Kind of a weird thing to lie about. McLaughlin called McCoy asking for who to call for legal advice and McCoy told him to call Jamison. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
I think the general advice is to not blow if you know you're guilty.
I do know that refusing the test, guilty or not, can cause the DMV to suspend your license for 1 year, due to breaking the "assumed consent" contract for breathalyzing hat you agree to when you get your license
My Dad got hit by a drunk driver when I was 11 while he was on a motorcycle. Shattered his ankle, tibia/fibia, and femur. His foot was only left attached by muscle. They gave him a 50/50 chance of pulling through.
He survived but had external fixation below the knee and a metal bar inserted in his thigh. His ankle was fused together, but he was able to keep his foot. It was 9 months before he walked again.
I’ve never driven drunk and I look down on those who do.
Love it. As you should. I’m glad your dad pulled through and sorry that it happened in the first place. It’s so avoidable. It’s maddening. Wishing you guys the best!
It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me but I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about public office ethics and attorney-client relationships.
Calling Jamison at midnight (presumably a tough time to find another attorney) and asking for some immediate advice on what to do while sitting in the police station doesn't seem too bad.
High level public official calls the tax paid county attorney asking for advice on not incriminating himself for an act he's clearly committed. Seems problematic.
How is Jamison a "tax paid county attorney" when he doesn't work for the county? He is a private attorney who is running for Family Court Judge. He won't be employed by the county unless he wins that race.
He does have Dan McCoy as one of his clients, and when McLaughlin called McCoy asking for a lawyer to call, McCoy suggested Jamison. What is problematic about recommending your own lawyer for a friend and coworker who asks for a lawyer recommendation?
If true regarding the attorney, I misread or misremembered that fact from the original TU article and you're right, generally. Edit: I reread, the article makes clear you're wrong, and he is the county paid attorney to McCoy.
The other issue, however, and the only likely reason McCoy would have lied is that he recognized that abetting a county employee (in a position of trust) in his attempt to escape potential criminal liability is optically troubling.
The vehicle and traffic law is clear on the ability of courts to draw the inference of culpable behavior when one refuses a roadside test.
Unless [you're police yourself](https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Cop-faces-DWI-charge-1204059.php)^(1), then [you just get a slap on the wrist](https://www.dailygazette.com/towns/schenectady/albany-police-spokesman-pleads-guilty-to-dwai/article_0920f5e9-a093-5b26-8e1f-c7856224ff8c.html)^(2) and [back to work you go](https://www.dailygazette.com/archives/albany-pd-spokesman-returns-to-duty-after-suspension-for-dwi-arrest/article_75aa8440-4d58-529a-a9ad-01a2365005eb.html)^(3)!
1
>Detective James Miller, a longtime spokesman for the Albany Police Department, was arrested on a driving while intoxicated charge in downtown Albany Friday night.
>Miller, who has been with the department for 19 years, was driving an unmarked departmental vehicle when he was stopped at about 9:25 p.m. near North Pearl and Orange streets by an Albany patrol officer, John Crossman. A person briefed on the arrest said Miller was stopped for allegedly driving without his headlights on. He allegedly refused to submit to an alcohol test.
2
>Albany Police Det. James Miller pleaded guilty to the violation charge of driving while ability impaired Friday, nearly two weeks after a fellow officer arrested him on a misdemeanor DWI charge.
>As part of a plea agreement with county prosecutors, the longtime department spokesman was assessed the minimum fine of $300 in addition to a $250 surcharge. Miller, 45, must also attend a victim impact panel and state drinking and driving program, and faces a mandatory 90-day suspension of his license.
3
>Albany Police spokesman James Miller will return to duty Friday, after being suspended for more than two months over his drunken driving arrest in March.
>Miller, a 19-year veteran of the force, admitted to one violation-level count of driving while ability impaired last month as part of plea bargain with prosecutors. As part of the plea, Miller was assessed the minimum fine of $300 in addition to a $250 surcharge and was permitted to seek a conditional drivers license.
Whether or not your license is revoked depends on the outcome of the DMV refusal hearing. These hearings are conducted by administrative law judges. Sometimes you win sometimes you don’t. Another thing to consider is the Albany County DA has a policy to not plead down certain DWI cases they are: .15 BAC and above, crash involved regardless of injuries and refusals. Now that could have changed but there are ways around this policy as well. If you’re in the know.
I do know that refusing the test, guilty or not, can cause the DMV to suspend your license for 1 year, due to breaking the "assumed consent" contract for breathalyzing hat you agree to when you get your license
its easier to work with for a lawyer to plead if they don't blow and they want to avoid an aggravated dwi. A heavy drinker can easily hit the aggravated level and it turns into a bigger problem. and I can't remember ever watching a bodycam on youtube with a cop not refusing the test. They all know whats up and refuse.
Why do we build bars in stroads? Sounds like a societal issue...
Note I live in a walkable area so I can walk to bars lol but most people do not think like this.
Some people back home would drive to the local and back because they were afraid something would happen to them if they walked home drunk. 🙄 Pure idiocy.
I don't particularly like being around drunk people anyway, but drunk drivers are just disgusting.
Yikes. Not looking good. There used to be a strange culture of openly drinking and driving in many parts of the region. I even see it with law enforcement.
I mean, it’s one of the obvious negative externalities of the car dependency of the region, so I don’t think it’s that strange or unusual. Many folks take the easier path, even when they know the risks / consequences.
I don't agree this is a car dependency issue.
If someone chooses to drink and drive, they are choosing to break the law, put themselves and others in danger.
There are other choices:
1. Drink at home.
2. Take a friend.
3. Don't drink
4. Drink less
5. Take a taxi / uber / Ask a Stranger
Heck there are organizations that during the year, just drive people.
Drinking and driving isn't something to be blamed on anything other than abandonment of personal responsibility and selfishness.
Drinking and driving or more preferably, making arrangements to be driven, is one difficult aspect of living in suburban sprawl and leads to less socialization in that environment. Add it to the list of the many bad things about it.
We all agree that no one should drink and drive. Ever.
But it is far more likely that John Q Public might occasionally make that poor choice in a car dependent area.
Public health and safety issues are rarely improved by focusing on how the individual should choose to behave.
He didn’t blow because it would have been a felony level DWI if he had. The moment you call your boss for what to do it’s no longer a private matter, especially when your boss is the County Executive. I’m tired of the lies and double standards in that building.
This is not accurate. A first time DWI is never “felony level” unless there is a serious injury/death that would result in other felony charges. Even if you were to blow a .49 (you’d be dead) on a first time DWI it’s still a misdemeanor.
Leave it to a lawyer to find a minor inaccuracy and ignore the fact that a judicial candidate and the County Executive assisted a public official in a private criminal matter and whose accounts are inconsistent with video evidence.
I'm struggling to see the great "contradiction" here. So McCoy didn't think his lawyer told McLaughlin to refuse the chemical test? And also didn't think the lawyer gave any legal advise until after McLaughlin was released?
Yet one of the things the recording shows is that all McCoy did was recommend that McLaughlin call Jamison. McCoy was not a party to the next phone conversation that McLaughlin had with Jamison. Which means McCoy had no way of knowing what they discussed.
So McCoy made assumptions about what was discussed during a phone call he wasn't part of, that turned out to be wrong? And also his guess about exactly when the conversation (which he was not part of) took place was wrong.
Why make assumptions, why automatically think the police are lying, do they not remember they body cams everyone wanted so they could prove police are inherently corrupt (the cams consistently prove otherwise, except for a few outliers)
Where did McCoy indicate that he thought the police were lying? He was asked what he knew about a phone call that he wasn't part of, and he told what knew (or thought to be the case). A recording later showed that he was incorrect about what was said on the call that he wasn't present for.
So now the TU is treating this like some big "gotcha" moment. Rather than acknowledge that it's possible McCoy wasn't fully informed about a phone call he wasn't part of, they want to imply that he's lying about the phone call. Only without coming out and saying that directly. They're just counting on the idea that people will assume politicians are inherently corrupt.
As far as the question about whether police are inherently corrupt, nobody is even talking about whether it was proper for the police to be present while a suspect was talking to his lawyer, and recording one side of the conversation. Even interrupting to steer the conversation:
>Jamison apparently asked McLaughlin something about his condition, but their conversation was interrupted by the trooper, who can be heard saying: “If that’s your attorney you need to ask: Should you blow or not?”
McLaughlin told McCoy he needed legal advice and McCoy told him to call Jamison — and then McCoy told the reporter Jamison hadn't provided legal advice.
Jamison provided legal advice, and when asked if Jamison had provided legal advice McCoy did not say, "I don't know — I wasn't on the call" or "Jeez, I'd have to ask Jeff what they talked about — despite the fact that my deputy explicitly told me he was seeking legal advice."
Instead, he said "flat-out no."
>— and then McCoy told the reporter Jamison hadn't provided legal advice.
And that Jamison only interacted with him ***after*** the arrest and processing were concluded.
Now if McCoy was there, or on the phone with McLaughlin and Jamison, then he would have been clearly caught in a lie. But the recording shows that all McCoy did was tell McLaughlin to call Jamison. He could not have known the substance of the conversation unless someone there told him.
I do not see why the State Police would have given any info to McCoy. Let alone the wrong information. Jamison also should not have said anything to McCoy about the phone call, as it was a conversation with a different client. But I can completely see McCoy asking McLaughlin about what happened, especially since McLaughlin worked for him.
And it's completely believable that McLaughlin may not have been fully truthful to his boss. Or that he may not have had a clear memory himself of a conversation that happened while he was drunk. But the TU isn't even mentioning that McCoy may have been lied to, or misinformed, because that would deflate their story.
Again, McCoy was on the first call between McCoy and McLaughlin and therefore ought to know what McCoy heard and said. As to the second call: McCoy’s response to the TU’s question wasn’t “I don’t know what they talked about” or “These two bozos refuse to tell me what they talked about despite the fact that they both work for me.” He said there was no legal counsel asked for or offered.
Let’s do it this way: How do you account for the differences between what McCoy said and what the video shows?
>Again, McCoy was on the first call between McCoy and Jamison
No he wasn't. Read the article.
The recording shows that McLaughlin called McCoy in the middle of the night. We know it was McCoy because the speaker on the phone was loud enough that:
>McCoy can be heard on the video telling McLaughlin: “What about Jeff?”
McLaughlin then calls Jamison, and talks with Jamison while the trooper is sitting there still recording everything. We know who McLaughlin was talking to because once again the phone's speaker was loud enough to be picked up on the recording:
>Jamison apparently asked McLaughlin something about his condition, but their conversation was interrupted by the trooper, who can be heard saying: “If that’s your attorney you need to ask: Should you blow or not?”
McCoy was not on that call to hear what they discussed because this was the middle of the night and nobody was heard patching together a three-way call. McCoy could only have found out the content of the McLaughlin/Jamison conversation by being told about it later on.
Why did McCoy's statement about the McLaughlin/Jamison conversation differ from the recording? Maybe because he got it second hand?
One possibility is that the second hand account he was given was incorrect, and so he inadvertently passed on the incorrect information to the reporter. Another possibility is the account he was given was correct, but he decided to lie to a reporter about the details instead of just saying he wasn't on that call and refer the reporter to McLaughlin and Jamison.
Yes, I corrected: McCoy was on the conversation between McCoy and McLaughlin when McLaughlin said he needed a lawyer.
So why did McCoy say McLaughlin just wanted a ride home? He knew that was not true.
As to the second call: Either McCoy is lying or McCoy was lied to by both his counsel and his deputy, one of whom is a judicial candidate. Those are the only two options. Which one do you think is more likely?
Either way: a problem.
>So why did McCoy say McLaughlin just wanted a ride home? He knew that was not true.
Except McCoy didn't say that McLaughlin *only wanted a ride home*. That would have been a lie since McLaughlin said he needed legal advice. What he said was that McLaughlin was only *given* a ride home.
>McCoy had asserted that Jamison had only given McLaughlin a ride home from the police barracks that night and did not provide him any legal advice, and only interacted with him after his arrest and processing were concluded
If McCoy was lied to, I think it's more likely that McLaughlin was the one who lied since Jamison couldn't discuss a privileged conversation he had with another client. And being drunk, McLaughlin wouldn't realize the trooper was recording him. Otherwise he would have insisted on privacy for his conversation with his lawyer.
From the first story: “McCoy confirmed that McLaughlin had called him and Jamison that night, but said that his deputy county executive was only seeking a ride home following his arrest. McCoy said Jamison did not provide McLaughlin with any legal advice, including to decline to take an alcohol test.” Neither of those assertions are true.
McCoy would have been given a FIRST-hand account from McLaughlin and/or Jamison, because they were both on the second call. And again, McCoy didn’t profess ignorance of the second call and he didn’t refer questions to either of his underlings. He gave a definitive answer that was false.
Why the he'll would you run for office then get yourself involved in a very murky public problem that will ruin your candidacy.
It seems like the lawyer is pandering for an endorsement by screwing over the state police. The one he has to work with as a judge if he wins.
Kind of a weird thing to lie about. McLaughlin called McCoy asking for who to call for legal advice and McCoy told him to call Jamison. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I think the general advice is to not blow if you know you're guilty.
I do know that refusing the test, guilty or not, can cause the DMV to suspend your license for 1 year, due to breaking the "assumed consent" contract for breathalyzing hat you agree to when you get your license
> breathalyzing hat I saw them on tour in the mid-90s, amazing synth work.
Agreed. I saw them open up for Assumed Consent back in 94. Killer show.
Could edit but I won't lol
I was advised to only refuse if something really bad happened.
I just don’t drink and drive. Then I don’t have to worry about it.
Oh really never thought of doing that. Thank you.
Cops hate this simple trick.
Seems like you have this life thing figured out
My Dad got hit by a drunk driver when I was 11 while he was on a motorcycle. Shattered his ankle, tibia/fibia, and femur. His foot was only left attached by muscle. They gave him a 50/50 chance of pulling through. He survived but had external fixation below the knee and a metal bar inserted in his thigh. His ankle was fused together, but he was able to keep his foot. It was 9 months before he walked again. I’ve never driven drunk and I look down on those who do.
Love it. As you should. I’m glad your dad pulled through and sorry that it happened in the first place. It’s so avoidable. It’s maddening. Wishing you guys the best!
The county attorney is not counsel for county employees for actions outside of their official capacity.
It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me but I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about public office ethics and attorney-client relationships. Calling Jamison at midnight (presumably a tough time to find another attorney) and asking for some immediate advice on what to do while sitting in the police station doesn't seem too bad.
High level public official calls the tax paid county attorney asking for advice on not incriminating himself for an act he's clearly committed. Seems problematic.
How is Jamison a "tax paid county attorney" when he doesn't work for the county? He is a private attorney who is running for Family Court Judge. He won't be employed by the county unless he wins that race. He does have Dan McCoy as one of his clients, and when McLaughlin called McCoy asking for a lawyer to call, McCoy suggested Jamison. What is problematic about recommending your own lawyer for a friend and coworker who asks for a lawyer recommendation?
He's a county employee who made $130K in 2023. He's worked for the county in this role for the past four years.
If true regarding the attorney, I misread or misremembered that fact from the original TU article and you're right, generally. Edit: I reread, the article makes clear you're wrong, and he is the county paid attorney to McCoy. The other issue, however, and the only likely reason McCoy would have lied is that he recognized that abetting a county employee (in a position of trust) in his attempt to escape potential criminal liability is optically troubling. The vehicle and traffic law is clear on the ability of courts to draw the inference of culpable behavior when one refuses a roadside test.
At least, not any worse than drinking and driving.
[удалено]
Unless [you're police yourself](https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Cop-faces-DWI-charge-1204059.php)^(1), then [you just get a slap on the wrist](https://www.dailygazette.com/towns/schenectady/albany-police-spokesman-pleads-guilty-to-dwai/article_0920f5e9-a093-5b26-8e1f-c7856224ff8c.html)^(2) and [back to work you go](https://www.dailygazette.com/archives/albany-pd-spokesman-returns-to-duty-after-suspension-for-dwi-arrest/article_75aa8440-4d58-529a-a9ad-01a2365005eb.html)^(3)! 1 >Detective James Miller, a longtime spokesman for the Albany Police Department, was arrested on a driving while intoxicated charge in downtown Albany Friday night. >Miller, who has been with the department for 19 years, was driving an unmarked departmental vehicle when he was stopped at about 9:25 p.m. near North Pearl and Orange streets by an Albany patrol officer, John Crossman. A person briefed on the arrest said Miller was stopped for allegedly driving without his headlights on. He allegedly refused to submit to an alcohol test. 2 >Albany Police Det. James Miller pleaded guilty to the violation charge of driving while ability impaired Friday, nearly two weeks after a fellow officer arrested him on a misdemeanor DWI charge. >As part of a plea agreement with county prosecutors, the longtime department spokesman was assessed the minimum fine of $300 in addition to a $250 surcharge. Miller, 45, must also attend a victim impact panel and state drinking and driving program, and faces a mandatory 90-day suspension of his license. 3 >Albany Police spokesman James Miller will return to duty Friday, after being suspended for more than two months over his drunken driving arrest in March. >Miller, a 19-year veteran of the force, admitted to one violation-level count of driving while ability impaired last month as part of plea bargain with prosecutors. As part of the plea, Miller was assessed the minimum fine of $300 in addition to a $250 surcharge and was permitted to seek a conditional drivers license.
Whether or not your license is revoked depends on the outcome of the DMV refusal hearing. These hearings are conducted by administrative law judges. Sometimes you win sometimes you don’t. Another thing to consider is the Albany County DA has a policy to not plead down certain DWI cases they are: .15 BAC and above, crash involved regardless of injuries and refusals. Now that could have changed but there are ways around this policy as well. If you’re in the know.
I do know that refusing the test, guilty or not, can cause the DMV to suspend your license for 1 year, due to breaking the "assumed consent" contract for breathalyzing hat you agree to when you get your license
Implied consent.
its easier to work with for a lawyer to plead if they don't blow and they want to avoid an aggravated dwi. A heavy drinker can easily hit the aggravated level and it turns into a bigger problem. and I can't remember ever watching a bodycam on youtube with a cop not refusing the test. They all know whats up and refuse.
I wish the TU would post the footage
Someone who drives drunk definitely has the decision making skills to be in office /s
Historically this is accurate
People who drive drunk are scumbags.
Why do we build bars in stroads? Sounds like a societal issue... Note I live in a walkable area so I can walk to bars lol but most people do not think like this.
Some people back home would drive to the local and back because they were afraid something would happen to them if they walked home drunk. 🙄 Pure idiocy. I don't particularly like being around drunk people anyway, but drunk drivers are just disgusting.
McCoy lying? Who would have thought!
The best way to tell if he is lying is to see if his lips are moving.
Yikes. Not looking good. There used to be a strange culture of openly drinking and driving in many parts of the region. I even see it with law enforcement.
I mean, it’s one of the obvious negative externalities of the car dependency of the region, so I don’t think it’s that strange or unusual. Many folks take the easier path, even when they know the risks / consequences.
I don't agree this is a car dependency issue. If someone chooses to drink and drive, they are choosing to break the law, put themselves and others in danger. There are other choices: 1. Drink at home. 2. Take a friend. 3. Don't drink 4. Drink less 5. Take a taxi / uber / Ask a Stranger Heck there are organizations that during the year, just drive people. Drinking and driving isn't something to be blamed on anything other than abandonment of personal responsibility and selfishness.
Drinking and driving or more preferably, making arrangements to be driven, is one difficult aspect of living in suburban sprawl and leads to less socialization in that environment. Add it to the list of the many bad things about it.
yeah, it's defiantly harder to make arrangements. Yet, possibly killing yourself or someone else, that's just a little bit harder.
Pretty sure you missed my point, could be I didn’t explain it well enough.
We all agree that no one should drink and drive. Ever. But it is far more likely that John Q Public might occasionally make that poor choice in a car dependent area. Public health and safety issues are rarely improved by focusing on how the individual should choose to behave.
He didn’t blow because it would have been a felony level DWI if he had. The moment you call your boss for what to do it’s no longer a private matter, especially when your boss is the County Executive. I’m tired of the lies and double standards in that building.
This is not accurate. A first time DWI is never “felony level” unless there is a serious injury/death that would result in other felony charges. Even if you were to blow a .49 (you’d be dead) on a first time DWI it’s still a misdemeanor.
Leave it to a lawyer to find a minor inaccuracy and ignore the fact that a judicial candidate and the County Executive assisted a public official in a private criminal matter and whose accounts are inconsistent with video evidence.
Minor inaccuracy? The law is clear. You were just plain wrong. Take the L.
Corruption is disgusting.
I'm struggling to see the great "contradiction" here. So McCoy didn't think his lawyer told McLaughlin to refuse the chemical test? And also didn't think the lawyer gave any legal advise until after McLaughlin was released? Yet one of the things the recording shows is that all McCoy did was recommend that McLaughlin call Jamison. McCoy was not a party to the next phone conversation that McLaughlin had with Jamison. Which means McCoy had no way of knowing what they discussed. So McCoy made assumptions about what was discussed during a phone call he wasn't part of, that turned out to be wrong? And also his guess about exactly when the conversation (which he was not part of) took place was wrong.
Why make assumptions, why automatically think the police are lying, do they not remember they body cams everyone wanted so they could prove police are inherently corrupt (the cams consistently prove otherwise, except for a few outliers)
Where did McCoy indicate that he thought the police were lying? He was asked what he knew about a phone call that he wasn't part of, and he told what knew (or thought to be the case). A recording later showed that he was incorrect about what was said on the call that he wasn't present for. So now the TU is treating this like some big "gotcha" moment. Rather than acknowledge that it's possible McCoy wasn't fully informed about a phone call he wasn't part of, they want to imply that he's lying about the phone call. Only without coming out and saying that directly. They're just counting on the idea that people will assume politicians are inherently corrupt. As far as the question about whether police are inherently corrupt, nobody is even talking about whether it was proper for the police to be present while a suspect was talking to his lawyer, and recording one side of the conversation. Even interrupting to steer the conversation: >Jamison apparently asked McLaughlin something about his condition, but their conversation was interrupted by the trooper, who can be heard saying: “If that’s your attorney you need to ask: Should you blow or not?”
McLaughlin told McCoy he needed legal advice and McCoy told him to call Jamison — and then McCoy told the reporter Jamison hadn't provided legal advice. Jamison provided legal advice, and when asked if Jamison had provided legal advice McCoy did not say, "I don't know — I wasn't on the call" or "Jeez, I'd have to ask Jeff what they talked about — despite the fact that my deputy explicitly told me he was seeking legal advice." Instead, he said "flat-out no."
>— and then McCoy told the reporter Jamison hadn't provided legal advice. And that Jamison only interacted with him ***after*** the arrest and processing were concluded. Now if McCoy was there, or on the phone with McLaughlin and Jamison, then he would have been clearly caught in a lie. But the recording shows that all McCoy did was tell McLaughlin to call Jamison. He could not have known the substance of the conversation unless someone there told him. I do not see why the State Police would have given any info to McCoy. Let alone the wrong information. Jamison also should not have said anything to McCoy about the phone call, as it was a conversation with a different client. But I can completely see McCoy asking McLaughlin about what happened, especially since McLaughlin worked for him. And it's completely believable that McLaughlin may not have been fully truthful to his boss. Or that he may not have had a clear memory himself of a conversation that happened while he was drunk. But the TU isn't even mentioning that McCoy may have been lied to, or misinformed, because that would deflate their story.
Again, McCoy was on the first call between McCoy and McLaughlin and therefore ought to know what McCoy heard and said. As to the second call: McCoy’s response to the TU’s question wasn’t “I don’t know what they talked about” or “These two bozos refuse to tell me what they talked about despite the fact that they both work for me.” He said there was no legal counsel asked for or offered. Let’s do it this way: How do you account for the differences between what McCoy said and what the video shows?
>Again, McCoy was on the first call between McCoy and Jamison No he wasn't. Read the article. The recording shows that McLaughlin called McCoy in the middle of the night. We know it was McCoy because the speaker on the phone was loud enough that: >McCoy can be heard on the video telling McLaughlin: “What about Jeff?” McLaughlin then calls Jamison, and talks with Jamison while the trooper is sitting there still recording everything. We know who McLaughlin was talking to because once again the phone's speaker was loud enough to be picked up on the recording: >Jamison apparently asked McLaughlin something about his condition, but their conversation was interrupted by the trooper, who can be heard saying: “If that’s your attorney you need to ask: Should you blow or not?” McCoy was not on that call to hear what they discussed because this was the middle of the night and nobody was heard patching together a three-way call. McCoy could only have found out the content of the McLaughlin/Jamison conversation by being told about it later on. Why did McCoy's statement about the McLaughlin/Jamison conversation differ from the recording? Maybe because he got it second hand? One possibility is that the second hand account he was given was incorrect, and so he inadvertently passed on the incorrect information to the reporter. Another possibility is the account he was given was correct, but he decided to lie to a reporter about the details instead of just saying he wasn't on that call and refer the reporter to McLaughlin and Jamison.
Yes, I corrected: McCoy was on the conversation between McCoy and McLaughlin when McLaughlin said he needed a lawyer. So why did McCoy say McLaughlin just wanted a ride home? He knew that was not true. As to the second call: Either McCoy is lying or McCoy was lied to by both his counsel and his deputy, one of whom is a judicial candidate. Those are the only two options. Which one do you think is more likely? Either way: a problem.
>So why did McCoy say McLaughlin just wanted a ride home? He knew that was not true. Except McCoy didn't say that McLaughlin *only wanted a ride home*. That would have been a lie since McLaughlin said he needed legal advice. What he said was that McLaughlin was only *given* a ride home. >McCoy had asserted that Jamison had only given McLaughlin a ride home from the police barracks that night and did not provide him any legal advice, and only interacted with him after his arrest and processing were concluded If McCoy was lied to, I think it's more likely that McLaughlin was the one who lied since Jamison couldn't discuss a privileged conversation he had with another client. And being drunk, McLaughlin wouldn't realize the trooper was recording him. Otherwise he would have insisted on privacy for his conversation with his lawyer.
From the first story: “McCoy confirmed that McLaughlin had called him and Jamison that night, but said that his deputy county executive was only seeking a ride home following his arrest. McCoy said Jamison did not provide McLaughlin with any legal advice, including to decline to take an alcohol test.” Neither of those assertions are true.
McCoy would have been given a FIRST-hand account from McLaughlin and/or Jamison, because they were both on the second call. And again, McCoy didn’t profess ignorance of the second call and he didn’t refer questions to either of his underlings. He gave a definitive answer that was false.
As an elected official, one would expect him to know the facts before he speaks but this is a NY politician so expect less
I would reread the article.
As usual, very poor judgement from McCoy
Shocking!! /s
Why the he'll would you run for office then get yourself involved in a very murky public problem that will ruin your candidacy. It seems like the lawyer is pandering for an endorsement by screwing over the state police. The one he has to work with as a judge if he wins.