[stownsley]

That's fine, but it all relates to non-violent offenses. The offense I am concerned with was one of unprovoked violence. Considering how similar the Ludacris beating was to the Morris beating, one cannot reasonably shrug off or explain away his asymmetrical handling of the two cases. In the absence of valid legal reasons, I conclude that the usual influence of human nature played a role. I've also heard that he's ambitious, and a political operator; that's exactly my point. I would suggest that racking up convictions, especially against minorities, is not the way to get ahead in Ithaca. Aware of this, it seems he allowed his estimation of the community reaction to unduly influence his judgment, unethically placing his political fortunes above seeing justice done.

[drjimmy]

I would suggest that racking up convictions, especially against minorities, is not the way to get ahead in Ithaca.
But he vigorously prosecutes drug cases, and those predominantly involved minority defendants (as noted in my previous post). There is no question that he is considered by many in the local community to be a racist because of this. And if he was pandering to the liberals, he certainly wouldn't be seeking a retrial for the scum who threw blood on the American flag.

When the Patricia Morris beating defendants were found not guilty of hate crimes, Dentes was criticized for not pursuing that aspect of the case vigorously enough. My belief is that in both the Morris case and the Ludacris case, he was applying New York State law and using the evidence available from the investigators. I think that Cornell did its best to underplay the Ludacris incident investigation, which hampered Dentes's ability to prosecute to the fullest. I guess you and I will continue to disagree, but the one thing that is certain is that Ithaca will continue to give Freepers new things to be outraged by!