Due Process Case Law

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."

Facts of the Case

Michael Cronin was a police chief in Amesbury. At some point, a pornographic letter was found in Cronin's desk and it was signed "Mike." When brought to the attention of the higher-ups, Cronin was suspended with pay pending a further investigation. However, this revelation did nto appear until three years after the letter was found and copies were made. The suspension was matched with three charges being brought against Cronin by Town Manager Joseph Faye. Faye was fired not long thereafter and was replaced with Donna Stewart. Stewart posted a total of nine charges against him and there was a hearing for all of the charges. Of those, Cronin was found guilty of two and was issued a 90 day suspension. The letter itself was deemed to be irrelevant to his duties and so it was basically disregarded. Cronin appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission thereafter. Prior to that hearing taking place, Cronin was demoted to sergeant. Around the same time, a copy of the letter was released to the press. The aforementioned newer City Manager Donna Stewart left her post nad was replaced by John Koelsch who brought two new charges against Cronin including lying under oath and conducting unbecoming an officer. Koelsch designated himself the hearing officer for the Civil hearing and found him guilty of lying under oath. He was then dismissed immediately. Cronin appealed again and eventually won a reversal of the suspension and was restored to Chief with back-pay.

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.