Cronin v. Town of Amesbury: due process delay in police discipline

Legal Brief -- Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F. Supp 375 (D. Mass 1995)

Type of Action

The action was an appeal on the part of Michael Cronin to the United States District Court in Massachusetts. It was an appeal on the grounds that a hearing into the determining of his job status took well over three years and that violated his due process rights. The court had to decide if the delay was a violation of his due process rights or if the investigation was "above-board."

Contentions of the Parties

While things eventually worked out for Cronin, he brought legal action because he said it took too long (3+ years) to get his justice and that this was a violation of his due process rights. The other side argued that no violate of his free speech rights occurred and that Cronin eventually got the resolution he always would have gotten anyway, apparently (OpenJurist, 2014).

Issue

The issue is whether the three-year delay, mostly stemming from multiple city managers doing a lot of different things and the notification of the letter being found in his desk not occurring for several years after it was first found was found (Leagle, 2014).

Decision

The overall decision is that while it is possible for a person's legal consequences, founded or not, to be delayed to the point where justice is not or could not be rendered, it was found that Cronin could not argue such a thing because he still could have been made whole (and eventually was) so he did not suffer any permanent or sufficient injury that he could not be made whole (Iris, 2014).

Reasoning

Obviously, losing one's job or getting suspended not to mention the turnover at City Manager certainly led to things taking longer than they should have and this was made worse by the delayed notification about the letter in the first place. However, just because there is a time lapse does not mean that a solution and justice cannot be reached. Indeed, it would seem that Cronin did right the letter (or at least might have) and he absolutely did lie under oath if he did. However, it may have come down to the inability to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has to be favored in such an instance. As a comparison, there is a high likelihood that George Zimmerman did something immoral and/or illegal when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin but the lack of a "smoking gun" to prove that led to his acquittal on murder charges.

The delay in notifying the proper parties about the letter probably helped Cronin in the long run, especially if he actually wrote the letter. Also helping him is the fact that it is a stretch to say it would hurt his duties or the people around him unless he read the letter aloud to coworkers (especially if it were a female) and/or he had the letter in clear view. As this was apparently not the case, no one was really injured. He was convicted and punished for a process crime more so than the original alleged act.

Rule of Law

The "nut" to take from this case is that time lapse is not enough to remove the possibility of prosecution. Obviously, this has more bearing on violent cases like rapes and murders where there is an expanded statute of limitations (if any exists at all) so that people can be prosecuted as long as is reasonably possible. While a pornographic letter is a much lesser offense, it is something that can still bubble up and lying about it under oath and/or relying on time past to get out of punishment is not the best idea, even if that's how it ended up for Cronin for whatever reason.