Cuomo's 'Gay Panic' Ban Would Limit Defense, Lawmakers Say
Assemblyman Joe Lentol, a Democrat from Brooklyn who chairs the chamber's codes committee, told the New York Law Journal on Wednesday that both houses agreed to reject the Democratic governor's proposal because it would place limits on the types of defense an attorney could argue and because it would “carve out” one class of cases from the reasonableness test.
March 21, 2018 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
ALBANY—A proposal by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to ban so-called gay and trans panic defense strategies was not included in the Senate and Assembly's budget proposals because it would place limits on defense strategies, according to a key lawmaker.
Assemblyman Joe Lentol, a Democrat from Brooklyn who chairs the chamber's codes committee, told the New York Law Journal on Wednesday that both houses agreed to reject the Democratic governor's proposal because it would place limits on the types of defense an attorney could argue and because it would “carve out” one class of cases from the reasonableness test.
The proposal unveiled by the governor in mid-February would have prohibited a defendant from being able to ask a jury to find a harmed individual's gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation to blame for the defendant's violent reaction. Defendants who use the so-called gay panic defense argue that the discovery of a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity can incite a panic or violent reaction.
In a news release announcing his proposal, Cuomo mentioned the 2013 death of Islan Nettles, a transgender woman who died after being beaten by James Dixon, who was flirting with the victim on a Harlem street and became enraged upon being told by his friends that she was transgender. Dixon pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 12 years behind bars. Nettles' family and advocates argued that Dixon received a lenient sentencing because his attorneys presented a trans panic defense.
Lentol added that juries seldom get instructions to consider gay or trans panic defenses from judges and that attorneys should have the discretion to use the strategy “when necessary.”
Eric Lesh, executive director of the LGBT Bar Association of New York, said in an email that gay and trans panic defenses have “absolutely no place in our justice system and should be kept out of the courtroom.”
“Banning these harmful defenses will help to curb explicit anti-LGBT bias in open court. But this is not enough. There is still the very real possibility that subconscious or implicit bias can find its way into the courtroom and affect the outcome of a case,” Lesh added. “The challenge of addressing implicit bias, however, is no reason to oppose efforts to ban these victim-blaming defenses.”
While a spokesman for the Republican-led state Senate did not comment on why the chamber rejected the governor's proposal, it's still subject to budget negotiations between the executive, senate and the assembly. A final fiscal plan for the upcoming fiscal year is due by April 1.
While it appears that both houses of the Legislature declined include the governor's proposal in their budgets, the LGBT Bar Association of New York will continue to “educate the legal community” and elected officials on the perils of using gay and trans defense strategies, Lesh said. Judges can also “refuse to admit evidence and arguments that attempt to invoke gay or trans 'panic.' Attorneys should object to the introduction of evidence designed to support these claims,” he added.
Efforts to reach the New York Criminal Bar Association were not immediately successful. Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell, a New York City Democrat, carries a legislation that would ban trans and gay panic defenses. O'Donnell, a former public defender at the Legal Aid Society, did not reply to request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
New York City Settles Wrongful Conviction Suit for $9.45 Million
US Judge Told Archegos Founder Can't Afford What Defense Says Is 'Unjustified' $10 Billion Restitution
Trending Stories
- 1Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 2Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 3European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 4UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 5For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250