Circuit Pick Criticized for Assault Case Says He’d Be Fair Judge

A Biden judicial nominee again defended himself against criticism over his past representation of a New England prep school in litigation with a student sex assault victim.

In written responses to questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members, Michael Delaney said his work as a private attorney for St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire in the case several years ago wouldn’t color his new duties, if confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“I do not believe my role as an advocate for the school in this case would compromise my ability to be a fair and impartial judge,” Delaney said.

The follow-up responses to questions from his rocky Senate confirmation hearing Feb. 15 come as the family of the victim, Chessy Prout, meets with Judiciary Committee members and staff to garner opposition to Delaney’s nomination.

Chessy Prout’s father, Alex Prout, told Bloomberg Law that he has met with staffers of seven of the committee’s 11 Democrats. Most panel Democrats weren’t present for questioning at the hearing.

Critics, including Republicans and sex assault awareness groups, have focused on a Delaney motion during proceedings for the then-teenage victim to shed her anonymity and an allegation that he tampered with witnesses during the litigation.

At the hearing, Delaney detailed the school’s position on the anonymity motion and flatly denied allegations of tampering. He did so again in his written responses to lawmaker questions that were publicized on Tuesday.

“I want to state in the strongest possible terms that I did not engage in any witness tampering during the criminal trial in State v. Owen LaBrie, nor have I ever engaged in any witness tampering or interference during my nearly 30-year legal career,” Delaney wrote.

Impartial Jury Defense

Chessy Prout, who is now public about her experience, wrote to the committee with the allegation of tampering before Delaney’s hearing and urged senators not to confirm him. She also criticized the school’s opposition to her motion for anonymity during the case, calling it a “textbook tactic of victim intimidation.”

Delaney, in written responses, said that the school agreed to the request for Chessy Prout and her family to remain anonymous as long as certain conditions were met. Those conditions included the law firm for the Prouts agreeing not to appear on national broadcast news shows during the lawsuit as one lawyer for the family had already done.

He said the school was seeking to apply conduct rules for lawyers to the case that limit what they can say about a lawsuit outside the courtroom. Those rules, he said, are aimed at making sure the judge would be able to impanel a jury that hadn’t already been influenced.

Delaney also acknowledged the difficulty Chessy Prout and victims like her seeking justice through civil means. He said he recognized “the important role that anonymity can play in reducing the likelihood of physical or emotional harm associated with advancing lawsuits in court, including the risk of re-traumatization.”

Democrat Responses

The absence of the majority of Democrats during Delaney’s hearing raised questions about whether the lawmakers would act along party lines in advancing Delaney.

Alex Prout said some committee Democrats’ staffers were sympathetic and expressed “consternation or genuine questioning” regarding Delaney’s qualifications during his meetings. Other staffers were more “close to the vest,” bringing up the totality of Delaney’s record.

“I know some Democrats are looking at this very thoughtfully, and if you take away politics from the review, the answer is clear,” he said.

Some committee Democrats interviewed by Bloomberg Law said they are still reviewing Delaney’s record ahead of the committee vote on his nomination. A date for that has not been set.

“I will diligently review the record and qualifications of all nominees up until that markup,” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said in an interview Tuesday.