Ex-San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin Appointed Director of Berkeley Law's new Criminal Law & Justice Center

Chesa Boudin graduated Yale Law School in 2011. After two judicial clerkships bracketing a year as a post-doc fellow (!!??) at the San Francisco DA's office and several years practicing criminal law as a public defender, he ran successfully for San Francisco DA as a left-wing anti-racist reformist candidate. His tenure as DA was such a disaster that San Francisco voters recalled him by a 55% majority vote in June 2022.

I'm sure we're all happy to know that Chesa landed on his feet. Berkeley Law School has announced that he will be the founding executive director of Berkeley Law's new Criminal Law & Justice Center:

"Since coming to Berkeley Law, I have wanted to create a criminal law and justice center to further advance the important work of our tremendous faculty and clinics in this area," Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says. "I am delighted to launch the center and that Chesa Boudin will be its first executive director. Chesa was chosen after a national search and has substantial experience across the criminal justice system. He has thought deeply about the system, and I cannot think of anyone better to create and direct this important center."

Just in case it seems like Boudin may not be the best possible candidate for the position, the Berkelely Law press release assures readers that he has a "lifetime of experience." How so, given that he is only twelve years out of law school?

Boudin's parents, former members of the radical political group Weather Underground, spent more than six combined decades in prison for participating in a 1981 Brinks truck robbery that led to the death of two police officers and a security guard. Boudin was 14 months old at the time. His mother was released on parole after being incarcerated for 22 years, his father after 40.

"Led to the death." Hmmm. Anyway, lest you think that this is the mere awkward musings of a pr flak, Boudin agrees:

I wanted a job that draws on three personal and professional experiences that have been defining for me: a lifetime of direct experience with my biological parents spending 62 combined years in prison, my career as a public defender doing direct service work through individual client representation where I saw the everyday injustices of our so-called justice system, and my time in elected office where I focused on broader system change.

I certainly don't think we should disqualify people from academic positions because of their parents' actions. But the notion that having parents incarcerated for felony murder is a qualification to run an academic center is… interesting.

But wait, we also learn that Angela Davis endorses him! Then again, Davis herself narrowly escaped an almost-certainly deserved long prison term for her role in a courthouse takeover that resulted in multiple murders. So it's not surprising that she likes incompetent prosecutors. It might be a bit more surprising that Berkeley Law does.

Comments

[Martinned]

Yale University (BA, JD), St Antony's College, Oxford (MS, MPhil)

Well yes, I agree. These kinds of academic jobs should be reserved for actual PhDs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

After two judicial clerkships bracketing a year as a post-doc fellow (!!??)

What is the “!!??” supposed to relate to?

How so, given that he is only twelve years out of law school?

Are you ready to be really scandalized? I heard there was a law school on the East Coast that once hired someone who was only four years out of law school!

[David Bernstein]

(1) I never heard of a DA's office having post-doc fellows.
(2) I'm not scandalized he's 12 years out of law school. But being 12 years out of law school is inconsistent with having a "lifetime of experience" in criminal justice matters, unless we count, as he and Berkeley do, having criminal parents.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I never heard of a DA’s office having post-doc fellows.

This was pretty common in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, as austerity measures and a glut of new graduates put constraints on traditional hiring. I know plenty of ~2010-14 graduates who spent a year doing something similar before a normal position became available.

[Social Justice is neither]

Hired someone, put them in charge after they single handedly drove a major increase in criminality in a major city; I can see why you cannot draw a distinction.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm anything but an admirer of Chesa Boudin, and I don't doubt that, to the extent his center has any influence at all, it will be for ill. I just think attacking him for "only" having 12 years of experience practicing law seems like a weird angle.

[SKofNJ]

As I understand the article, Prof. Bernstein only attacked the notion that 12 years as a lawyer constitutes a lifetime of experience.

[VinniUSMC]

Hardly surprising.

[Mr. Bumble]

Working hard to further corrupt the practice of law.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Berkeley Law employees a professor who at the very least committed extremely grave professional misconduct and at the worst war crimes in coming up with sociopathic and illegal justifications for torture. I don't think Boudin will do as much damage to their reputation as that. (At least not in the eyes of people who care about things like "the law" and "basic human decency.")

[Ed Grinberg]

Both “the law” and “basic human decency” took a big hit during Mr. Boudin’s tenure as San Francisco DA. (Even “liberals” noticed!)

[Martinned]

Just so that we keep a proper sense of proportion, LTG was talking about John Yoo.

Speaking of which, it seems like an interesting question whether he is guilty of conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. The issue isn't so much the crimes, which are obvious, but the conspiracy.

Here is what the Rome Statute says in art. 25:

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

There are others who know more than I do about the travaux preparatoires of art. 25 (i.e. more than zero). But it seems like a non-obvious question to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares about the Rome Statute.

[circleglider]

Nobody cares about the Rome Statute except pretend lawyers living in pretend worlds.

Which pretty much includes everyone with any connection to Erwin Chemerinsky.

[Savagely Average]

My impression is that Yoo’s legal memos were primarily intended to provide US personnel with legal cover for things they had already done rather than facilitating future acts.

[Martinned]

That seems like a key issue, indeed. They can't very well be said to be facilitating or contributing to anything if the underlying crime already happened.

[John F. Carr]

I do not know how the ICC interprets the intent requirements for what American law would call conspiracy or aiding and abetting. If he believed the conduct was legal, is he still guilty?

But it's a hypothetical. The Rome Statute applies to conduct by nationals of a signatory or on the territory of a signatory. The United States, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia have not accepted jurisdiction. Afghanistan did in 2003, after the initial roundup of suspected terrorists.

[John F. Carr]

I found the answer later in the Rome Statute:

Article 32 – Mistake of fact or mistake of law
1. A mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility only if it negates the mental element required by the crime.
2. A mistake of law as to whether a particular type of conduct is a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility. A mistake of law may, however, be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility if it negates the mental element required by such a crime, or as provided for in article 33.

Article 33 says the "only following orders" defense is available except in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity, or when the person knows that the order is unlawful. Crimes against humanity refers to crimes against the civilian population, not mistreatment of combatants.

Suppose the ICC rules that playing Celine Dion is a crime against humanity. A person who is ordered to play her music is not liable because of Article 33. The person who gave the order is liable because of Article 32, even if he or she thinks Celine Dion's music is good.

[John F. Carr]

I got part of that backwards. If the court doesn't like Celine Dion then playing her music in a POW camp would be a war crime subject to the "only following orders" defense, but playing her to civilians would be a crime against humanity for which the defense is not allowed. Same for waterboarding prisoners of war vs. waterboarding civilians. Or stacking Abu Ghraib prisoners in naked pyramids vs. stacking random people off the street.

[Darth Buckeye]

How does the relevant statute deal with unlawful combatants, illegal combatants or unprivileged combatants/belligerents?

[John F. Carr]

The Rome Statute refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the meaning of war crimes. It does not define combatants, lawful or otherwise. For the court to have jurisdiction over war crimes they must be "committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes." Similarly, crimes against humanity are by definition "part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population."

[Martinned]

I don't think "mistake of law" is quite the issue. If John Yoo honestly believed what he was writing, I'm not sure how he would have the basic mens rea necessary for guilt.

Article 30
Mental element
1. Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.
2. For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:
(a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct;
(b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
3. For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and "knowingly" shall be construed accordingly.

[Roger S]

Yoo just wrote a legal brief. He did not torture anyone.

[Darth Buckeye]

The sad thing is that the SF liberals did not suffer the worst consequences of Boudin's tenure.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

John Yoo seems to be the Berkeley ideal of the conservative.

At least he doesn't oppose abortion or cheer for the traditional family; that would make him an extremist and seditionist.

Instead, he provides arguments which a President of *either* party can use to justify executive power-grabs. If that's conservatism, I can see why Berkeley reconciled itself to it.

[John F. Carr]

Those who can, do.

[Bob from Ohio]

What's Prof. Kerr's view on his new comrade?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Kerr can't seem to quit the Volokh Conspiracy entirely, but he has vividly distanced himself from this flaming shitstorm of racism; superstitious gay-bashing; old-timey misogyny; chanting antisemitism; un-American (Eastman- and Clark-style) sentiment; Islamophobia; faux libertarianism; immigrant-hating insularity; QAnon worship; and Federalist-Heritage dogma.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This surprises me, because I figured Prof. Bernstein would be too busy penning his response to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (or was it Rep. Lauren Boebert? -- I sometimes have difficulty distinguishing the various editions of Clinger Barbie) assertion that a Congressional resolution opposing antisemitism constituted an unfair attack on Republicans, conservatives, and Federalist Society members.

Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far as your betters permit in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

By this time, if you add up all the establishment policies Kirkland has refused to defend, you have quite a bill of indictment against the establishment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Son: Dad, I'm ticked off at you.
Dad: What? Why?
Son: I just got turned down for a job at Berkley Law School for lack of experience.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Bernstein should be sure to be seated before someone informs him about the "credentials" of some of Pres. Trump's federal judicial nominees.

Carry on, clingers.

Until replacement.

[Darth Buckeye]

He's a member of our new aristocracy. There will always be a high profile, well paying job for him.

[Bored Lawyer]

In other news, famous arsonist Thomas Sweatt* just got out of jail, and is being appointed Professor of Fire Safety at Berkeley.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sweatt#:~:text=Thomas%20A.,serial%20arsonists%20in%20American%20history.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone recall Prof. Bernstein's commentary when Berkeley hired torture boy John Yoo?

Clingers gonna cling.

But only to the extent better Americans permit.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Does anyone recall Prof. Bernstein’s commentary when Berkeley hired torture boy John Yoo?"

If I had to guess, it was probably to the effect that anyone opposed was somehow anti-Semitic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I had to guess, it would be (1) not a damned word or (2) whining about how strong law schools decline to emulate shitty law schools (by hiring plenty of conservatives).

I do not dismiss your guess, however.

[David Bernstein]

And the Jew-baiter shows up. It sounds better in the original German.

[Aunt Teefah]

There it is! He said the line!

Can’t wait to hear about how opposing the torture of Arabs is a trope for hating Jews (just like how opposing Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is). Should be entertaining as always.

[David Bernstein]

News for you Auntie, if you suggest that aJewish person is going to tsla use the issue of antisemitism in an irrelevant context, you are Jew-baiting. You should seek help for your apparent beef to do that.

[Aunt Teefah]

It’s clearly a joke, Professor, based on your penchant to cry anti-Semitism in irrelevant contexts (i.e., every time someone criticizes Israel). No need to get triggered.

“going to tsla”

No need to bring Elon into this. I’m fairly certain he’s a gentile. Though he does hail from an apartheid state, so you may be inclined to reflexively defend him out of habit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Feel free to offer your opinion on Berkeley's hiring of John Yoo in any language you wish to use, Prof. Bernstein.

[Roger S]

Where do Boudin and Davis stand on the long prison terms for the QAnon Shaman and the other Jan. 6 Capitol protesters?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where do un-American, disaffected, obsolete right-wingers stand on the prison terms for the seditious conspirators, violent insurrectionists, and other criminals involved in the Jan. 6 activities?

We could start with the Volokh Conspirators if any of them have the guts to take a stand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The list of topics the Volokh Conspirators conspicuously avoid is a long one. Some highlights:

1. Un-American asshole John Eastman.

2. The rampant racism at this blog.

3. Un-American asshole Jeffrey Clark.

4. The superstitious gay-bashing that infects this blog.

5. The viewpoint-driven censorship at this blog.

6. Torture boy John Yoo.

7. Anything Gov. DeSantis disapproves.

8. Defamation disputes conservatives prefer to ignore (Dominion-Fox, Smartmatic-Fox, Smartmatic-Newsmax, Dominion-Newsmax, Dominion-One America News, Dominion-Giuliani, Dominion-Powell, Dominion-Lindell, Dominion-Byrne, etc.)

9. Other defamation cases conservatives try to ignore (Trump-Carroll, another Trump-Carroll).

10. The antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and xenophobia that regularly animate this blog (although antisemitism is sometimes addressed if it can be plausibly pinned on liberals).

(Here are some interesting predictions -- mostly vindicated -- concerning Dominion's defamation claims against former Pres. Trump.)

[y81]

Chemerinsky is pretty much of a hard core lefty, and steadily becoming more so; whether because he feels more secure in displaying his true colors or because the sheer horribleness of Trump has driven him there, I don't know.

[MaverickNH]

Nature affirms that scum rises.

[Sarcastr0]

This is classless.

[DrNick]

I just don’t understand this sneering. Have you ever had a family member in prison? Or ever even visited someone in jail or prison? The number of absurd restrictions and bureaucratic hoops one must jump through to maintain a relationship with an incarcerated person is staggering. It’s even difficult for defense lawyers to navigate these institutions, much less children. Having a parent in prison is absolutely an education in how the criminal legal system works.