Over at Doug Berman's sentencing blog, there is this interesting discussion about whether asking the sentencing judge to perform a wedding service could be a sneaky sentencing ploy.
Berman quotes a Washington Post article as follows:
A former State Department officer has a proposal for U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee: Before the judge sentences him on child pornography charges, he wants Lee to perform his wedding ceremony. Lee is considering the highly unusual request, under which Gons Gutierrez Nachman, 42, would tie the knot with his 21-year-old Brazilian fiancee in the same Alexandria federal courtroom where he admitted having sex with three underage girls while posted overseas.
Prosecutors are not forever holding their peace. "The government objects," they wrote the judge Wednesday. "The defendant's request, in the government's view, attempts to shift the focus away from the very serious criminal offenses for which he will be sentenced."...
Legal ethicists said the judge should have strenuously objected. "It would show very poor judgment for the court to perform this ceremony or even to entertain the possibility," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. "He should have shot this down as soon as they asked. He's not there to perform weddings; he's there to send a man to jail." "I suspect that in 232 years of American history," Gillers added, "it's never happened that a [federal] judge has performed a marriage ceremony for a defendant awaiting sentencing in a serious felony case in his own court."
Professor Gillers is a very well-known legal ethicist. That what makes me reluctant to disclose that, in about 2004, as a federal judge, I performed a wedding service for a young defendant after I sentenced him for being a felon in possession of a firearm. As I recall, I consulted with the prosecution and court security staff to ensure that no one objected. The bride then came to court in her wedding gown, along with family and friends, and I performed the service. The bride and groom then kissed, and the marshals then took the defendant back to begin serving his (roughly) 18 month prison term.
I thought it was important to honor the request for the defendant for the service because I thought it would improve his prospects for rehabilitation if he knew he had lovely wife willing to wait for him. Perhaps it would have seemed like more of a "ploy" if the defendant was facing an extremely long prison terms, as child pornographers typically are.
I think we can leave this issue (like many others) to the sound discretion of trial court judges.
Legal ethics aside, I cannot fathom the stupidity of asking a sentencing judge to perform the wedding service, in which the bride is barely an adult, when the crime in question is child pornography.
The money quote, from "The African Queen":
"By the authority vested in me by Kaiser William II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution."
I believe that under the principles Justice Kennedy enunciated in Lawrence v. Texas, citations to movies must be acceptable in American courts--and any judge who decides to help a defendant before him tie the knot (too bad hanging has gone out of style) can simply cite the above line as authority.
I'll say though that the foreground case in question makes one uneasy; it does seem possible that performing a marriage could influence the sitting judge, and ought to be rejected on that ground. At a minimum, the judge should sentence first, then and only then even entertain a request to perform a marriage ceremony, which would dispel at least most of the potential bad odor.
As for the making of monkey "eeewww" noises about the general case of an adult marrying another consenting adult, I can only say, "Grow up." The alleged disgusting nature of the defendant is irrelevant to the matter.
I hope nobody beat me to this reference.
I do think the offense involved and the potential sentence are relevant. A good judge knows the difference between when he's sentencing someone with a real chance to turn his life around (as in Paul Cassell's example) and when he's sentencing someone to forever keep them from harming society again.
I agree that this should rest with the sound discretion of the court, but I do think the judge should have firmly and promptly rejected the request.
But I wonder... is it possible the defendant was trying to garner grounds for recusal of the judge? If the judge were to pointedly refuse to do the wedding on the grounds of his bride's age and the similarity thereto to his crimes, might the defendant not then claim that this showed an extra-judicial prejudice against him?
If you are ever in Key Largo you can see the true and authentic African Queen used in the movie, in the grounds of the local Holiday Inn. It's not far from the place where Key Largo was filmed, now a bar. Mildly interesting attractions both, not worth a big detour.
Mere coincidence. Obviously. Clearly. No two ways about it.
/sarcasm
"Alleged?" If there is a sentencing hearing, wasn't he convicted? When does the nature stop being "alleged" and become just "nature"?
Seamus 3:42 I don't think federal judges can marry people; my judge was a retired state judge who was on the federal bench, and we had conversations about his ability to marry people based on state judge status.
Judges regularly have to decide whether a defendant's behavior or words are genuine or whether they are a ploy to curry favor. This is no different.
i'm not so sure how one would manage this. a rule 38 stay of execution of sentence with custody being retained by the court until the ceremony is performed? if the judge needed to take some time consider the request would the time spent awaiting the judges decision be credited for the sentence, and if so how?
I hope so. Otherwise, Justice Thomas couldn't have married Rush Limbaugh at Thomas's Virginia home back in the '90s.
"Eeeuw" (note spelling) is not a monkey noise, monkeys are not known for feeling or expressing moral disapproval of the actions of other monkeys -- they're the Libertarians of the Animal Kingdom --, and anyone who thinks a convicted three-time pedophile is only "alleged[ly] disgusting" (emphasis added) needs to think again.
Most important, I said nothing about "the general case of an adult marrying another consenting adult" or even the general case of an adult marrying another consenting adult half his (or her) age. I was only criticizing this particular defendant. Similarly, it doesn't bother me in the least that people produce, direct, and star in slasher movies, but I would think that most of would say "Eeeuw" or "Ick" or make some equivalent comment if O. J. Simpson ever decided to do so. Wouldn't you? To take another example, a convicted rapist should probably avoid going into the BD/SM business, especially on the Sadism side: again, I'm surely not the only one who would find that disturbing.
Clarence Thomas married Rush Limbaugh way back in the '90s? How'd they keep that out of the tabloids until now?
theobromophile:
Now you've proved that you can type faster than me (than I?).
Family Code 400:
A better question: what 21 year old woman would want to marry a man twice her age when that man is about to be sent off to the federal pen for child pornography?
A better answer: a Brazilian national who wants to get a green card, but doesn't exactly want to live with the creepy old porno freak, and won't have to worry about that since he's off to the federal pen for many years!
[And yes, he can petition for her from federal prison; and yes, she can get a green card through him as long as they can show the marriage is bona fide; and no, they won't have to prove that they have a sexual relationship in order for her to get a green card unless conjugal visits are authorized; she'd simply need to find someone to file an affidavit of support promising to support her in the United States since prison wages won't meet 125% of the poverty guidelines. Sounds like the perfect immigration scam! If Judge Gerald Bruce Lee falls for this, I've got some land in Florida I'd like to talk to him about ...]
M. Nachman ( the defendant) used to work at the State Department in Brazil and probably met the bride while posted to Brazil (and having sex with underage females, in fact given that she's 21 now, she would have been 16 when she met him, the same age as the minor he had sex with in Brazil... . And given the nature of his offenses, if she wanted so desperately to get a green card she could probably have had sex with him then in exchange for it.
Further, if she is the same minor he admitted to having relations with in Brazil, then she certainly wouldn't object to him being a porno freak - she is the same probably the same type of porno freak (those people who aren't into it usually object when they see the video camera in the bedroom).
Best money spent ever.
In a brief answer to other criticisms, I'll say that I regret not having taken the time to make my answer more complete and explicitly detailed, rather than relying so much on implied context. For example, I should have said "... the general case of an adult marrying another consenting adult who is much younger ...". Be that as it may. Also, "eeewww" or "eeeuw" or however it is spelt evokes the same concept, even if monkeys or other primates do not exhibit disgust at sexual couplings, but only at rotten or otherwise inedible comestibles or bad odors (as far as I know). It's not meant to be interpreted so literally.
It's frankly hard to define disgusting anyway, since that's a value judgment. I find stewed monkey heads disgusting, but it's considered a delicacy in parts of the world. Left unsaid in this posting, or in the link's posting, or in other branching links which I followed before growing tired of the hunt, is exactly what was considered "child pornography". Making videos of five year olds performing lewd acts at the urging of morally sick adults? Taking a picture of a naked willing girl who was exactly seventeen years and eleven months and twenty nine days old? I'm very suspicious of any conviction on charges of alleged "child pornography", given how terribly that concept has been abused, especially in the United States in the last twenty years.
For that matter, if I'm reading this right, how did sex with "underage" girls translate into "child pornography" charges, rather than statutory rape charges? Exactly how "underage" were these girls, and in what country? What were the laws on age(s) of consent in that country? There are many questions here, which I suppose aren't germane to the main question, which was the ethical status of granting a request to perform a marriage ceremony for a defendant convicted of an icky criminal act.
At least in California, federal judges can perform marriages.
So who would you rather see perform a same-sex marriage, Barbara Boxer or Governor Schwarzenegger? (Maybe he could terminate it.)
Sorry for straying a bit off-topic, but these are issues I've thought about every since Prof. Volokh mentioned to me Germany's low age of consent, and ever since my German girlfriend confirmed it. Eeewwww, indeed.
Jay:
Clarence Thomas married Rush Limbaugh way back in the '90s? How'd they keep that out of the tabloids until now?
</blockquote>
VRWC?
1. Plea bargaining -- I'm no lawyer, but surely child pornography is the lesser charge of the two.
2. Underage partners may be unwilling to testify, even more so than adult victims of sex crimes, particularly if their parents don't wish them to do so. If the man took pictures, a charge of child pornography allows for prosecution without the victims' participation.
3. Though the story says he admitted to sex with underage girls, the pictures may be the only physical evidence. Perhaps they were found on his PC or in his camera after his return to the U.S. and there was no way to track down the girls. If that is so, the girls must have been very young for photos to be evidence, since age is difficult to judge from physical appearance.
I note that Crafty Hunter omits to mention that the man admitted to having sex with three different underage girls. One instance could be explained away as a mistake -- some girls look a lot older than they are, and men don't necessarily check the age of consent for every country they visit -- or even a momentary lapse, but three strongly suggests that sex with children was exactly what the man wanted.
Three minors in this case is indicative of nothing. 3 out a few hundred if those represent all of the minors he had sex with during his career, is nothing. 3 identifiable as minors out of a dozen identifiable of those few hundred is indicative of at least a tendency towards sex with children. 3 confirmed as minors out of 150 who appear to be minors but were not confirmed and several dozen others who don't appear to be minors strongly suggests that sex with minors is what he was looking for. But without going through his diary and reviewing his tape collection and photograph albums it would be hard to say one way or another if sex with minors was incidental or the primary purpose.
Seamus 3:42 The entire book of Seamus is missing from my copy of the Bible. Is it perhaps apocryphal?
As an avid racing yachtsman and oftimes ships captain (in international waters, no less), I take the precaution of informing all people aboard that any marriages I perform are valid only for the duration of voyage. So far, no complaints!
I also, for various safety reasons too boring to enumerate herein, require all gamblers and fancy women to identify themselves to me immediately upon boarding.
- Gavin
That really depends on what the "child pornography" is. The 18 year old with pictures of a 17 year old is a much different case from the 30 year old/11 year old. They're not even comparable. With ages 14,16,17,we're talking 2/3 that are likely not crimes if they're done inside a random state in the US. This guy sounds like he'd be a father's nightmare in low-age of consent states, not a child rapist/pornographer
1st, since 2003 it has been illegal for US citizens to have sex with anyone under the age of 16 in foreign countries. So sex which is legal in most parts of the US, is illegal if US citizens conduct it outside the US.
2nd, the marriage will be recognized as valid for just about all purposes. In some jurisdictions although you may be recognized as married, you will not be able to exercise "marital privilege" with a 14y.o.. Even though you will not meet many states' laws for an acceptable marriage for most purposes a marriage performed in Germany is considered legal (it is actually set by treaty). HOWEVER, German law requires that for the marriage of a non-national to be valid it must be valid under the laws of the non-national with regards to age of consent, so if you are from a state which does not allow 14y.o.s to consent to marry or requires parental permission for 14y.o.s to marry (I think all of them which allow 14y.0.s to marry except Co.), your German marriage would not be considered valid by Germany and thus not in the US.
Thanks for the info. Fascinating stuff (although, based on what you wrote, there do seem to be pretty strong policy reasons for just about everything you said.)
Not true at all.
"Childhood" is relative. Consider that, if this guy is having sex with 15-year-old girls, there is a 27-year age difference. With a 21-year-old bride, there is an age difference of 21 years. Indistinguishable.
I'm in my late 20s. I was pretty old for 21 at that age - a lot of people said that I acted like I was 30. Nevertheless, I've changed (and watched my friends change) a great deal over the past several years, especially with regards to men. Girls who are barely over 20 are a lot different than those who are older - more forgiving, less able to see the signs, less willing to just walk away and tell the guy to shove it - making them more attractive targets to exploitive men.
Now, let's throw some more facts from this marriage on top of it. She's foreign. She may not speak the language. She may not have family here. She's stuck in the marriage until she can get a green card. She is as vulnerable as a teenage girl.
Don't take this the wrong way... but only lawyers are dense enough to argue like that. A bit of common sense here, folks: we aren't debating whether or not this is a Romeo &Juliet situation, where he was convicted of having sex with a woman a year his junior and is now marrying a woman two years his junior; it's a middle-aged man who exploited young women and is now marrying a young woman. The question is NOT how we, objectively, think about a a 15-year-old marrying v. a 21-year-old marrying; the question is how a middle-aged man looks at women that age.
Look, in order to not think that the marriage is wrong, you have to really, really believe that this guy would marry her even if she were 50. If you believe that, well, I have some waterfront property to sell you.
He did it before, shooting Sharon Stone in Total Recall:
"Consider zat a divorce."
Thanks for the info about Mr. Gons-zo.
It is interesting how carried away some people get when they get a bit of power and, in the process, lose their bearings. I lived in Africa for a time and I can confirm that some men simply lose their minds in the conditions sur place [i.e. the condition of being able to have women as you please]. I saw guys completely lose their heads during my stay. And for some it is simply a lifestyle. In Madagascar, there are plenty of European retirees who buy a small house and car, spend each night on a terrace drinking rum, and have sex with more women than there are comments on this post.
Mr. Gons really went off the deep end in the number and nature of his activities. If the guy could have had a little more self control, it sounds like he had set himself up with a lifestyle that corresponded to his desires [the ethics of sleeping with international women as a State Dept. employee aside]. Instead of just going on his persona, he had to abuse his position and go underage. Really just foolish.
On another note, seems that Gons is also a Samba dancing enthusiast - having prepped his moves in DC before his move to Brazil.
Quote:
"I'm going to work in Brazil in May. And, I've always loved Brazilian culture and Brazilian music. And, I think it's a wonderful way to introduce myself to the country," said Gons Nachman. [Learning to dance at the former DC Brazilian-American Cultural Institute - see: http://www.nbc4.com/gethealthy4life/9219973/detail.html]
Another aspect of his photography:
Tico Times: Views from Africa
Gons Gutierrez Nachman, U.S. Foreign Service Officer posted to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as a political officer from November 2003 to October 2005, will present over 90 digital photos, a series of still photos, and a video on Central Africa at El Observatorio tonight at 9 p.m. The photos depict scenes of daily life in the cities of Kinshasa, Boma, and Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as U.N. peacekeepers and displaced people from the Ituri region. There will also be photos of children from Angola and Mozambique. The video will show traditional and modern Congolese dancers, the acclaimed Congolese singer Papa Wemba, scenes from Kinshasa, and a canoe trip to villages along the Congo River in Kisangani. The photo exhibit and video will remain at El Observatorio, in front of Cine Magaly, Barrio La California.
Lastly, I do find it heartening that the State Department will hire people who, as law students, 'led demonstrations involving public nudity.' http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1346425
I guess he didn't join the others for the Naked Bike Ride in our Nation's capital yesterday - a protest against oil dependency.
Did they? I remember reading about that in a bunch of sources, including Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot
I probably should have looked it up before asking my question. In fact, federal judges can perform weddings in Virginia: "Any . . . senior or retired federal judge or justice who is a resident of the Commonwealth may celebrate the rites of marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth without the necessity of bond or order of authorization." Va. Code ยง 20-25. (Note that this authority is entirely a creation of state law; federal judges don't have any inherent power to officiate at weddings.)