Thursday, May 07, 2009

Rosen Versus Sotomayor: The Footnote Question

Jeff Rosen's recent piece in The New Republic attributing criticism of Judge Sotomayor to unnamed prosecutors and clerks for other Second Circuit judges has itself come in for quite a good deal of criticism (quoted with links here). I suppose reasonable people can differ over some of Rosen's methods but there is one aspect of the article that appears to bespeak inexplicable laziness on Rosen's part. I'm NOT talking about Rosen's disclaimer that he hadn't read enough of Judge Sotomayor's opinions to form an independent judgment about the quality of her work. That struck me as a fair admission; if the story were otherwise newsworthy, then it would be legitimate to run it with the disclaimer that it is a piece about what people say about her work, rather than an independent analysis thereof.

The seemingly inexplicable error is the following statement in Rosen's article:
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
Yet, as Darren Hutchinson nicely explains (here), Judge Winter's footnote does not at all say that Judge Sotomayor misstated the law. The footnote says that lawyers were misrepresenting the Sotomayor decision in a way that made it look like it overruled a line of cases without mentioning that line of cases. Indeed, Judge Winter's footnote is not subtle about this. It rejects a proposed reading of the Samaria case (written by Judge Sotomayor) as standing "for the proposition that a conscious avoidance instruction is per se error in a conspiracy case where the substantive offense underlying the conspiracy charge requires proof of specific intent." Such a reading of Samaria, Judge Winter says,
would attribute to it the overruling of a long-standing line of cases in this circuit holding that, while evidence of conscious avoidance cannot support a finding that a defendant knowingly participated in or joined the conspiracy, it may support a finding that a defendant knew of the unlawful objectives of the conspiracy.
It's crystal clear, is it not, that Judge Winter is chiding the advocacy, not the judges who decided the Samaria case? This is so elemental, as Hutchinson notes, that one gets the feeling that Rosen himself must be incompetent.

Until one reads the Samaria case, which I did. Sure enough, Judge Sotomayor's opinion in that case does pretty much what Rosen says that Winter says (but Winter doesn't actually say) it does: It gives the impression "that a conscious avoidance instruction is per se error in a conspiracy case where the substantive offense underlying the conspiracy charge requires proof of specific intent." In particular, Judge Sotomayor's opinion in the Samaria case says:
Even assuming that the conscious avoidance instruction given to the jury in this case was proper, any such inference could do no more than establish Elaiho's knowledge of the criminal endeavor, not his specific intent to participate in the crimes charged.
Is that an inadvertent misstatement of the law that misled lawyers? I think probably not, but I could see how someone else might think it was.

Here's my entirely speculative hypothesis: Someone who was a law clerk for Judge Winter when the Juncal case (containing the footnote) was decided thought at the time that Samaria misstated the law, and this Winter law clerk had an unfavorable view of Judge Sotomayor. He or she urged Judge Winter to drop a footnote that would disavow the language from Samaria. Judge Winter did so, but not in a way that chided Judge Sotomayor. Now, eight years later, the former Winter law clerk pointed Rosen to the Juncal footnote as evidence of Sotomayor's supposed incompetence, perhaps forgetting that as written, the footnote assigns all blame to the lawyers rather than to Judge Sotomayor. Rosen then cited the footnote without bothering to read it.

Perhaps, however, Rosen actually read Samaria and concluded for himself that it misstated the law. But if so, then he should have said that as his own point, rather than misattributing the charge to Judge Winter, who clearly does not make it in his Juncal footnote. So either Rosen didn't read or didn't understand the Juncal footnote, or he did read and understand it but chose to mischaracterize it as a means of putting his own substantive point in the mouth of Judge Winter. Pick your poison.

Posted by Mike Dorf


Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Thanks for the analysis. I think you are probably too generous regarding possible misreadings of Samaria, but I have thought about this and other possiblities myself. I have also read the footnote a dozen times trying to make sure that I had not missed something.

Jamison Colburn said...

And Neal Katyal's role in all of this is what, exactly?

Alex said...

I have read both the Samaria case and footnote from Judge Winter's opinion, and I am having difficulty understanding why anyone (especially a law professor) would suggest that Sotomayor's opinion misstated the law in the 2d Circuit. Indeed, I think a more accurate description of the footnote is that it mischaracterizes (and that would be putting it charitably) the discussion in Samaria. The discussion about conscious avoidance in Samaria has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the evidence. (See Samaria ("Because we find that the government has not presented evidence sufficient to prove the requisite specific intent, we need not reach the further issue of whether conscious avoidance could have been inferred from this evidence, and, if so, whether the jury was properly instructed."))

In short, all Sotomayor did was explain that even if the evidence established that the defendant acted with conscious avoidance, that is not enough to establish that the defendant acted "intentionally." And that was nothing more than a reiteration of 2d Circuit law. (See Samaria's citation to United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 547 n.1 (2d Cir. 1984)).

Joe said...

I might be wrong, but the "arguendo" sort of reference that "confused" people here seems rather typical. The SC repeatedly says "even if you are right, you still lose." This doesn't mean it is saying the assumed thing is law.

Rosen promoted ignorance here.

best-tutor said...


very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you"

good site


酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...


狗熊克星 said...


的賽事讓他有點精疲力盡,「我試著揮棒時能掌握住每一顆球」。A-Rod歸隊後所敲出的4支安打中,有2跳蚤局的再見全壘打3比2獲勝,連三場靠著再蛀蟲個戲劇性的結局,是洋基37年以來首度連三場螞蟻基教頭吉拉迪(Joe Girardi)在洋基拿下五連勝之後告訴記者:「太棒了,我以前從沒遇過這樣的三連勝,過去消毒昨天擊出再見一擊的功臣是十一局轟


參加大陸新娘仲介的人都是以結婚為前題的參與,跟據資深的大陸新娘介紹,地許多人都娶大陸新娘介紹,因為到了例假日許多遊客,老公要做生意,這些越南新娘介紹以及其它的外籍新娘介紹都會很乖的在家帶小孩,把家裡打理的很好,所以大家口耳相傳,大部份人都娶大陸新娘仲介,她們把家鄉的美食好手藝教他們的朋友,越南新娘仲介除了賣烤香腸外,還賣很多種好吃他的越南新娘介紹朋友要她堅持只要女兒監護權,不要贍養費,靠著越南新娘仲介的友人幫助,從路邊攤起家賣家鄉美食,3年前買下店面,每天他的外籍新娘仲介的朋友會來幫忙,正午12點剛過,店內常已擠滿大陸新娘介紹,位於三峽鎮長安橋頭好可口小吃店,無論魯肉飯、魚飯好吃,在客人口耳相傳下,不僅外籍新娘介紹同鄉,連來其它大陸新娘仲介和的東西可以賣給外籍新娘仲介,三重報導 外籍新娘介紹努力向上,三重有一個外籍新娘仲介,他在越南是一土風舞的教練,他雖然來台灣當大陸新娘介紹,但是他一樣努力向上他為了讓土風舞的美讓台灣人都知道於是在公園教大陸新娘仲介呂氏一起跳,就這她們樣變成好姐妹囉,越南新娘介紹也因為如此就這樣的越來越多人的加入越南新娘仲介一起跳舞時感覺真的非常的優雅連

Cheapwowgold said...

However, if you have the time or expertise, have to do all these tasks, it suddenly becomes more logical, RS Gold specialized farmers. WOW Gold Eu, various items, including horses and battle to buy equipment.