Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Another Feather in his Cap

A jury has convicted Jermaine “Maino” Nicholas in connection with the Feb. 9, 2010 murder of Charles “C.J.” King Jr. The jury convicted Nicholas of conspiracy, intimidating a witness, witness tampering and criminal facilitation.

For those who do not know, Nicholas was the person who called to alert fellow gang members searching for King the night he was killed.

Trevor “Little T” Mattis and Gary “G-Money” Griffin were previously convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Jarrin 'Phat Boy' Rankin was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Murder. He received 25 years to life in prison.

These were difficult prosecutions, especially the Nicholas case. These convictions send a powerful message to gangs and drug dealers throughout the City of Kingston and beyond. After the Rankin conviction, D.A. Carnright said, “We certainly have put a dent in the Sex Money Murder set of the Bloods, there’s no doubt about that.” Certainly the same can be said once again.


down County said...

I just got this from a Big Dem (former ) Official,

"here is the theme"

" Sennett is arrogant and has no basis to criticize Carnright for the job he has done. His only valid argument to get people to vote for him would be: I am a Liberal DA, I will be soft on crime and tough on the police. For those of you who think that is what you want then I am your man. If you believe in law and order then vote for Carnright."

Kinda sums it up, yes ?

Anonymous said...

why would anyone want to vote for sennett when carnright is doing an excellent job without a lot of blustering like sennett.

Anonymous said...

Sennett would be far from a liberal DA - he was a tough prosecutor in the Bronx - the law is the law, and Jon will uphold it. Carnright, on the other hand, has refused to prosecute several crimes (especially against women), and has cut ridiculous deals with criminals.

But for some reason, Republicans think that Democrats love to see criminals wandering the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth - I hate dirtbags as much as the next guy.

As a liberal Dem, I applaud (and voted for) Don Williams for his tough stance and long sentences. I have never heard (including Jon Sennett) decrying Williams as being too tough or too conservative.

Don't confuse a liberal's stance on social issues (e.g., gay rights, etc.) with their views on criminality. No one is a proponent of being soft on crime.

And the Big Dem (former) official who made that statement is clearly espousing HIS or HER OPINION. That doesn't mean it's true - more than likely that person was a Bradley fan. And why would Sennett's campaign theme be that he's going to be soft on crime - and think that that's how he's going to get people to vote for him?

Sounds to me like this "Big Dem (former) Official" is an idiot.

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...


I must disagree.

I like Sennett on a personal level, but he certainly would be a "Liberal D.A.".

I will illustrate with quotes taken from the Daily Freeman, a publication that is certainly left of center.

They reported that Sennett "called for legalization (of Marijuana) twice - in September on a Woodstock public-access TV interview, and again on Oct. 3 at a joint appearance before the Ulster County Police Chiefs Association at the Ulster County Law Enforcement Center."

To be perfectly fair, I will say that it was also reported that "during a Freeman interview that he (Sennett) favors 'the further decriminalization' of the drug, but he fell short of advocating its 'legalization' as he apparently had on at least two other occasions."

They also reported that "Jonathan Sennett said he supports the governor's controversial executive order to grant state driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants."

Finally, in their editorial endorsement of Holley Carnright, the Freeman said the following:

"We frankly find Sennett out of step with prevailing local mores about crime and punishment. He talks softer on issues of plea bargaining and penalties for possession of marijuana than we suspect most residents would like to hear."

When the Daily Freeman thinks someone is TOO liberal, that makes a strong statement.

Saying that Sennett is not liberal is like saying that I am not conservative. Again, I generally like Mr. Sennett on a personal level, but he is a liberal. That is, in my opinion, an undeniable fact.

Anonymous said...

I never said that Sennett wasn't a liberal - his calling for the decriminalization of marijuana is the least of our woes in Ulster County. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on marijuana when there are much more serious crimes to deal with - it's a simple matter of allocation of resources. I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't think kids should be smoking it, either (actually, I don't think anybody should be smoking it). But to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to prosecute something that's relatively innocuous is insane.

Notice how that's your ONLY example of how Jon Sennett is liberal. He's not going to let gang-bangers walk. He's not going to give pedophiles a second chance. He's not going to go "tsk tsk" to drunk drivers. Anyone who's had a decent conversation with Jon knows that he's fed up with the filth that has overtaken Kingston.

Just as important is the white collar crime that seems to permeate this county. What has Carnright done about it? He launched an investigation to the test scores at Zena. Where is that going? You and I (and most everyone else) know who the real crooks are in this county, and Carnright has given them all a free pass.

A friend of a friend was forcibly raped in New Paltz - Carnright wouldn't prosecute because she "was asking for it"! Remember the gang rape at KHS? Once again, Carnright wouldn't prosecute. What about the counselor at Cabrini who repeatedly took a 16-year-old girl off campus for sex - he got probation.

Carnright is a really nice guy - I truly like him. But he's not an aggressive DA at all. He's taking on these gang-banger cases for which a first-year law student could get a conviction.

I'm not at all impressed with his record. I'd rather a marijuana smoker walk and see a rapist in jail. Carnright is a misogynist...and ineffective.

Anonymous said...

BTW - I think Sennett's statement re: licenses to undocumented immigrants was a knee-jerk reaction to Spitzer's support of it. Though I can't speak for Jon, I'm pretty sure he's re-thought his position. However, some western states allow such licenses, and it has its pluses. Among them, it's been shown that since they're going to drive anyway, at least let them know our laws and become familiar with them so they're not totally out of control. There has been a reduction in the number of accidents with this segment of the population since that has been in effect. (I remember one time I was in Tijuana and this guy rounded a corner, creamed a parked car, backed up, and continued on his way. That's not what we need in this country.) That's why I'm an opponent of the voter-motor law - if they're not here legally, the last thing we need is illegal immigrants voting.

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...


If you think a first year law student could have won those cases, you are sadly mistaken. The evidence in the cases other than the shooter himself was very difficult.

You can take my word on that as an experienced attorney and a former prosecutor.

As for your other examples, I will deal with them one at a time based on what information I know.

The Zena investigation is still pending. You and I do not know the status because a good prosecutor does not discuss a pending investigation. It is very unfair to criticize a D.A. or claim he is doing nothing while an investigation is pending. Wait for the investigation to finish before you judge.

As for knowing who the "real crooks" are, there is a great difference between knowing and being able to prove it. A prosecutor deals with evidence and facts. A case without evidence is called a dismissal.

Next is you "asking for it" allegation. PREPOSTEROUS. If there was no prosecution, it was because there was no evidence.

As for the KHS matter, there were 6 defendants. After presentation of the evidence, the Grand Jury indicted them for Sexual Misconduct. They were all prosecuted.

Your statement that Carnright would not prosecute is simply not true. Go to the Freeman web site and enter Kingston High School rape in the search window. You can find the numerous news stories about the six prosecutions.

Third, your personal attack against Holley's character is not only wrong, but inappropriate. Keep your arguments to the facts and keep emotional outbursts out of it.

Finally, you say Holley is ineffective? Tell that to the members of "Sex, Money, Murder". They have seen four of their members sent to prison for anywhere from 25 years to life. Two of them are life without parole.

If you like Jon and want to support him, that's fine. You do not need to make false statements about Holley though. He is effective. His record speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

I am sure you are going to talk about the mayors budget soon. Heres a little food for thought. Sewer rate is going up by about 16%

They also asked for but were not granted almost $70,000.00 for a consultant. That is in addition to CAMO's contracted service.

Someone needs to look a little closer at the sewer budget.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...

Ok. ENOUGH. I will not post any more comments containing personal attacks against Holley Carnright or Jonathan Sennett.

If you want to discuss their political positions or their record, that's fine.

I have started receiving comments about each candidate's family and comments that are just beyond the pale.

Let's keep it civil folks. Both men are accomplished attorneys and should be judged on that and their philosophies concerning prosecution of criminal cases.

If you want to say someone is soft on crime, a liberal, a conservative, that's fair game. The personal crap is not, and I will post none of them.

Anonymous said...

Rich, the fact that the guys at KHS were first charged with felony rape and then convicted of misdemeanor felony assault shows that he's very willing to plea down. Now, I'm not an opponent of plea bargaining - all DAs do it. But heralding Holley as if he's a tough DA is just not accurate (of course....in my opinion). And I would NEVER go after ANY candidate's family - both positively or negatively. To project someone's ability to hold office based on their parents, spouse, kids - whatever - is unfair and inaccurate. Bad people can come from good parents, and good people can come from bad parents. I judge everyone individually, not because of their relatives. I wouldn't want it done to me. I totally agree with you to keep the personal attacks out of the argument. (But Jon Sennett will still be a better DA than Holley. LOL)

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...


I did not say you specifically attacked Holley's wife. There were posts I rejected which attacked BOTH of the candidate's spouses.

As for the KHS matter, they were not pleaded down. After reviewing the evidence, the Grand Jury indicted for misdemeanors only.

It is ultimately the choice of the Grand Jury to indict or not indict for a felony. While a DA has great input, the Grand Jury makes the call.

In the KHS case, there was one witness (victim) and multiple defendants testifying to a different account. The Grand Jury believed the victim, but only to a point.

There was nothing any DA could have done about that situation. To attack DA Carnright for that is just not fair or accurate.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there an expression that you "can get a ham sandwich indicted"? It's all in how a case is presented to the Grand Jury. The defense doesn't present anything - so the GJ only hears the prosecution's side. Maybe - just maybe (in this case I mean "more than likely") - the prosecution did a VERY bad job in presenting the case. There was a lot of physical evidence and testimony that proved that this girl was not a willing participant. Not only that, she wasn't the age of consent. It was a GANG rape, and these guys walked.

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...


Presentations to the Grand Jury are known only to the Grand Jurors, the DA presenting the case, and the Judge who reviews the transcript.

You therefore have no idea what the state of the evidence was that was presented to the Grand Jury.

I fail to see how you can make such bold statements about the evidence.

As for indicting a "ham sandwich", that is an old line from a judge. All it really means is that you cannot believe someone is guilty merely because they have been indicted.

I have actually presented cases to a Grand Jury. To the best of my knowledge, you have not. Grand Jurors will not merely indict because the DA tells them too. If the case is weak, the Grand Jurors will reject it.