Lawyer threatened with contempt in child porn case

A federal judge says an inaccurate motion filed by the defense attorney in a criminal case involving child pornography is “worthy of contempt of Court.”

Attorney John Freeman represents Craig Aleo, a former administrator in Walled Lake Schools, who was convicted of child pornography involving a four year old child and sentenced to 60 years in prison last month. The mother of the victim in the case testified at the sentencing hearing for Aleo and gave what is called a victim impact statement for the court to consider when deciding a sentence.

Prior to that testimony, Freeman filed a motion with the court demanding that the prosecutors turn over the contents of that victim impact statement to him so that he could prepare a response. He claimed that such disclosure was required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

Judge Bernard Friedman disagrees, saying in a ruling rejecting the motion, “The Court feels, very strongly, that Defendant’s motion is unwarranted, baseless, and worthy of contempt of Court.” And then he got blunt:

Freeman’s motion serves solely as a blatant attempt to intimidate the minor victim’s mother. Freeman states in the motion that he seeks to ascertain the content of the victim’s mother’s statement, in advance, so that he may “appropriately respond.” He states that he wants to determine, in advance, whether there will be a legal basis to challenge the introduction of
potentially impermissible material by the victim’s mother at his sentencing. Freeman should know that his client does not have a right to respond to a statement pursuant to the CVRA, and Freeman’s intention to do so makes a mockery of the CVRA, as it is clearly meant to intimidate and harass the victim’s mother prior to her statutorily protected moment in Court.

Judge Friedman points out that language cited from the CVRA in the motion filed by Freeman — that the victim’s testimony should only be heard “in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of the defendant or the orderly administration of justice” — cannot be found anywhere in that law. A search of the text of that law confirms the judge’s allegations.

The Detroit News reports that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has come to Freeman’s defense, filing an amicus brief with the court:

“The possibility of someone being sanctioned or held in contempt for aggressively and properly representing their client is very scary,” Feinberg said Friday. The association “needs to make sure lawyers are free to aggressively represent their clients.”

But it seems unlikely that “properly representing their client” could possibly include citing statutory text that does not exist. Here’s the full text of the court’s ruling:

court ruling