University Of Virginia: Epstein Will Not Enroll With Us
One thing that struck us about The Karate Chop Heard 'Round The Blogosphere was the news that the chopper--Marcus Epstein--is saying goodbye to Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan this summer to go to law school at the University of Virginia. Dave Weigel reported this, and Bay Buchanan told me the same thing.
But Jason Wu Trujillo, UVA's Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, now says Epstein will not enroll this fall, or ever.
Trujillo couldn't discuss the specifics of that decision, but it raises a question: The incident itself occurred on July 7, 2007, before Epstein applied, but the school requires applicants to disclose all criminal convictions.
Have you ever been convicted of any offense, excluding minor traffic violations which did not involve injury to others?Are there any charges pending or expected to be brought against you?
....If, after you submit this application, you are charged with a criminal offense or disciplinary charges are brought against you, notify the Office of Admissions in writing immediately.
Now, suddenly, Epstein isn't going to UVA anymore. Trujillo couldn't comment further on the situation, saying that his office can only comment on students who are enrolled or intending to enroll at the school, and that Epstein fits neither description. Notably, though, he didn't suggest that this was somehow the first he'd ever heard of Epstein. So, did Epstein omit the information from his application?
Josh
Matt
Eric
How much you want to bet he can get accepted to Liberty University Law School?
June 1, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not if he's Jewish.
June 1, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny for words, Steve!
June 1, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a bigot so he gets a pass.
June 1, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberty may overlook that as long as he's not a Democrat.
June 1, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good to see UVa has standards.
June 1, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shouldn't be too quick to applaud application questions like these when they snare someone we disprove of. These questions cast an overly broad net. Huge numbers of people are caught up in the justice/punishment system in the U.S. Most of these folks are eventually released, and leave prison to face questions like this standing in the way of basics like education, housing, employment, and even access to student loans and basic welfare.
Formerly incarcerated people are organizing to win back these basic civil rights through groups like All of Us or None in California (who I work with).
I'd much prefer to see a law school denying admission to a student who the admissions board does not believe can play a responsible role in the institution's diverse community. Conviction history should only narrowly apply to eligibility for meeting basic needs and self-improvement (for example, it makes sense for a bank to weigh an embezzelment conviction in a hiring decision for a prospective employee). Most convictions don't meet this criteria, and we all need to make sure formerly incarcerated people return to supportive communities where they can earn a living and grow as people.
June 1, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the wrong answer guarantee failure to be accepted? Or is it the lying that disqualifies the applicant?
I'm guessing the latter.
PEACE
June 1, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, even where law does not explicitly prohibit it, having been convicted does not automatically mean inadmissability. Lying does.
June 2, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you, Sasha. Whatever is the case regarding Mr. Epstein, this is not an outcome that good people should applaud.
June 1, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking only for myself, two thoughts:
(1) Race-based assault is not a petty misdemeanor like jaywalking.
(2) Considering that we ARE talking about prospective officers of the court, I'd like to think that the University of Virgina School of Law has a vested interest in knowing whether or not one of its respective applicants has any criminal charges pending against him or her.
Call me a fascist socialist or socialist fascist if you're so inclined, but Mr. Epstein had an obligation to disclose this information to UVA. What happened to him, he brought upon himself. Don't look to me for sympathy.
June 1, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He would have filled that out before he pled guilty. Until he pled guilty, the correct answer to that question was "no."
June 1, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The incident occurred BEFORE he applied to the school, so the correct answer would have been "yes".
June 1, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question was "have you ever been convicted," not have you ever been "accused" or "charged."
But I squinted real hard at the image after I read your response and it does look like the next question might have been a problem for him. If he answered it correctly, the application got flagged for follow up even if he was accepted. If he didn't, well, that's application fraud and he's outta there from the gitgo.
My hazy decades-old recollection is that UNC didn't ask if I had charges pending, only whether I'd been convicted of anything other than a minor traffic offense. I remember fighting off the urge to give the classic Dr. Johnny Fever answer ("not in this country,") because it didn't strike me as a question they'd have much sense of humor about.
June 1, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was convicted / pled guilty on January 7, 2008. If he applied before that date and was accepted, shouldn't he have already started law school?
June 1, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He could have deferred for a year, although you are expected to inform schools of anything that would require someone to change their answers at the time of enrollment.
June 1, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's when he executed the plea agreement--after modifying it to say he admitted the government could prove him guilty, instead of just saying he was guilty. I can't find anything that tells me when the plea was actually accepted but I wouldn't expect sentencing to be delayed until this July if judgment was entered as far back as January before last.
My guess--only a guess--is that he thought he was being clever--a common affliction among Young Republican types--and didn't answer "yes" to the conviction question because his plea hadn't been accepted and didn't answer "yes" to the "are charges pending" question because, he (wrongly) theorized, they weren't "pending" once the D.A. accepted plea agreement.
June 1, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you're saying that he may have "lawyered" himself right out of law school.
That's worth a snicker or two, if that's what went down ...
June 1, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the kind of hair-splitting the Right used to complain about - remember "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is"?
June 2, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Law students are told over and over, on their law school and bar applications, disclose, disclose, disclose. There are very few things in your record that merit automatic expulsion from law school or disqualify you from bar membership.
But failure to disclose anything in response to an application question is one of them.
June 1, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your right. The bar will admit about anybody who fesses up to his crimes. The most notorious old west gunslinger, John Wesley Harden, was a member of the Texas Bar. He studied law in prison. Of course that was 110 years ago, but there are lots of recent examples.
June 1, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
California (?) bar refused to admit a guy who'd been convicted of murder a few years back. Guy completed college in law school, got his sentence commuted or out on parole or something and then went to law school despite multiple warnings that he'd have little chance of being admitted to the bar. There was a big stink about it in fashionable liberal circles, as I recall.
But most state bars are pretty unforgiving of crimes involving theft or deceit unless you have a handy substance abuse problem you can blame them on and have completed treatment. I'm guessing hate crimes aren't look upon with great favor, either.
June 1, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was Arizona and James Hamm. He passed the bar exam in 1999 and was paroled in 2001. The AZSC ruled in 2005 that he "failed to establish the good moral character necessary to be admitted to the practice of law in Arizona"
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2005/sb040079m.pdf
June 1, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Even felony-level drug distribution is not necessarily a bar to the Bar, IF you are extremely candid about it and have been through rehab and have a sponsor.
June 2, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
ha. one wonders if he'd even ever been accepted. or if he'd even applied...
nice reporting, brian. (after i'd been so dismissive...)
June 1, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's customary for law schools to require their applicants to amend applications. I was required to amend my application for an event that happened while I was enrolled at my law school. The type of offense Epstein committed was far more serious than mine and certainly spoke more to his character than mine. I say that because I'm not all that shocked that his offer was withdrawn.
UVA doesn't want to sully their reputation with a convicted racist. Nobody can blame them for that.
June 1, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question for you lawyers: What is the legal significance of the handwritten change to the acceptance of a guilty plea? After "I am pleading guilty because . . ." he's scratched out "I am in fact guilty of the offenses set forth against me" and written in by hand "I believe the government could prove me guilty."
I thought that guilty pleas required some form of acknowledgement of guilt, usually taking the form of an allocution. But it appears that he's deliberately rejecting an admission of guilt. So shouldn't he still be subject to felony assault charges?
June 1, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It works like a no contest plea. It's not uncommon in cases that may carry a civil penalty. The defendant concedes that the state could prove their case without admitting guilt. Typically those pleas require the approval of the state and the Judge.
June 1, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like an Alford plea (named after the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford), which permits the defendant to avoid admitting his guilt but acknowledge that the government has sufficient evidence to persuade a jury or judge that he is guilty. Some judges won't accept an Alford plea.
An Alford plea is not quite the same as pleading no contest, because a plea of no contest can't be used against the defendant in some later proceedings (e.g., a civil suit seeking damages). An Alford plea, however, is a guilty plea, so it has greater consequences in future proceedings than a plea of no contest.
June 1, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see Liberty University or Regent University in his near future.
June 1, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God!
I was just about to frantically write our Dean when I saw this..
June 1, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will very soon be howls of outrage from Epstein and/or his supporters about how the liberal media cost him a chance at law school that he earned in contrast to those filthy minorities like Sotomayor and Obama who got into law school because of affirmative action and liberals. There will be talk of a lawsuit against TPM for invading his privacy. Freepers will be convinced that Obama was behind this to destroy Tancredo's unstoppable juggernaut that was bringing down Sotomayor's nomination. Fred Barnes will crap himself in righteous indignation.
June 1, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like he was shown the door before the us DFH called UVA.
June 1, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, this reminds of Ben Domenech (sp?) from a couple of years ago. Another young Republican assclown bites the dust.
June 1, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So will the Tancredo/Buchanan camps keep him now? Their answers will say a lot.
June 1, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The depths of Marcus Epstein's self-hatred must be truly frightening.
June 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My alma mater allowed me to amend my application once i realized that i had given the "minor traffic offenses" exception too broad a reading. i wasn't disciplined but i understand that is a common cause for dismissal or deferment.
June 1, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having once been a law student I can say that lying on applications to law school is a big deal and I'm not surprised at all that his doing so has gotten his admission withdrawn. UVA does not have a problem filling up it's L1 class.
A deliberate lie on a law school app could also prevent him from ever being licensed to practice law.
June 1, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ps - his facebook page is wide open for public viewing:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?sid=9729733b6d3e14e604de8c5d0fa1737e&id=7602997&hiq=marcus%2Cepstein&ref=search
June 1, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And note that he lists that he will be completing graduate school at UVA in 2012. I'm guessing his change in status at the law school is still very recent.
June 1, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, come on, Dean Wu Trujillo! What problem could you possibly have with signing off on this guy attending your school?
June 1, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...I smell a lawsuit kind of like the Miss California one.
Lots of slow news coverage.
June 1, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
UVA's law school app is a lot easier than mine was. I had to describe every arrest in detail - especially difficult since they all included drunkenness.
June 1, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record the racist criminal Epstein would not be eligible for Financial Aid based on his criminal background.
June 1, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called an Alford plea in most jurisdictions, and is basically saying, yeah you could convict me on the evidence but if there was a god in heaven he'd let me off. (obviously somewhat tongue in cheek, but not too far from the reality of such a plea)
June 1, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Epstein's conduct, if done by a Maryland attorney, would constitute a number of different ethical violations. It was the interference with the civil right of free passage of an innocent bystander; it was a crime designed to inflict fear in all African-Americans walking peaceably on the street; either of these constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and would be worse so had Epstein been an attorney doing them.
If he lied on a major matter - such as omitting an extremely recent crime of bias - on an academic application, that would constitute involving dishonesty and deceit. If he did it on his Bar application, all the more so.
The public confidence in the practice of law requires that all attorneys be free of major criminal taint; free of deceptive and dishonest conduct (1000 lawyer jokes notwithstanding); excellent citizens whom courts and the public are reasonably entitled to trust on matters involving public and private entrustments. Epstein's failure to secure admission into UVA doesn't make me happy or fill me with Schadenfreude, rather with relief.
June 1, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hold two master's degrees from UVa (School of Architecture) and lecture there, and I live in Charlottesville. The university has an honor code that works imperfectly, but does make the lives of students and faculty considerably easier. (I give take-home exams: I email the exam to the students and tell them the due date and time limit and what resources can be used to complete it. Each one is expected to follow the rules.) Expulsion is the sole sanction, and that's part of the problem (and another discussion).
Lying on an application to law school is bad, but lying on an application to a university that puts as much stock in its honor code as does UVa, well, that's just not going to pass muster. And lying about criminal charges? To a law school? How stupid can any one human being get?
June 1, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kharma?
I just sent him a Facebook "be my friend" invitation and the code words to confirm my message were...get this..."evils whom".
honest.
coincidence?
June 1, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree with Brian CB; this is almost certainly an honor code violation and the school doesn't comment publicly on those matters.
For those who want to learn about the code, go here. In short, lying, cheating or stealing will get you kicked out of school.
June 2, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the Chair of my State's Board of Bar Examiners. It's a much bigger deal to lie or conceal something like this than it is to have to explain away the 'youthful transgression.' Assuming this clod gets into Liberty or some other such place, hopefully this little item will follow him around to insure that he never gets admitted to practice.
June 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink