contract gets pulled are the poor who have few other options and had nothing to do with the video.
Those who participated should be fired, including the executive director. Those who supported the decision to participate, if clearly identifiable, should also get the boot. The organization itself should get new, wiser leadership, but should not be abolished or lose funding.
Issac….I think you have the right idea.
If I were omnipotent I’d make it a mandate that all local attorneys be subject to public defense and assistance assignments by the courts, from the best to the least worst…and at local government established fees as a prerequisite to practicing law in a given jurisdiction….e.g., to control costs.
As I’ve mentioned on other threads, I was able to afford (barely) great go-for-throat but highly competent attorneys in my dealings with the IRS and other government entities. I’d have no issues with attorneys like mine, whom I doubt would object very much, occasionally be assigned cases by the court for those who didn’t have my resources. From time to time they’ve provided me with guidance essentially pro bono, since I am otherwise a paying client.
That said, I once long ago was defended by an excellent Public Defender who took up the cases for 2 others, with less resources than I had, and eventually rolled my case in to theirs. It was a minor misdemeanor regarding my presence in a blind pig…that the prosecutors made in to a criminal conspiracy. Silly, but it had to be dealt with and the PD did a great job and got all charges dropped at the final hour, so to speak….so much so I paid her anyway at her going rates of those days. Call it a tip for good work done well. I also once hired her to be my “audience coach” when I was called to testify about another guy’s infractions, because I knew him well. She was really good.
We can mock all the lawyers we want to generally, but when you need a good one, no one should be denied that service.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Given this unprofessional behavior, is there any evidence that the taxpayer-funded Bronx Defenders is a baby, or just bathwater?
Be specific. 86 the lawyers but keep the program. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Keep the emotions out of it.
Government suppression of free speech.
I think if the law were applied equally, wealthy law firms would be subject to harassment like this.
“However, there is a move to defund the group which supplies legal representation to thousands of indigents in the area. ”
Not unlike the Ferguson mob looting and burning the stores in their own neighborhoods.
I am out of sympathy for people that repeatedly destroy their own backyards and then want money and support because they now live in their own mess.
And how is the public to be assured that only these two lawyers are this destructive?
Brown’s hands were not up! Would it help if it was explained in Elvish? Interpretive dance?
They should be punished, but I don’t want innocent people harmed. If the office is going to be defunded then there needs to be a replacement.
I have worked w/ Legal Aid in my early career. They have some great, Atticus Finch, type attorneys. However, I have seen a growing radicalization over the past couple decades. This is video and their involvement is simply unacceptable.
Legal Aid does all types of work for the indigent. Public Defenders strictly do criminal defense.
Excuse my ignorance, but I have a slew of questions:
Is this the Public Defenders Office? Or is it some other group the city funds to assist with heavy case load? If it is the latter, can the city simply contract with another group in the future?
Who runs this group? If Steinberg is the executive directory, and someone suspended her, who is that person or group? If the city funds this organization, does it also have line of authority over this group? I would doubt it, and it’s probably not a good idea to give the city such control, but what does the contract say? Should the contract contain a clause or two that deals with irresponsible public displays such as these? Would such a clause be considered meddling?
I think defunding the office sends the correct message. If the attorneys have any loyalty to the clients at all they will take them pro bono.