Larchmont Resident Declares Death Penalty Unconstitutional

On July 1, 2002 Federal Judge and long-term Larchmont resident, Jed Rakoff, declared the death penalty unconstitutional in a decision that is generating discussion nationwide. Here in Larchmont, Judge Rakoff receives praise from attorneys representing both the prosecutorial and defense point of view.

See: CNN's article on the death penalty ruling, the decision.

The case, know as U.S. v. Quinones, involves two defendants in a murder trial that has yet to be heard. The Court found that "implementation of the Federal Death Penalty Act not only deprives innocent people of a significant opportunity to prove their innocence, and thereby violates procedural due process, but also creates an undue risk of executing innocent people, and thereby violates substantive due process."U.S. District Court Judge Rakoff, a former prosecutor and Clinton appointee to the Federal bench, had signaled his leanings in an earlier hearing on April 25. Nevertheless, his actions drew substantial attention since, according to CBS News, "Legal scholars believe he is the first judge to declare the current federal death penalty law unconstitutional since it was enacted in 1994."

"I think it's a terrific decision. It will have influence far beyond the case, declared Larchmont resident and former New York County District Attorney, Michael G. Cherkasky. He acknowledged, that "Even if Judge Rakoff's decision stands, it becomes "law of the case" applying just to the particular case in hand. Only Supreme Court decisions become "law of the land."

"Nevertheless," notes Cherkasky, "Because of the power of the reasoning that Judge Rakoff showed in his opinion it will have much, much broader implications and impact."

Cherkasky, now president and chief executive officer of the risk consulting company, Kroll Inc, once investigated organized crime figures such as John Gotti. Larry Hochheiser, another noted Larchmont attorney, once defended an organized crime figure who alledgedly "fixed" Gotti's 1986-87 racketeering trial," according to Ganglandnews.com. Despite their differing roles, the two attorneys appear to share an admiration for Judge Rakoff's reasoning.

Hochheiser refers to Rakoff as "One of the most deliberative and careful judges on the bench," though he admits the Judge "is often seen as a thorn in the side of the defense bar."

"Jed Rakoff does not suffer fools kindly. He can savagely dismember any lawyer who comes to his court either unprepared or intellectually ill-equipped for the task. Although not known for kindly disposition toward defendants charged with nasty crimes, he will not tolerate substandard representation of any defendant before him; he demands excellence and professionalism."

Hochheiser, a former prosecutor and immediate Past-President of the NY Criminal Bar Association, considers the Judge, "very much his own man. He is guided by his own sense of ethics, morality and rationality. He's not cowed by either the defense or the prosecution."

No one considers Rakoff's decision to be the last word on the issue. Mr. Hochheiser suggests, "I wouldn't be surprised if he considers this ruling more of an ethical or moral obligation to place his respected voice on the public record, rather than anticipating this will be accepted as prevailing law." However, it appears that Judge Rakoff has precipitated a process likely to lead to the Supreme Court and another hard look at the consitutionality of the death penalty.

Send this page to a friend

Discuss this topic in our forums, or send a letter to the editors.