‘Hurricane’ Carter Attorney Responds
Norman Jewison, Armyan Bernstein, Rudy Langlais and John Ketcham’s Counterpunch in response to my article, “History’s on the Ropes in ‘Hurricane,’ ” is filled with as many distortions and inaccuracies as their movie (“Lawyer’s View of ‘Hurricane’ Was Self-Serving,” Jan. 31).
Working to free Rubin Carter and John Artis without compensation for more than 12 years gave me the satisfaction of being part of a team of lawyers and investigators who were fighting for justice. Vindicating Rubin and John and feeling their warmth and gratitude was more than enough reward. Given my work in their behalf, it is offensive for commercial movie makers who are cashing in on their story to accuse me of “self-promotion.”
Contrary to the Counterpunch writers’ claims, my criticisms of “The Hurricane” are similar to those voiced by my co-counsel, Myron Beldock and Leon Friedman, although their comments have not been made as publicly as mine. Nor have I tried to take any credit away from the Canadians, who were a great help to the defense team. Like Dolly Artis, who married John while he was in prison and supported him through life-threatening medical problems, the Canadians helped to ensure that Rubin was not destroyed by his ordeal. But the fact is, as Myron, Leon and I have stated, it was the lawyers and their investigators who developed all of the evidence and all of the legal theories which led U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to throw out the convictions. Never once did our legal team lose its driving force or need the Canadians to re-energize us. But we were very appreciative of the exceptional support the Canadians gave us as tireless paralegals and for their taking some of the burden off of us by following up on evidentiary leads we had uncovered for our use in the event that the prosecutors tried to retry John and Rubin a third time. Fortunately, this latter work became unnecessary when the state of New Jersey dismissed its case after our victory in the federal courts.
Jewison, Bernstein, Langlais and Ketcham refer your readers to a quote of mine in a 1992 Sports Illustrated article to refute what I have reiterated above. In that article, I referred to the Canadians as like another law firm which was helping us. But Jewison and his fellow writers neglect to include my explanation in Sports Illustrated of what the Canadians did. Here it is: “You could go in there and ask one of these guys, ‘We think in such and such a hearing that such and such was said. Do you know what I mean?’ Twenty minutes later, they would come across the hall with a transcript open to the page, ‘Is this what you’re looking for?’ ” That is precisely what paralegals do, just as they help lawyers follow up on evidentiary leads.
It is insulting and, to say the least, ungracious for movie makers to engage in personal attacks by calling me “a disgruntled member of Rubin Carter’s and John Artis’ legal team” because I have the temerity to criticize their film. Our team of lawyers are now lifelong friends, and my work on this case and as a civil rights lawyer for over 35 years speaks for itself. Moreover, the criticisms of the film I have voiced are similar to those that have appeared in other newspapers.
LEWIS M. STEEL
New York
