Further investigation of a recent attack in Philadelphia might justify the filing of hate-crime charges against teenagers who sparked the melee.

On a Saturday night two weekends ago, a Penn senior named David Goldman was in the back of a cab, en route to a date. The problem came when the car approached 15th Street.

“I was in the backseat, looking out of my window, which was rolled down, and then ― bam! A strong punch came barreling through the window and hit me squarely in the jaw,” he wrote in the Daily Pennsylvanian.

“The driver and I got out of the cab to confront the teenagers. As the driver walked by the trunk of the car, he was sucker-punched from the back. I turned my head in disbelief, wanting to go to the driver’s assistance when I felt a second, harder punch strike me across the face,” he continued.

“The driver popped open his trunk and pulled out a crowbar. We were in the heart of Philadelphia, a major metropolis, yet the intersection of 15th and Chestnut streets resembled the closest thing I could imagine to a war zone,” Goldman wrote.

Goldman fled the scene and did not call police.

Stephanie Farr’s initial coverage of the incident in the Daily News reported that the teens were “spouting racial slurs” at the time of the altercation. But a few days later came the announcement from the District Attorney’s Office that there would be no prosecution for a hate crime because the racial epithets didn’t rise to the level of ethnic intimidation, the formal name for the charge in Pennsylvania. The defendants are being charged with two counts of aggravated assault, a felony of the first degree.

While some have been quick to suggest a reluctance on the part of the D.A. to prosecute African-Americans for hate crimes, the data suggest otherwise. The District Attorney’s Office has filed hate-crime charges 23 times since Jan. 3, 2011. In four of those instances, the defendants were African-American or otherwise non-Caucasian. Goldman’s case could become No. 24 if further investigation confirms speculation that the defendants shouted “white motherf ― ” during the attack.

Just last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that it was unnecessary for racial animus to be the sole, or even primary, factor in filing hate-crime charges. That case involved a defendant named Daniel Sinnott, who hurled anti-Hispanic epithets and a “motherf ― ” while charging at his employer’s daughter with an electric drill and hammer.

Sinnott’s conviction for ethnic intimidation was overturned by the Superior Court, which determined that the attack was not primarily motivated by ethnic animosity, but rather the defendant’s employment relationship with the victim’s father. The state Supreme Court disagreed and, in an opinion authored by Justice J. Michael Eakin, noted that the legislature could have easily inserted specific language to require that ethnically malicious intent be the sole motivation behind the criminal act, but it did not.

Eakin wrote: “The language of our ethnic intimidation statute is straightforward and broad: an actor who commits one of the predicate offenses ‘with malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin’ of the victim is guilty. ... Malicious intention is defined as ‘the intention to commit any act ... motivated by hatred toward the [victim’s] race, color, religion or national origin.’ ... Neither definition contains limiting language such as ‘solely’ or ‘only’; all that is required is that the ethnically malicious intent be present, concurrent with the underlying criminal act.”

In other words, if that element is present, hate-crime charges can be filed. In the Sinnott case, evidence existed that the defendant was motivated by racial animosity when he made repeated references to what he thought was the victim’s national origin (he was mistaken) while behaving in a physically menacing manner, committing an assault on her.

That sounds a lot like the recent Philadelphia attack.

When I spoke to Goldman, he said he did not hear any name-calling.

“I don’t recall racial slurs, but nor was I listening to what they had to say after I was punched,” he said. “My head was ringing and my mind was zooming in a million directions.”

He also wasn’t positive of the race of the cabdriver.

As to hate-crime charges, he subsequently told the Daily Pennsylvanian, “I fully support the D.A.’s decision, 100 percent.”

But the cabdriver, who has yet to be fully interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office, may provide more detail as to what was said, which could allow prosecutors to take a fresh look at filing additional charges.

Hate-crime laws must be applied evenly, without regard to the race of the victim or perpetrator. But the pursuit of hate crimes is no easy task. It puts prosecutors in the role of psychiatrists, attempting to get inside the heads of attackers instead of just proving bad acts. Besides, aren’t all acts of physical violence hate crimes?

By Michael Smerconish

Michael Smerconish writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer. ― Ed.

(The Philadelphia Inquirer)
(MCT Information Services)