Judge ShawnDya Simpson vs Nelson Cruz: Was a man denied freedom because of a judge with early-onset Alzheimer’s?
As March 2021 kicked off – a month that has become somewhat ominous since the year before when the world ground to a halt because of a pandemic – a man called Nelson Cruz found his hope shattering once again. A Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge called Raymond Rodriguez denied Cruz a retrial. Rodriguez backed the ruling of his former colleague, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice ShawnDya Simpson, from August 2019.
“Justice Simpson critically analyzed the evidence presented at the hearing and was able to apply the facts to the law and appropriately determined that the Defendant did not meet his burden as to actual innocence and newly discovered evidence,” Rodriguez wrote in his decision. “A review of the record clearly establishes Justice Simpson was aware and cognizant throughout the hearing. Furthermore, Justice Simpson’s rulings and application of the law were logical and supported by the evidence.”
READ MORE
The words “aware” and “cognizant” were of utmost importance and among the many things contested by Cruz and his lawyers. Simpson’s mental faculties were, and continue to remain, in question. On July 31, 2020, about a month before her judgment, after she was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s, Simpson retired from the bench. Simpson went on medical leave in September 2019, days after her decision in the murder case. Her notice of retirement read: “It was my life-long ambition to wear a robe and to serve the judicial system faithfully, as well as with objectivity and integrity. Having achieved this goal, with the will and guidance of God, I must continue to walk in accordance with his plan for me.”
Simpson had been one of the youngest judges in New York courts when she was elected to the Civil Court in Brooklyn in 2003. She had a distinguished career. But was her retirement voluntary, as she claimed? No. A ProPublica investigation found that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct negotiated an end to Simpson’s career upon the finding of her diagnosis, along with several complaints of erratic behavior. Even the judge’s husband, Jacob Walthour, said of his wife’s condition, “No two days are the same.”
Cruz’s story
Cruz had been convicted of shooting a man to death in Brooklyn’s East New York neighborhood in 1998. He was only 16 at the time. But for the next 22 years, he remained behind bars. That he was innocent of this crime has been Cruz’s stance since the very beginning. But year after year, his appeals had all been rejected. His fate changed in 2018 when Simpson granted him a chance. Cruz and his lawyers later reportedly presented alibi witnesses. They also offered evidence that Cruz’s case had been mishandled by supposedly dubious policemen. Simpson, as per reports, had previously vacated two murder convictions in cases involving the detectives. But in August 2019, she rejected his bid.
When Simpson’s illness came into light, Cruz’s lawyers cited delays and alleged inconsistencies in her handling of the case. The lawyers also included the claim of the judge’s husband that she had been showing signs of impairment as early as 2018. In the summer of 2018, Simpson’s husband Walthour said, he began sensing changes.
Walthour said, “ShawnDya could pick a jury and remember everyone’s first and last names 45 people deep. In the morning, we’d speak, and then later she couldn’t recall it. And our ‘How was your day’ conversations before bed? I guess they might have become less detailed.” She often seemed exhausted. Cruz’s lawyers asked for a hearing to be held to assess the judge’s condition at the time of the 2019 ruling.
After Rodriguez’s ruling, Oren Yaniv, a spokesman for the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, said in a brief statement, “We agree with the judge’s decision.” An earlier review ordered by court officials of scores of rulings made by Simpson over her final months as a judge reportedly concluded there was no evidence that she had clearly erred as a consequence of her illness.
A tragedy on all sides
Cruz’s lawyer, Justin Bonus, was shocked by Rodriguez’s ruling, of course. “An innocent man’s future rests on determining once and for all, if the judge handling his case was impaired when she denied his motion to vacate his conviction,” Bonus said. “How on earth would we not want to hear from her doctors and family and those with the greatest knowledge of her condition?”
Nelson Cruz and Justice ShawnDya Simpson’s story brings to question something important: the need to check the competency of judges in the American judicial system. But it is, as experts have pointed out, a slippery slope. Francis Shen, the executive director of Harvard’s Center for Law, Brain and Behavior, said that there are no formal mechanisms for those worried about a judge’s mental health, be it fellow judges, clerks or even litigants, to raise alarms or intervene. “Over the years, plenty of people have said we can’t require assessments of judges because such a thing could be weaponized,” Shen said. “I understand that concern. But I disagree that something can’t be institutionalized.”
The story is a tragedy on two fronts. On the one hand, a brilliant Black woman brought up in an immigrant family in Brooklyn had her career ended at the age of 54 because of a degenerative neurological disease. On the other hand, a man who claims his innocence – in a country that has seen law enforcement systemically antagonized towards persons of color – failed to find justice in a court that he hoped was free and fair. Simpson may be a fair judge, but who is to say what constitutes fairness when your mental faculties begin to shut down, slowly and painfully?