Ronald Sullivan

Cariol Holloman-Horne's legal team made the first step Wednesday toward a new lawsuit over her firing 12 years ago from the Buffalo Police Department. Her attorneys filed in State Supreme Court in Buffalo paperwork seeking an index number assigned to her old case. It is a procedural motion, but it signals the start of a new legal fight to have her firing overturned and to get a full police pension. Horne was fired in 2008 following an arbitration hearing. She was accused of attacking a fellow officer as he was trying to arrest a man during a domestic dispute on Nov. 1, 2006. Horne said then and has maintained over the years that she was trying to stop the officer from choking the man. At the time, she had 19 years on the job, which meant she was one year shy of the 20 years required to receive a full police pension upon retirement. That meant she would have to wait until she was 55 to retire and receive a partial pension from the state. This is not Horne's first attempt to have her case overturned. Several months after she was fired, she sued to be reinstated,  but then-State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Makowski ruled against her on several procedural matters. Horne's case took on renewed interest after the officer she had fought, Greg Kwiatkowski, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in an unrelated federal police brutality case. Kwiatkowski, who testified against two other officers who were acquitted in that case, waws sentenced to four months in prison. The uproar earlier this year over the video-recorded death of George Floyd, who suffocated under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer while three others officers stood nearby, also drew new attention to Horne's firing. Horne is represented by a legal team led by Ronald Sullivan and Intisar Rabb of Harvard Law School. Sullivan and his team represented the family of Michael Brown, a Black teenager whose shooting death by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., sparked protests there in 2014. The attorneys were not available for comment Wednesday.

For 14 years, Cariol Holloman-Horne has held firm that she did the right thing when she tried to stop a fellow Buffalo cop who she says was choking a man he was trying to arrest. Horne lost her job and also her full police pension. She's worked odd jobs, mostly recently as a truck driver. At times, she has lived out of her car. She tried numerous times and through numerous avenues to try to get her pension and also pass laws to require police to intervene when another one is going too far...The cellphone video of George Floyd dying under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer set off a firestorm of outrage, not just at Derek Chauvin but also the three other police officers who are seen standing by and doing nothing to stop Chauvin. Suddenly, Horne’s story has new resonance...Horne recently gained powerful new allies: She is represented by a legal team that includes Ronald Sullivan and Intisar Rabb of Harvard Law School. Sullivan and his team represented the family of Michael Brown, a Black teenager whose shooting death by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., sparked unrest there in 2014. “Honored to now represent @CariolHorne – former Buffalo police officer terminated after she intervened when a fellow officer employed a chokehold against an unarmed black man,” he tweeted July 10. The Common Council appears poised to enact at least part of Horne's proposal by making the duty to intervene a law and not just a police department policy, as it is now.

The St. Louis couple who emerged from their mansion in a gated community and aimed weapons at protesters marching past them last month were each charged Monday with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon. Lawyers Mark McCloskey, 61, and Patricia McCloskey, 63, have said they were merely defending their home on a private street in an upscale neighborhood from a crowd that was marching to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house to protest racial injustice. Video and photographs showing Mark McCloskey wielding a rifle and Patricia McCloskey aiming a pistol at the marchers created a firestorm of controversy between those who felt the couple was legally defending their home and those who felt they were menacing peaceful protesters...The McCloskeys and their supporters have said that the “castle doctrine” in Missouri law, and elsewhere, empowers a homeowner to stand their ground and use deadly force when threatened. But Harvard Law School Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. said Friday that “the law is crystal clear in Missouri, that a reasonableness argument is necessary for a defendant to take advantage of the Castle doctrine. The defendant has to be reasonably afraid of being in imminent danger.” Sullivan said that despite the McCloskeys’ claim that the entire Portland Place neighborhood was private property, and the protesters were immediately trespassing, “the castle doctrine would still be unavailable. The doctrine removes one’s duty to retreat. But they could only use deadly force if they reasonably felt they were in imminent danger. Based on the video evidence, that’s a very difficult argument to make,” because the protesters were unarmed and did not move toward the McCloskey residence, Sullivan said. “Otherwise,” Sullivan said, “the castle doctrine would swallow up all of the existing law and we’d have a ‘Wild Wild West’ out there.”

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is presiding over the case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, has appointed a former mafia prosecutor and retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to argue against Attorney General William P. Barr’s attempt to drop the case. The case against Mr. Flynn was developed by the F.B.I. agents working on the Trump-Russia investigation, brought by the office of the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and is now being attacked by Mr. Barr as illegitimate. It has raised a complex stew of issues for Judge Sullivan to sort through...Is Mr. Barr’s attempt to drop the case unusual? Highly unusual. Legal experts have struggled to identify any precedent for the Justice Department dropping such a case after obtaining a guilty plea, and more than 2,300 department veterans accused Mr. Barr in an open letter of subverting a justice system that is supposed to treat everyone equally. “I would be astonished if the Department of Justice made these arguments in any other case in the country,” said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School. “This is the Flynn rule.” ...Did the F.B.I. set out to see whether Mr. Flynn would lie? There are reasons to believe agents did so — raising the question of whether that would be an abuse, as Mr. Flynn’s supporters maintain, or a normal investigative step...Hundreds of people every year are charged and convicted of lying to federal authorities, and in the courtroom, entrapment defenses rarely work. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a former federal defense lawyer who teaches criminal law at Harvard Law School, said that he objected to the way the F.B.I. treated criminal suspects, but that if Mr. Flynn’s case was tossed out on that basis, legions of other cases should be, too. “The F.B.I. did what the F.B.I. normally does,” he said. “General Flynn is getting a form of special justice that is repugnant to the very foundation on which our justice system rests.”

As Congress and the White House are locked in an impeachment battle, the highest court in the third branch of government is set to open its term, and may soon take up big cases — including the Harvard affirmative action case. And might Rep. Richard Neal reveal another whistleblower? The retirement  last year of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored a 2016 opinion that narrowly allowed colleges to consider race among a number of admission factors, has court-watchers predicting a high court victory for the group challenging Harvard’s policy. “If SCOTUS accepts this inevitable appeal, I think [it's] unlikely the Court will continue to recognize diversity as a goal for race-conscious admission,” tweeted Harvard Law School professor Ronald Sullivan.

1L January Experiential Term courses focus on skills-building, collaboration and self-reflection

When word got out earlier this year that law professor Ronald Sullivan Jr. had joined Harvey Weinstein’s legal defense team, all hell broke loose at Harvard College. Students protested, #MeToo activists clamored, and the school administration ultimately terminated his appointment as the in-residence faculty dean of an undergrad dorm. But Sullivan—who’s spent his career securing exonerations for the wrongfully convicted and representing notable figures such as Aaron Hernandez—is no stranger to controversy. Which might explain why, as he prepares to move off-campus for the first time in 10 years, he was eager to meet in his office and talk about the circumstances prompting his sudden change of address.

An op-ed by Ronald Sullivan:  In May, Harvard College announced that it would not renew the appointment of me and my wife, Stephanie Robinson, as faculty deans of Winthrop House, one of Harvard’s undergraduate residential houses, because I am one of the lawyers who represented the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in advance of his coming sexual assault trial. The administration’s decision followed reports by some students that they felt “unsafe” in an institution led by a lawyer who would take on Mr. Weinstein as a client. I am willing to believe that some students felt unsafe. But feelings alone should not drive university policy. Administrators must help students distinguish between feelings that have a rational basis and those that do not. In my case, Harvard missed an opportunity to help students do that.

In the tumultuous few months since students began objecting to Harvard Law professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.’s decision to defend Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein at his rape trial, the college has been reviewing the living climate at Winthrop House, the residential community he leads as faculty dean. But, suffice it to say, the climate is anything but copacetic. ...“It’s a constitutional right that [Weinstein] would have a defense,” Harvard Law professor Janet Halley said. “Some of us would represent Harvey Weinstein. Some of us would never, ever. Telling someone else they can’t do it? Or if they do it they’re not fit to walk the halls of a residential house, that they’re a danger to the community or somehow not respectable anymore? Those are bad things for our leadership to be thinking.”

A Q&A with Ronald Sullivan: Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., a clinical professor at Harvard Law School, is among the most high-profile criminal-defense lawyers in the country. Sullivan represented Aaron Hernandez in his acquittal for a double homicide and helped the family of Michael Brown reach a $1.5-million-wrongful-death settlement with the city of Ferguson, Missouri. Sullivan has also devoted much of his career to representing less-privileged defendants: he is the director of the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School and previously served as the director of the Washington, D.C., Public Defender Service. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he helped free thousands of Louisianans who had been incarcerated without due process. ...I recently spoke twice by phone with Sullivan to discuss his career and his decision to represent Weinstein. During our conversations, which have been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed the state of campus debate and his belief that racism contributed to Harvard’s decision to conduct the climate survey.

The graffiti showed up on the door of a Harvard University building last week: “Our rage is self-defense,” and “Whose side are you on?” The unexpected target was Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., who is an accomplished lawyer, the director of Harvard’s criminal-law clinic and the first African-American to be appointed as a faculty dean. Earlier this year, Mr. Sullivan joined a team of lawyers representing the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who heads to trial in June in Manhattan on rape and related charges. ... In his first public remarks, Mr. Sullivan said in a phone interview on Monday that he did not anticipate the level of backlash he has received. He has a long history of taking on high-profile and, at times, controversial clients, as well as representing students who have been victims of sexual assault, he said. “Lawyers are not an extension of their clients,” Mr. Sullivan said. “Lawyers do law work, not the work of ideology. When I’m in my lawyer capacity, representing a client, even one publicly vilified, it doesn’t mean I’m supporting anything the client may have done.” ... But many of Mr. Sullivan’s colleagues have come to his defense. Dozens of law professors from the university on Feb. 14 sent a letter to the college in support of Mr. Sullivan. On Feb. 28, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article by Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor, who wrote: “Those calling for Sullivan’s resignation or dismissal as a faculty dean solely because he is serving as Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer in a rape prosecution are displaying an array of disturbingly widespread tendencies.

An op-ed by Stephen L. Carter:  If you’re able to shift your attention for a moment from the drama being played out in Washington, take a moment to worry about the drama being played out in Cambridge, where a professor at Harvard Law School is under fire for choosing to represent an unpopular client. The professor in question is Ronald Sullivan, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, and the client in question is Harvey Weinstein, which of course means that the fat was in the fire from the first. For signing on to defend one of the most hated men in America, Sullivan (so say a group of Harvard students) should no longer be permitted to serve as a faculty dean of Winthrop House, one of several residence halls for Harvard undergraduates. Ron Sullivan is a friend of long standing, and one of the most generous and decent men I have ever known. The things his critics are saying about him have nothing to do with what kind of person he is; they all stem from his choice of clients. So let’s focus on that.

The law professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. is among the most accomplished people at Harvard. He has helped to overturn scores of wrongful convictions and to free thousands from wrongful incarceration. ... Sullivan faces this “clamor of popular suspicions and prejudices” because he agreed to act as a criminal-defense attorney for an object of scorn and hatred: Harvey Weinstein. ... Catharine MacKinnon, Harvard’s James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law, emailed: The issue is not whether Ron can represent reviled clients accused of crimes and still be the faculty dean of a college. Of course he can. The issue is substantive. ...The Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig echoes the argument that it’s possible to be a survivor of sexual assault and feel comfortable with Sullivan’s choice. ...“The skills, capacities, and dispositions that would help to make a person a valued defense counsel are also the skills, capacities, and dispositions that would help to make a person a valued Faculty Dean,” [Randall Kennedy] argued.  ... The Harvard professor Jeannie Suk Gersen emailed me her concerns with such “processes”: "Professor Sullivan has chosen to represent and defend persons whom many people would not defend. Strong disagreement with those choices is of course part of the exploration of differences of principle and opinion that we’d hope for in a university." ... “Little more than half a century ago, mainstream lawyers were frightened away from defending alleged Communists who faced congressional witch hunts, blacklisting, criminal trials, and even execution,” Harvard Law’s Alan Dershowitz wrote. ... The Harvard professor Janet Halley calls Harvard’s actions “deeply disturbing.” She explained in an email: The right to counsel even for the most despised defendants, the basic role of counsel in our legal order, the presumption of innocence, academic freedom, and the right of University employees to assist persons accused in the University’s Title IX proceedings—are all implicated here. ... The Harvard law professor Scott Westfahl, however, defended the idea of a climate review, also by email. ... “We are all better off as a result,” and he noted, “I completely support the right of Professor Sullivan, an extremely talented defense lawyer, to take on a very difficult case. Should Mr. Weinstein be convicted, there will be absolutely no doubt that he received a fair hearing with the best possible defense counsel.”

...Two days later, WBZ-TV reported that the alleged groper was Andrew “A.J.” Baker — a son of Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker. Ever since, a big question has been whether A.J. Baker, who still hasn’t been charged, is being treated impartially by the criminal-justice system...in the airplane audio, there’s no indication the crew knows the alleged groper is the governor’s son — which suggests State Police might not have known, either. Eventually, says Harvard Law School Professor Ronald Sullivan, they probably figured it out. So if and when that happened, how did the State Police respond? "At what point did they realize they were talking to the governor’s son, and once they did realize they were speaking with the governor’s son, did any supervisor make a decision with respect to a conflict-of interest analysis?" Sullivan said. It's also possible the State Police proceeded as if A.J. Baker were any other interviewee. If so, Sullivan says, that was a mistake.

Officials in Cambridge have tapped the former chief justice of the state’s highest court to review the Police Department’s internal probe of the forcible arrest last month of a visibly distressed black Harvard University student who was naked and allegedly hallucinating on drugs. In a statement Friday, City Manager Louis DePasquale and Police Commissioner Branville Bard Jr. announced that former chief justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court will conduct “an independent review of the Police Department’s internal review associated” with the April 13 apprehension of Selorm Ohene...City officials said the Police Department’s internal review of the incident is ongoing, and that once it’s completed, Ireland will “review the findings and issue his report.” Ireland’s findings will be made public, but there’s no timetable for completion. “No charges have been filed against the student,” the release said. Ohene’s attorneys, Harvard Law professors Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and Dehlia Umunna, also weighed in Friday, saying in a separate statement that they were “delighted to learn that no charges will be filed” against their client.

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens watched Thursday as his attorneys scrutinized potential jurors for his criminal trial next week. Greitens, who was joined by two state troopers, arrived Thursday morning at the St. Louis courthouse for the first day of jury selection...Ronald Sullivan, a Harvard Law School professor who is assisting prosecutors in the case, argued that jurors who have opinions of Greitens but say they can set them aside should not be struck. He said the attorneys need to find jurors who can credibly “in good faith ... set aside previous knowledge.” He said they would need to “exclude the entire state” if the judge used the defense’s standard.

University President Drew G. Faust has formed a “review committee” to determine the exact “sequence of events” leading to the forcible arrest of a black undergraduate April 13 and to undertake a “systematic examination” of a wide variety of Harvard policies. “The committee will start by determining the sequence of events leading to the student’s events,” Faust wrote in an email to students Monday. The results of that determination will then "inform a more systematic examination of opportunities for improvement across a range of institutional activities," Faust wrote...Harvard Law School and History professor Annette Gordon-Reed will chair the committee, according to Faust’s email. The group will include six other individuals including professors at the Business School, Kennedy School, Graduate School of Education, and Medical School, as well as a House faculty dean...BLSA has called the incident an instance of police brutality, and Cambridge Mayor Marc C. McGovern and Faust later called the incident “disturbing.” Harvard Law professors Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and Dehlia Umunna, who lead the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute, are now legally representing the student.

On Friday night, the Cambridge Police Department arrested a black undergraduate on Massachusetts Avenue just outside the Law School. The incident has drawn national attention as Harvard affiliates and onlookers nationwide question whether the arrest and the proceedings leading up to the arrest were in accordance with University and Cambridge city protocol.Those who have witnessed or watched video of the arrest have seen what can only be described as a case of police brutality...we stand with the Black Law Students Association and others in strongly criticizing the arrest...n the aftermath of this troubling event, we call on Harvard to do everything it can to defend the student’s legal rights and rights as a student and are grateful for the work of the Law School professors, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and Dehlia Umunna, who will represent him.

The Harvard College student whose arrest by Cambridge and Transit police officers has sparked debate over police use of force is now represented by two Harvard Law School professors who said their client won’t be speaking publicly any time soon. Selorm Ohene, 21, a mathematics major at Harvard, was arrested by police last Friday during an encounter...In a statement Tuesday, Harvard Law School professors Ronald F. Sullivan Jr. and Dehlia Umunna said they now represent him. Sullivan is the director and Umunna is the deputy director of the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard. “He is currently recovering from injuries sustained during his encounter with the Cambridge Police Department,’’ the attorneys wrote in a joint statement. “This has been and continues to be a trying ordeal for Selorm and for his family.”