> Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are.
I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling.
Correct my thinking:
They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present?

Yes. But he (Salaam) claimed to be sixteen and produced a transit document to that effect.

> Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer?

It matters, but that doesn’t mean it automatically invalidates the conviction or the evidence. When an accused lies about their age and the police them without a parent, that’s a violation of the law. (At least the law here in New York.) But automatically vacating the conviction based on that would not be fair to the state: the police proceeded in good faith, based on the accused’s lie. So the judge tries to figure out whether that error was really prejudicial enough to warrant excluding the evidence.

> If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example.

In Maryland, the age of consent is 14 for people who are close in age. That recognizes that teenagers are able to consent to certain adult behavior. Now, it’s 16 if the partner is much older, because there could be coercion. Here, if there was a much older ringleader I’d support a more lenient treatment for the teenagers.

> I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.

The question isn’t whether brain development is complete. The question is whether it is sufficiently far along that they can understand the consequences of their actions and distinguish right from wrong.

There is evidence that teenagers are, for example, more impulsive than adults. But if you look at the data, adult criminals also tend to have problems with impulse control. That’s not an excuse.

> Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them?

If they were guilty of the other assaults of which they were convicted, I don’t see that sentence as unreadable, especially given the concerted action.

> And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it?

I think they were probably not guilty of the rape, based on the DNA evidence. So the vacated of the conviction was correct. But note that DNA testing was pretty new and not routine during the original trial. Also note that the evidence for their other convictions that occurred at the same time are stronger. E.g., o e defendant was carrying a pipe that was used to beat someone else at the park.

> My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.

It was definitely improper. But the facts are more complicated than the cartoon villain version promoted in the press: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...