by online publishing company
by online publishing company
As described in the previous articles, Bergrin's trial was a government staged charade, a parade of perjurious witnesses who were well-compensated for their testimony. The government's case against Bergrin centered on the improbable notion that one of New Jersey's top criminal lawyers was actually using his law firm to plan murders and distribute narcotics. Every one of the government's witnesses were caught in numerous and sometimes comical lies, but there is no humor in the tragic outcome of this travesty.
As the defense sought to mitigate the damage, Bergrin's military service, which arguably was the impetus behind the government's zeal to exact retribution, was again an issue at sentencing. The federal sentencing guidelines allow for a downward departure for military service, but Cavanaugh refused to sentence Bergrin accordingly. Despite numerous tours of duty in Iraq, Cavanaugh stated that "nothing in the record distinguishes his military service." He continued "(It) does not rise to the level the sentencing manual suggests. Accordingly, I'm going to deny such consideration."
Lead prosecutor AUSA John Gay was determined to see Cavanaugh inflict the maximum level of harm upon Bergrin and launched into several arguments about why multiple life terms were warranted. Perhaps most absurd was his claim that Bergrin "woke up every morning trying to beat the system." Gay essentially argued that Bergrin's practice was akin to a crime family posing as a law firm. In support of this bald assertion, Gay claimed that "80% of his (Bergrin's) cases were representing gangs." He continued, "The purpose of his enterprise was to rig the system so guilty people could escape justice and commit more crimes."
Bergrin was among the first people to disclose the systematic human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Gay's pathological comments reveal, among other things, a deep disdain for the rights of the accused. The idea that Bergrin should be punished because of the government's disapproval of his clients' activities is wrong on so many levels that it defies explanation. Gay's logic would impute liability to lawyers for any future offense an acquitted client might commit. Furthermore, Gay seems to be claiming that gang members and by extension other unpopular clients are not deserving of the zealous legal representation guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment. Gay's enigmatic disapproval of lawyers like Bergrin aiding "guilty people" succinctly sums up a pathology that has become ubiquitous in U.S. attorney's offices throughout the country.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
14
10
6
