Yates' statement regarding the question of bias begins by saying, "Witness 1, (the dancer) who became acquainted with and developed a personal relationship with Camp in approximately May of 2010 stated that Camp disliked a particular individual ("Individual A"), who was African-American and who also had a personal relationship with Witness 1."
According to Witness 1, Camp told her that when African-American men appeared before him, he had a difficult time adjudicating their cases and specifically determining their sentences because he could not differentiate them from Individual A in light of his feelings about Individual A, according to Yates' statement. Witness 1 also stated that she had recorded this conversation but was unable to find the recording.
Favoritism, in various forms, apparently was a common feature of Camp's decision-making:
Another case involves allegations that Camp said a female defendant reminded him of Witness 1 (the exotic dancer) so "he gave her a 12-month sentence instead of the suggested 60-month sentence."
The report goes on to say, "We identified a case during this period where Camp sentenced a white female defendant to a 15-month prison term instead of the 30-37 months recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. There is also evidence that confirms that Camp consulted with Witness 1 (the exotic dancer) during the relevant period regarding the sentences that he imposed."
Camp reportedly denied making decisions based on racial bias, but the U.S. attorney does not sound convinced:
Yates concludes by saying, "Our only interest in any case that we have prosecuted before Camp is ensuring that justice is served. To that end, given these disturbing facts and allegations, this office will evaluate any criminal case adjudicated by Camp for impairment or bias that a defendant requests that we review. Furthermore, from May of 2010 forward, there is evidence that Camp's judicial decision-making process may have been impacted by bias and/or impairment and it has been established that he was involved in criminal conduct during this period. Therefore, we will not object to a defendant's request for a resentencing in any case in which the defendant was sentenced during this time."
We have some quibbles with this statement from Yates. Why should any reviews be limited to matters regarding sentencing? What if Camp, in his biased and drug-addled state, made decisions that caused an innocent person to be convicted? And why is the DOJ going to wait for defendant requests before considering reviews? How about a thorough review of all cases, from top to bottom, in which Camp has been in charge--at least those in the past three or four years?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
