More than a thousand others received summonses for curfew violations, and over 60 percent were issued to Black or Latinx people, including Maffett. But unlike many of those who were arrested, Maffett had some very powerful representation. Helen Cantwell, a white-collar partner at Debevoise and a former assistant U.S. attorney at the Southern District of New York, stepped up to serve as his defense lawyer, also offering her counsel to any other Debevoise employees arrested during the protests.

Although Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance said his office would forgo the prosecution of low-level offenses related to the protests (e.g., unlawful assembly or disorderly conduct) the charges still remain for many, and those who were arrested for breaking the emergency curfew are still fighting their charges — but not Maffett. After a series of exchanges with the New York Office of Court Administration (OCA), his charges were dismissed.

“I can’t say whether I was treated differently. But I do acknowledge that not everyone has a former prosecutor like Helen in their corner or a billion-dollar law firm at their back. It isn’t lost on me that this played a role here,” he said in an interview with the American Lawyer, where he details his experience of being arrested while protesting. “But we didn’t advocate this just for myself, but for all of those charged, because we can do something there. And because we can, I believe strongly that we should.”

In an op-ed published in the New York Law Journal, Maffett argues that all curfew-related summonses levied against peaceful protesters should be dismissed. “It does not take a law degree” to see why it would be in the interest of justice, he writes.

Protesters should not face different legal consequences just because they were out protesting during the one week the curfew was in place. This is arbitrary and does not inspire confidence in our legal system.

For far too many New Yorkers, justice has been delayed and due process has almost come to a halt. If cases are not immediately dismissed, these arrests made by the NYPD in response to the protests will only serve to exacerbate this mounting crisis. Our court system should not be clogged with cases involving these nonviolent, low-level issues, nor should everyday New Yorkers be forced to continue to pay attorney fees, take days off work, or make arrangements for child care in order to defend themselves against such claims. The city should instead focus its limited resources toward more urgent needs.

Maffett’s court documents are currently under seal, but he has disclosed them to Above the Law, with his firm’s permission. He thinks their publication is in the public’s interest because it will provide a roadmap to other lawyers working on these curfew cases to make similar arguments. They are available on the next page.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41002754)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41003460)

https://i.imgur.com/ovKwj52.jpg

https://www.debevoise.com/justinmaffett

Email: jgmaffet@debevoise.com

Justin G. Maffett

Associate

New York

Tel: +1 212 909 6956

Justin G. Maffett is a corporate associate and a member of the Financial Institutions and Banking Groups. Before joining Debevoise Mr. Maffett was a published writer and news journalist.

Mr. Maffett joined Debevoise in 2019. Mr. Maffett received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2019, where he was a member of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review and a staff editor of A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual. Mr. Maffett received an A.B. with honors from Dartmouth College in 2016. He sits on the New York City Affairs Committee of the New York City Bar Association.

Education

Columbia Law School, 2019, J.D.

Dartmouth College, 2016, A.B.

Bar Admissions

New York

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41003474)

On June 1, in response to the unrest over the death of George Floyd, Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio declared a citywide curfew in New York City. According to information provided by the NYPD, between June 1 and June 7, the NYPD arrested 1,349 people in New York City for being out after curfew, mostly individuals engaged in peaceful protest. Each peaceful protester was issued a summons charging them with violating an emergency order, a Class B misdemeanor that carries a criminal record and potential six-month prison sentence. Notably, over 60% of the curfew-related summonses in that time period were issued to Black or Latinx people. I was one of them.

Together with a team of my colleagues at Debevoise & Plimpton, I have since advocated for not only the dismissal of my own charges, but also those of the other peaceful protesters who were issued a summons for violating the curfew and have not yet had their charges dismissed. I believed then, and still believe today, that all of these charges should be dismissed in the interest of justice.

As court documents reveal, our request for dismissal was initially rebuffed by the Office of Court Administration, which claimed that the “administrative intervention of the type [we] requested is neither available nor appropriate.” Undeterred, we doubled down and reasserted our arguments. In what appears to be a change of heart, the OCA recently dismissed my charges and has apparently begun to quietly dismiss at least some of these cases in the interest of justice. While the OCA’s recent moves are certainly remarkable and highly welcomed, they are not enough.

I commend the OCA for starting the long-overdue process of dismissing these cases in the interest of justice. But in light of the court’s broad power and discretion under CPL 210.40—which empowers the court to dismiss “an indictment or any count thereof” in furtherance of justice—and for the same reasons we set forth in New York v. Maffett, the OCA should in fact categorically and expeditiously dismiss, en masse, all the remaining charges against peaceful protesters who were not accused of committing other crimes and were charged with a misdemeanor for being out after curfew.

We must remember that the purpose of the recent protests is to fight racial injustice, the same racial injustice that has historically infected the criminal justice system. Dismissing all of these charges en masse is a concrete action the OCA can take that will help remedy this history and make the criminal justice system fairer. Moreover, adopting a policy of mass dismissal would enable the OCA to align its policies with those of the city’s District Attorney’s Offices when it comes to minor charges brought against peaceful protesters.

It does not take a law degree to appreciate the compelling public policy reasons supporting the idea that such a categorical order is in the interest of justice:

First, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has already agreed not to prosecute peaceful protesters who were arrested for low-level offenses like disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. In order to be consistent and fair, it seems only right that the OCA should also dismiss charges against peaceful protesters who were arrested for violating the curfew order. It’s worth remembering that violating curfew in itself is a nonviolent offense, and protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner.

Moreover, when De Blasio issued the curfew order, he indicated support for the peaceful demonstrations protesting Floyd’s unjust death, and explained that the curfew was necessary to protect the city from violence. Using the curfew to punish nonviolent protesters—who were not the intended target of the curfew order—is contrary to the purpose of the emergency order.

Also, the unfortunate reality is that it may be difficult or prohibitively expensive for some protesters to obtain counsel, and if they choose to defend themselves, they may be uninformed and have a difficult time adequately defending themselves. It is likely many will plead guilty to these charges for the sake of expediency and lack of information about the potential negative consequences of their choice.

Protesters should not face different legal consequences just because they were out protesting during the one week the curfew was in place. This is arbitrary and does not inspire confidence in our legal system.

For far too many New Yorkers, justice has been delayed and due process has almost come to a halt. If cases are not immediately dismissed, these arrests made by the NYPD in response to the protests will only serve to exacerbate this mounting crisis. Our court system should not be clogged with cases involving these nonviolent, low-level issues, nor should everyday New Yorkers be forced to continue to pay attorney fees, take days off work, or make arrangements for child care in order to defend themselves against such claims. The city should instead focus its limited resources toward more urgent needs.

Justin Maffett is a writer, advocate and attorney at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41003938)

Very ESL op. What kind of asian are you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41004305)

Also, not for nothing, what race are most of the people at Debevoise? If the sinecure of that law form is what did it for him, then whether the firm is majority white is relevant if you're trying to argue this instance proves white privilege does not exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41005913)

https://pfnyc.org/news/letter-to-mayor-bill-de-blasio-from-nyc-business-leaders/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4635573&forum_id=2#41004323)