On the ACLU on Larry Craig
---
Self-loathing homosexual Larry Craig has filed his appeal of the denial of his request to withdraw his guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct (through which he avoided the additional charge of "interference with privacy").
The ACLU, meanwhile, has refiled its original amicus brief in support of Craig's frivolous motion to withdraw his guilty plea The offense to which Craig pleaded guilty is, the ACLU argues, unconstitutional (i.e., at least some of Craig's conduct is constitutionally protected).
The 12-page memo-brief was actually drafted back in September, and I do not intend to critique it now. Neither will I rehash the Craig incident generally, other than to summarize my still-held position that libertarians who defend Craig's conduct have only been able to do so by omitting key facts regarding the incident.
The only additional point that need be made at this juncture is to remind people that Craig pleaded guilty, and the only question now before the courts is whether he is entitled to withdraw that guilty plea. The fact that the underlying law may or may not be constitutional is irrelevant to that question. If Craig had any affirmative defenses (constitutional or otherwise) to make, then the opportunity to make them would have been at trial (or appeal of a conviction). By pleading guilty, Craig waived those arguments, and they are moot now (except as an academic question).
Whatever the nuances of Minnesota law regarding plea withdrawals may be, they surely revolve around a standard due process rule: a plea of guilty, like any waiver of rights, must be knowing and voluntary. That is the only question to be answered at this stage: Was Craig's guilty plea knowing and voluntary?
And to that the only rational answer is: Duh! Senator Craig is not a lawyer, but neither is he a bumpkin. He pleaded guilty months after the fact and by mail; this was hardly a panic-stricken or morning-after hangover decision in a foreboding away-from-home courtroom. He had unfettered access (again, for months) to counsel and political staff (not to mention his family — oh right, "closeted homosexual," never mind). He made a conscious, calculated, sober (and politically motivated) decision to try to "keep it quiet." A decision that, too bad so sad, happened to be wrong. But that is hardly prosecutorial tyranny or an egregious miscarriage of justice.
It would be hard to concoct a fact pattern that was more "knowing and voluntary" than Craig's conduct after the incident. "It didn't turn out the way I planned" is simply not grounds for revoking a perfectly legitimate guilty plea. (Indeed, the ACLU's September 2007 memo-brief does not contain a single case or statute supporting the withdrawal of Craig's guilty plea — only constitutional arguments regarding the original incident — which again are wholly irrelevant now.)
The Sméagol of the Senate is hardly the victim he and and the ACLU portray him to be — trying to game the system and failing is not "being victimized." And this sideshow will only demean the far more legitimate claims that true victims of overbroad laws and overzealous prosecutors may face in the future.
The ACLU, meanwhile, has refiled its original amicus brief in support of Craig's frivolous motion to withdraw his guilty plea The offense to which Craig pleaded guilty is, the ACLU argues, unconstitutional (i.e., at least some of Craig's conduct is constitutionally protected).
The 12-page memo-brief was actually drafted back in September, and I do not intend to critique it now. Neither will I rehash the Craig incident generally, other than to summarize my still-held position that libertarians who defend Craig's conduct have only been able to do so by omitting key facts regarding the incident.
The only additional point that need be made at this juncture is to remind people that Craig pleaded guilty, and the only question now before the courts is whether he is entitled to withdraw that guilty plea. The fact that the underlying law may or may not be constitutional is irrelevant to that question. If Craig had any affirmative defenses (constitutional or otherwise) to make, then the opportunity to make them would have been at trial (or appeal of a conviction). By pleading guilty, Craig waived those arguments, and they are moot now (except as an academic question).
Whatever the nuances of Minnesota law regarding plea withdrawals may be, they surely revolve around a standard due process rule: a plea of guilty, like any waiver of rights, must be knowing and voluntary. That is the only question to be answered at this stage: Was Craig's guilty plea knowing and voluntary?
And to that the only rational answer is: Duh! Senator Craig is not a lawyer, but neither is he a bumpkin. He pleaded guilty months after the fact and by mail; this was hardly a panic-stricken or morning-after hangover decision in a foreboding away-from-home courtroom. He had unfettered access (again, for months) to counsel and political staff (not to mention his family — oh right, "closeted homosexual," never mind). He made a conscious, calculated, sober (and politically motivated) decision to try to "keep it quiet." A decision that, too bad so sad, happened to be wrong. But that is hardly prosecutorial tyranny or an egregious miscarriage of justice.
It would be hard to concoct a fact pattern that was more "knowing and voluntary" than Craig's conduct after the incident. "It didn't turn out the way I planned" is simply not grounds for revoking a perfectly legitimate guilty plea. (Indeed, the ACLU's September 2007 memo-brief does not contain a single case or statute supporting the withdrawal of Craig's guilty plea — only constitutional arguments regarding the original incident — which again are wholly irrelevant now.)
The Sméagol of the Senate is hardly the victim he and and the ACLU portray him to be — trying to game the system and failing is not "being victimized." And this sideshow will only demean the far more legitimate claims that true victims of overbroad laws and overzealous prosecutors may face in the future.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
16 January 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
