Different judge needed to preside over Abelove case

I’ve worked in several laboratories in my career. It has always been standard practice to have a second individual test a sample that produces a suspect result. When possible, this testing would be performed by a different person on different equipment. Ideally, that technician would have no bias and little knowledge of the previous circumstances. They would simply perform their testing according to accepted practice. They would have no incentive to produce particular results.

That is partly why it is so dumbfounding that Judge Jonathan Nichols was selected as the lone arbiter to decide the outcome of the case against former Rensselaer County District Attorney Joel Abelove for perjury and official misconduct. Nichols had already ruled that the case did not have merit because, in his view, the attorney general’s office did not even have jurisdiction to pursue the case. That position was reversed on appeal. So why was Nichols put in the position to rule on the case when it was actually brought to trial? Aren’t there other qualified judges who could have presided over the case to decide the outcome? Hadn’t Nichols already made his position crystal clear?

This letter is not a commentary on the guilt or innocence of Abelove. It is not a commentary on the ultimate ruling of Nichols. It is simply a common sense view of a situation that is difficult to grasp without some cynicism over its appearance of impropriety. That negative perception could have been avoided by taking the simple step of appointing a judge other than Nichols to preside over the trial.

Mark Kulzer

Wynantskill