Was the NYT article on Luke Heimlich “All the News That’s Fit to Print”?

Washington attorney Martin Meyer shares his response to the recent piece in the New York Times.
Those wishing further background on lawyer Meyer and his views can refer to the thread posted here on Feb 14, 2018.
Here is his article:

Epilogue: NYT 8 May 2018: “All the News That’s Fit to Print” Was it?

Any writer taking on the subject of writing about Luke Heimlich other than just his baseball skills, ought to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Washington state law, specifically its Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) as it would relate to a juvenile charged with a sex offense, the 2016 US Department of Education report (“Beyond the Box”), and the Caldwell Study Sex Offense Registration and Related Laws: Treating Youth Fairly, National Juvenile Justice Network, 2016 before undertaking an attempt to write about, let alone formulate an opinion about, this complex case.

Curiously, the NYT article was completely devoid of any content of these extremely relevant subject areas. The article was simply a regurgitation of old news made worse by the fact there was no reference to the WA JJA, the DOE report or the Caldwell study. The most important news to print wasn’t printed at all.

Washington Law: First of all, Mr. Heimlich’s record is SEALED by Court Order. Once sealed, the effect is that the proceedings in the case shall be treated as if they never occurred.  Thereafter, the subject (Mr. Heimlich) may reply accordingly about the events and records that are sealed.  See RCW 13.50.260(6)(a).

Our state constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal prosecutions and this right to a trial by jury shall remain inviolate. We have a separate system for dealing with juveniles accused of committing offenses and they are not afforded jury trials. According to our Supreme Court, Washington has been avoiding accusing and convicting juveniles of crimes for more than 100 years.

Under the Juvenile code “An order of court adjudging a child a juvenile offender or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of crime.” RCW 13.04.240. Our Supreme Court has written: Thus, “An act which would be a crime if committed by an adult is not a crime, and thus not a felony, if committed by a juvenile.” We treat youth here in Washington differently than adults charged with the same offense. We use a completely different vernacular. Our Juvenile Justice Act operates under the philosophy to rehabilitate, correct and direct errant youth.  It appears Mr. Heimlich did not require much redirection. We don’t rehabilitate youth to 95% and say “you may now resume your pursuit of life, liberty & happiness.  Oh, except you can’t play professional baseball.  Sorry.”  If that were the case, what else couldn’t he do?  Where would you draw the line in the sand?

The reason our Supreme Court denies juveniles the right to a jury trial lies in the distinction between the adult and juvenile systems. It is the rehabilitative purposes and lesser penalties of the JJA which stand in contrast to the punitive purposes and much more serious penalties of the adult criminal system. It is the nature of the penalty, not the criminal act committed that distinguishes the juvenile from the adult system. Our Supreme Court has written in justification of the denial of jury trials to juveniles as follows:

The purpose of the juvenile justice system is ostensibly to establish a system of having primary responsibility for, and responding to, the needs of offenders, as well as to hold juveniles responsible for their offenses. The critical distinction between the two systems lies in the Juvenile Justice Act of 1997’s (JJA) policy of responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. We have in the past found such a policy as rehabilitative in nature, whereas the criminal system is punitive. Such difference has led us to consistently conclude the right to jury trial does not extend to juveniles adjudicated in juvenile proceedings.

This highlights the complexities an accused juvenile faces. Especially in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence is nothing more than “he said” “she said.” The principle function of a jury is to find facts, not determine punishment. Our Supreme courts answer to this is, if a juvenile wants a jury trial, then they can decline Juvenile court jurisdiction and be tried as an adult. The trouble with this is if convicted, one would face the consequences an adult would receive.

This further complicates the difficulties of a 15 year old accused of a sex offense faces. Although the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is the same in an adult criminal proceeding as in a juvenile offender proceeding, it is not the same standard of proof. Who would you want to decide your fate? A jury of one judicial officer wearing a black robe or a jury of 12 of your peers who must be unanimous in their decision?

So yes, youth do often plead guilty to things they didn’t do to avoid likely much worse consequences. And yes, false accusations exist. The Department of Education report references plea bargains and collateral consequences for anyone who would care to read the report.

Beyond the Box: Finally, this notion that Luke Heimlich is “controversial” needs to be put to rest. He is just one of thousands of youth across this country who have been involved with the justice system. I’ve already answered the question of whether or not he’s “paid his debt” above. However, I can’t ignore this quote from Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. from the Eastern District of the United States District Court of New York speaking at a national summit on lowering barriers of access of adult ex convicts to housing, securing public benefits, employment, etc. “If you borrow money from a bank and you pay it off, your debt is forgiven. If you get convicted of a crime in the criminal justice system, be it federal or state, you pay for the rest of your life.” With understanding and a little compassion, it’s time to turn the tide.

The best advice I could glean from the DOE report regarding admissions counselors making decisions to admit a justice involved individual for enrollment in their institution was this quote from p.28 of the report: “Perhaps the most powerful tool an admissions counselor or officer can have is the ability to use his or her own human experience in assessing the person behind the paper. Institutions should seek to create an admissions process that respects human dignity and is fair and equitable by design.” Why shouldn’t this also be true for landlords considering an applicant for housing, or an applicant for employment, i.e. major league baseball?

This is the second article I have tendered for public consideration regarding the Heimlich case. Though I have been happy to provide my thinking as a kind of amicus curiae (friend of the court of public opinion) it is truly unfortunate that OSU, other than Coach Casey, has failed to offer such information or the full range of support that Mr. Heimlich deserves as a student athlete especially in light of their newly announced policy increasing their commitment to student success. There was so much more that was fit to print.