We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
BOP RUNS SMACK INTO #METOO
A year ago, The New York Times published a scathing story of the sexual harassment suffered by female BOP officers and workers at the hands of male BOP employees. Given the detailed allegations by BOP female employees of not just harassment, but of a culture of tolerance and coverup by BOP management, no one should be surprised that allegations of charges of much uglier sexual abuse of female inmates and heavy-handed official coverup would someday bubble to the surface.
At the time, The Times said women who report harassment “face retaliation, professional sabotage and even termination,” while the careers of many male BOP harassers and their protectors flourish. The new charges, that the BOP staff protected male employees from criminal charges and impeded required audits under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, are even more detailed, comprising the inevitable result of a much greater mismatch of power between abuser and victim.
Last week, 14 current and former BOP inmate women, ranging in age from 30 to 56 and nearly all first offenders, jointly sued the federal government over sexual abuse they alleged they endured at the women’s federal prison camp at Coleman and at FCI Tallahassee, both in Florida. Seven of the plaintiffs are still incarcerated, but all of them sued in their actual names, despite what they allege is an official Coleman policy of punishing any female inmate making a sexual harassment claim by housing her in a nearby county jail while her allegations are being “investigated.”
The 78-page lawsuit, filed by Atlanta law firm Adams & Reese in the Middle District of Florida, sets out in graphic detail charges ranging from verbal harassment and threats to groping to rape, and alleges not just that women who complained were punished but that the institution even interfered with the law firm’s investigation of the charges.
In what the Miami Herald called “stark, chilling detail,” the lawsuit describes how female inmates were lured into private offices or sheds with no surveillance cameras, stalked relentlessly by male correctional officers until they were forced to submit. Some officers would even display computer screens showing the women the exact location of their families, a pointed message that their relatives could be targeted if the women didn’t cooperate. Some of the accused officers, all of whom are fully identified in the lawsuit, have resigned or taken early retirement (with immunity from prosecution for the actions they admitted to, according to Bryan Busch, the plaintiffs’ attorney.
“The prison certainly did not want this to come out so they suppressed any sort of allegations that were made, and did not conduct complete and full investigations,” Busch said.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act was enacted by Congress to require that facilities adopt a zero-tolerance approach to rape and sexual abuse. The PREA specifies, among other things, that institutions undergo annual audits to ensure their compliance with its terms. The lawsuit alleges that female inmates who had complained about sexual abuse were routinely made unavailable for interview by PREA inspectors by the institution’s transferring of them to another prison facility before auditors arrived. “By transferring victims of sexual abuse,” the complaint alleges, Coleman “shields itself from legitimate investigation and suppresses complaints by punishing the victims.”
The BOP is sued by inmates all the time, but this one really feels different. First, the lawsuit is a Golanda of detail, 78 pages of well-pled facts. It is brought by a law firm that does not appear to be a windmill-tilter, but instead focuses primarily on securities and business litigation (but with experience in prisoner abuse cases). The plaintiffs seem reasonably well funded and not dependent on a jailhouse lawyer for representation.
Most important, if the details in the lawsuit are correct, the BOP already investigated many of the officers and promised them immunity from criminal charges in exchange for full confessions. Thus, the agency’s personnel records on the officers involved probably contains a wealth of evidence of both the sexual abuse and the coverup.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has shown great interest in treatment of female BOP prisoners. Perhaps more of a concern to the BOP should be the popularity of the #MeToo movement, which focuses on male dominance in matters of sexual harassment.
The Beaubrun lawsuit (Rachelle Beaubrun, a recently-released prisoner, is the lead plaintiff) represents the most serious attack to date on the alleged sex abuse culture at the BOP. This suit has the potential to end a lot of BOP careers and disrupt BOP management culture at women’s facilities throughout the system.
Beaubrun v United States, Case No. 5:19-cv-615 (M.D.Fla. complaint filed Dec. 3, 2019)
Miami Herald, Rape is rampant at this women’s prison. Anyone who complains is punished, lawsuit says (Dec. 4)
The New York Times, Hazing, Humiliation, Terror: Working While Female in Federal Prison (Nov. 17, 2018)
– Thomas L. Root
Last week, the D.C. Circuit agreed, holding that “under the circumstances of this case, failure to obtain a dismissal without prejudice under the STA does not constitute Strickland prejudice. We acknowledge that a dismissal without prejudice forces the government to reindict the defendant in order to secure a conviction. We acknowledge that the government may not be willing to do so in every case, and circumstances outside of the government’s control may preclude it from doing so. McClendon’s argument does not meet that standard. He fails to recognize that it would be the exceedingly rare case in which a defendant could show a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s failure to obtain a dismissal without prejudice, the outcome of the criminal prosecution would be different.”
