Criminal Justice With Charles Stillman

1. Tell me about your background. How did you get involved in this space? ​

​

• ​Main Points:

  • Grew up in Brooklyn, married young, attended NYU Law School at night.

  • Worked as a bailiff for a federal judge, which was a pivotal experience.

  • Inspired by watching U.S. Attorneys try cases.

  • Joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office right out of law school thanks to the judge’s help.

  • Moved through several law firms before starting his own practice in 1977.

  • Later joined Ballard Spahr and ended his career there after 60 years of practice.

  • Now retired, with a large family, but caring for his wife with Alzheimer’s.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “I am a kid from Brooklyn—what they say is you can take the boy out of Brooklyn, but you can't take Brooklyn out of the boy—and a life‑changing event occurred when a federal judge hired me as his bailiff while I was a night law student, which made clear to me where I wanted to go in my life as a lawyer and led directly to joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.”​​

​

• • “In 1977 I decided to give it a go, hung up a shingle and started the Law Offices of Charles Stillman, and later I joined Ballard Spahr and practiced there until I retired after 60 years as a lawyer.”

​

2. How would you describe our justice system now?

​

• Main Points:

  • In the past, the federal system “basically worked” with prosecution, defense, and judiciary in balance.

  • Now, there is an imbalance due to overly aggressive prosecutors or harsh judges.

  • Believes fairness—“the hat fits”—is essential.

  • Disturbed by current events (people “picked up off the street”), they express helplessness about the political direction.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “When I was that young kid working for a federal judge my basic observation was that the system worked and it was fair, because criminal justice is a three‑cornered hat—the prosecution, the defense, and the judiciary—and when it fits those three corners work together to administer justice.”​

​

• • “Today there are some horrible things going on—people being picked up off the street by guys walking around with blanketed masks—and that is scary and not good at all.”

​

3. What do you view as the goal of the justice system? Is it more punitive or restorative?

​

• ​Main Points:

  • Locally (e.g., Manhattan DA’s office), I believe the system is still fair.

  • Shares the story of DA Frank Hogan, prosecuted equally regardless of social status.

  • Criticizes political interference in some modern cases.

 

• Key Quotes:

  • “In New York County I think the system is administered fairly on the local level, and Frank Hogan, the legendary district attorney, showed how justice should work when he insisted on prosecuting a well‑connected assailant and said that if he were a poor Black guy from Harlem he would still prosecute.”​

​

• • “The justice system is something we depend on because without it we’re lost, and if the current administration continues on the path it’s on, justice as you would like it to be is not going to be there.”​

​

4. What are the roles of Alternative Dispute Resolution?

​

• Main Points:

  • ADR and mediation are valuable, especially in civil cases.

  • Works if both sides are rational and willing to resolve.

  • Shares an example of a failed mediation that escalated due to hostility.

  • Personally avoided litigation in a dispute due to good advice—it’s situational.

 

• Key Quotes:

  • “On the civil side, mediation and ADR clearly work because they avoid the courtroom and the clashing of litigation, but they only work if there are rational people on both sides who can get past the bad moments.”​

​

• • “It is far better if you can sit down and mediate or arbitrate a dispute so people can go on living their lives, and I myself once chose not to litigate after a friend told me to forget about it and move on.”

​

5. What are some of the most memorable cases you’ve covered? What stuck with you about them

​

• Main Points:

  • Represented Reverend Sun Myung Moon — highly controversial, but career-defining.

  • Also worked for political figures like Mayor Jenkins, former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, and many everyday clients.

  • Found work rewarding but emotionally challenging.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • One of the first major clients that came to me after I opened my own firm was Reverend Sun Myung Moon, a major and controversial religious figure whose case changed the direction of my practice and led me into big‑time work.”​

​

• • “I also represented people like Mayor Jenkins and former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, along with many ordinary people in difficult situations, and while that was emotionally rewarding work, the bad moments when something bad happens that you have fought against are tough.”​

​

6. What are the “holding conditions” like? Aka, where someone is held before they are officially sentenced. 

• Have you seen many instances where people plead guilty to escape conditions even if they aren't guilty​

 

• Main Points:

  • Limited personal experience with Rikers Island.

  • Federal detention conditions vary; some stories are troubling.

  • Has never personally known a client to plead guilty solely to escape bad conditions, but acknowledges it might happen in state prisons with long pretrial periods.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “I have limited experience with Rikers Island—I've never been there—and most of my clients were federal and held at the Manhattan Federal Detention Center, where sometimes conditions were okay and other times you heard hair‑raising stories.”​

​

• • “In my experience no lawyer has ever told me, ‘My client just gave up and pleaded guilty because they didn’t want to stay there,’ though in the overwhelmed state system if someone sits for years before trial you can imagine them saying, ‘Get me out of here, cut a deal for me.’”​

​

7. Does someone’s status influence their treatment within the trial process? 

​

• Main Points:

  • Status and resources help, particularly in making bail.

  • Judges can set bail high to keep someone detained—possible, but they have no personal examples.

​

• Key Quotes:​

  • “I think status helps, because everyone is entitled to bail except in limited cases, and then comes the question of being able to raise the funds, and I am certain there are people who, if they had access to the money, could and should get out but remain in because they can’t make bail.”​

​

• • “There are places where bail is set at a sufficiently high level that there is no way the accused can make it—for example, a judge thinking, ‘She can make a hundred, so I’m setting bail at two hundred thousand dollars.’"

​

8. How often do people take plea deals? 

​

• ​Main Points:

  • Extremely high rates — around 85–90% in both state and federal systems.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “If you look at the statistics, it is clearly north of 85 percent of cases that end in plea deals, and in both the state and federal systems in New York the percentage is around 90 percent.”

​

​9. Do you feel like sentencing is fair (in relation to severity of crime vs punishment)? 

​

• ​Main Points:

  • Most sentences in his career were fair, but a few were glaringly wrong.

  • Judges’ backgrounds and personalities influence sentencing.

  • Shared impactful stories:

    • Judge Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death, still controversial decades later.

    • A client who received a harsh sentence but endured with dignity.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “In most of the cases I’ve handled over the years, both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, I felt that the sentences were okay and fair, but there are a few that stand out where I think the judge made a terrible mistake.”​

​

• • “The clearest illustration of the power and controversy of sentencing is Judge Irving Kaufman, who sentenced Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death and decades later had a man interrupt his funeral screaming, ‘He killed the Rosenbergs, he should rot in hell,’ which shows how a single sentence can become a judge’s epitaph.”

​

10. Finally, what would be one piece of advice that you can give to young people in America who want to learn more about our justice system or about getting involved?

​

• ​Main Points:

  • Be proactive — learning requires action.

  • Volunteer for organizations like Legal Aid, DA’s summer programs, and political campaigns.

  • Pay attention to current events and engage.

  • His own journey switched from medicine to law when he realized his strengths.

​

• Key Quotes:

  • “The learning process requires action—you’ve got to do something about it—and while you can read the newspapers, there are organizations that look for volunteers like the Legal Aid Society, prosecutors’ offices with summer programs, and political campaigns that always need help.”​

​

• • “Pay attention to what’s going on around you, because watching, listening, and learning are part of the process, and there are things you can do to at least keep a toe in the water and know what’s going on.”​

​

Transcript

 

Lauren: First, tell me a little bit about your background and how you got involved in this space.

​

Charles Stillman: Okay, so I am a kid from Brooklyn. What they say is you can take the boy out of Brooklyn, you can't take Brooklyn out of the boy. I married a girl from Brooklyn, went to NYU undergraduate, and then went on to NYU Law School.

I went the first year as a day student. And at the end of the first year, my wife, Marilyn, and I got married. She was all of 19, and I celebrated my 22nd birthday on our honeymoon.

​

These were two kids who knew nothing, but knew what we wanted to do. And so, I switched to night school. Marilyn was still an undergraduate at Brooklyn College. We lived in my in-laws' two-family house in Brooklyn. As I used to say, there was going to come a time when I would not have to stand on my toes to look out a window. So I switched to night school at NYU. And, um… So this work, I've got some kind of a… job working in a company, and then… A thing that really changed… a life-changing event occurred… happened to me.

​

When the woman in charge of the placement at NYU Law School… we had a very pleasant relationship. She knew I was looking for something more, you know, more related to the law. She called me one day and said, A federal judge is hiring a night law student to help. In those days, federal judges had one law clerk, a secretary, and then a job called bailiff.

​

The bailiff was historically a retired army officer because he drove the car, he got the judge's lunch, and the other aspect of the job was anytime the judge was in court, the bailiff was theoretically in protection, but that was just not reality. The bailiff got to speak in court. The bailiff's job was to knock on the door.

​

Boom, boom, and open the door, and say, All rise. And so, long before I became a lawyer, I was speaking in court. So, every day that the judge was in court, I was leading him into the courtroom. And this particular judge and a couple of others began to realize, instead of hiring a retired cop, I can get myself a night law student.

​

He can help the law clerk with research as well as the menial stuff, get to lunch, drive the car, etc. And so for the next roughly 3 years, that's what I did. It just made clear to me where I wanted to go in my life as a lawyer. My eyes were focused on the U.S. Attorney's Office, because I was watching these young… You know, and it's just the United States Attorneys try cases, be in court. I said, That's what I want to be.

​

With a little assistance from the judge, because generally they require 2 or 3 years' experience before you could get such a job, I was fortunate, I became a graduate of law school, and literally, kind of, figuratively, the next day, I joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and was privileged to serve under a legendary figure. It may not be legendary anymore today, but if you Google Robert M. Morgenthau, you will see that he was just quite a person. And it was a great privilege for me to work for him. And it changed my life without being overdramatic about it.

​

Lauren: You can be dramatic about it. It sounds like a great opportunity.

​

Charles Stillman: Well, it was, and within a couple of months, we're past the bar, and I was trying cases and standing up in court. “My name is Charles Stillman, I'm an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.” I can still get choked up a little bit when I think about it. I did that, and Marilyn and I were married. When we had two children, we were still in the basement. No, what had happened was, the tenant moved out, and so we moved upstairs to a very nice apartment, but we wanted to get out of the house, you know? And so the only thing that meant I had to leave the government and go get a real job.

​

Now, to give you a chuckle, I got one of the higher-paying jobs at that time. When I got $14,000 a year. Okay. Now, of course, you know what all that means in terms of dollars. I went to work for the firm of Phillips and Iser, Benjamin, Crim, and Bell, and now… again, a name that won't register today, but at the time, Louis Neiser was one of the great legendary figures of the day. With just a really, really interesting broad-based practice. With a lot of show business stuff.

​

Indeed, two of the partners of that firm left and formed United Artists, which is not really in the game anymore, but they were one of the major players in motion picture development, United Artists. And so I went to work for that firm and handled trials. But it was really terrific. And what happened was, I ran into a partner… with whom I had major disagreements, and as a result of that, I decided to move on.

​

I then went to work for a single practitioner, and all he did was defend criminal tax cases. And it was a great experience, because white collar is where I wanted to be. He was a great guy, and I loved that. I was there for a short time, and an offer came to join an expanding medium-sized law firm. A serious figure in the New York legal community was joining it, and so I joined that firm and became a partner.

​

There are some issues there, you know, it's interesting, when I look back on my life in the law, as a lawyer. I mean, you could say, this guy can't hold a job. But I was looking, and anyhow, I was not happy. I stayed at that firm for a couple of years.

​

 A friend of mine had a small firm, and said, Hey, Charles, come join me. So I joined him. I guess we got up to about 10 lawyers. There's a whole sub-story to that, but I'll leave that for another day. I had some issues arise, and the PS is that in 1977, I guess it was. I decided to give it a go, sat down with Marilyn, I said, We have enough in the bank, we can afford to go for about 6 months without any income. And I hung up a shingle, and the law offices of Charles Stillman were established. I had one young lawyer that I brought with me.

​

Life is good, God was good, whoever it is was watching over, little Charles from Brooklyn, but it became a great practice, and one of the first major clients that came to me, again, the name that doesn't resonate today, but in the day. The reference Sunday on the moon, the moonies. If you just Google it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

​

He came to me, and I represented him. And he was controversial enough that... how can you represent this guy? He kidnaps children, and I said, Trust me. He's not kidnapping my children. So that continued for, I don't know, many, many years, and then one day, I was contacted by a headhunter, there was a major firm out of Philadelphia looking to establish a New York office. We had lunch, we had discussions, and so we went through what I refer to whimsically as the engagement period. And so, that firm is called Ballard Spar. You can Google it and see it, out of Philadelphia, hundreds of lawyers, offices around the country.

​

I refer to the engagement because. They weren't sure, and I wasn't sure, and so for the first year and change, it was Ballad Sparr, Stillman, and Friedman, in New York, and then one day, they said, Hey, it's working. I said, I think it's working too. And so still the sign of Sylvanor Friedman went into the closet, and I practiced the balance of my active career as a lawyer under the firm ballot bar. It's now, I guess, 3 plus years ago, I said, I like the idea of a round number. It was now 60 years as a practicing lawyer, and I said, I'm done. And so I quote, “retired”, and living a lovely life. I have 3 children, all married; I have 8 grandchildren; I am the proud possessor of a great-grandchild.

​

Lauren: Wow, that's amazing.

​

Charles Stillman: Yep. So that's the story, that's who I am. I mean, I've had wonderful experiences over the years, and loved every second of it. That's not fair. I mean, there are times here, what am I doing this for, you know? But I really enjoyed being a lawyer.

​

Lauren: That's a wonderful story, and I especially like what you said about how someone could say, oh, well, Charles can't hold a job, but you were exploring, and you were kind of living life to the fullest, and I think that's so interesting, because some people just walk into a job, and that's the only job that they ever had, but I think it's very important that you kind of saw what you liked, and even if you didn't like it, you could try something else, and then kind of let it unravel from that. I think that's so important.

​

Charles Stillman: But what's interesting about that is,  I wasn't really thinking at the time, because if somebody came to me today, say, I'm moving, at the same time, you have to be careful. But you don't want to be seen as someone who is not reliable. Hey, I'm going to take him, her in, they're gonna leave me, I'm gonna teach them everything, and then they're gonna leave. So there's a balance to it. Alright, full confession, I wasn't thinking of balance, I was just thinking of trying to find what I wanted.

​

Lauren: Yes, that's so interesting, because what do you see it as versus other people? I mean, I guess it worked for you, but it is important to think about that balance and think about what other people also will perceive you as, yeah. So my next question is, how would you describe our justice system now?

​

Charles Stillman: It's a fascinating question, and today's environment. If you'd ask me to describe it when I was that young kid. You know, 22 years old, getting started, working for a federal judge, I mean, literally being a daily observer of at least the federal justice system, my basic observation was it worked. It was fair.

​

Criminal justice, as I see it, is a three-cornered hat: you have the prosecution, the defense, and the judiciary. Hopefully, the hat fits, and those three corners of the hat work together to administer justice. Now, even back in the day, did it always work? No, I don't think it always worked. But I think, by and large, it did. But what's happened now, and certainly it's going to continue over the years.

When I was very conscious of the federal system in New York, the Southern District of New York. Very important, nationally, and obviously locally. In fact, I would say that over the many years it basically worked. The balance was there, but… sometimes, if you had a particularly aggressive federal prosecutor, that nice three-cornered hat didn't quite fit anymore. If you had a particular harsh judge, the hat did not necessarily fit.

​

​If you had an incompetent defense lawyer, again, balance… I'm just kind of thinking this through as we're talking. The balance was important, but it had to fit and work. So, over the years, there were times that… particularly the United States Attorney might have been overly aggressive. I'm leaving the names out to protect the not-so-innocent. But there are illustrations of that over the years, but by and large, eye observation, and as a participant, an intimate participant, it worked pretty well. Yeah, there were times that I felt the client got screwed. Were there times when I felt that some guilty guy got off? But, there's a saying, I'm sure you could Google and find it, but it's better that X guilty men go free than one innocent man get convicted. You've seen that, and that's true.

​I've handled cases where I was grievously stricken by the fact that a client whom I believe was innocent was convicted. One particular case, I remember where the client was acquitted, “Oh, great job, Charles.” Well, you know, did I feel in my heart that he was really innocent? That wasn't my job, to judge who's guilty or innocent. My job was to represent him.

​

​My job was to represent, you know, and I'm not being sexist, 90 plus percent of my clients were men, and that is changing, and I represented a couple of women over the years. I could probably think of the number of them, but it was clearly male-dominated.

​But the world is changing, as that awful imbalance is now finally beginning to get to a… for example, the U.S. Return. When I was an Assistant United States Attorney in 1962, there was not one woman in the criminal division. And the chief of the Criminal Division. God rest his soul, I'll leave his name out, would say, because people say, gee, women, you know. I said, well, how can we have women in the criminal division that we’re cursing, they hear us cursing them? You know, we can't have women in the criminal division. But could you, I mean, think of it from your perspective now, if somebody was saying that to you? You say you're out of your mind?

​

Lauren: Right. That's so interesting, and also what you were saying about how even if you had a client, and then people would be like, Oh, good job, Charles, they weren't found guilty, but you kind of fell deep inside… Obviously, that's not your job, but why did you think they were guilty? What goes through your mind? Obviously, your goal is to make sure they're not proven guilty, but what if you think they're guilty?

​

Charles Stillman: Yeah. Well, I mean, look, your job is to give them the best representation you can. And the system is built so that hopefully there is administered justice, and what is justice, fairness? We could have a very interesting intellectual discussion. What is justice? But basically, it's fairness. It's that… does it happen all the time? No, it doesn't. Which, in a sense, brings us to today, where we are today. In our society, in our lives, in our country. In our day-to-day, the day-to-day outlook on law and the administration of law.

​

There are some horrible things going on there. People are being picked up off the street, guys walking around with blanketed masks. I mean, what is going on? I don't want to turn this into a political discussion. But there's no question. It's scary, and as I sit here, my in-between opportunities time of life.

​

I feel very inadequate, but what are you doing, Charles? I don't know what I'm doing. What can I do? I give money to the causes that I believe in, Anti-Defamation League, and the Legal Aid Society, that kind of thing, but there's a helplessness that comes over one.​ And just hope that we're going to get this straightened out as a society, because it is not good. It is not good at all. People are being grabbed off the street.

​

Innocent people, and maybe somebody who, you know, shouldn't be here? Okay, well, there should be a way to do that in a civilized way, if it requires strength, if the person is resisting, okay, you have law enforcement. But that's not what's happening. 

​

Coming back to your broad question about criminal justice. Privilege is not the right word, but I've seen it in every aspect, in my humble view, if it's a spectrum. I've seen it from easy days to the days that we're living in now, and I'm not… It's just… it can't be happy about it. If you care, if you care. If you care, you can't be happy.

​

Lauren: Right, and so this kind of goes with my next question. What do you view as the goal of the justice system currently? Do you think it's more punitive or restorative?

​

Charles Stillman: Well, let's just focus the question a little bit more, if I could.

​

Lauren: Yeah, of course.

​

Charles Stillman: So, the justice system administered where? The justice system is administered through the New York State Courts in New York County, which is where we live. I think it's administered fairly on the local level. The district attorney is a fine gentleman. My first job offer coming out of law school was from the New York County DAs, before I got into the federal job. I was offered a job with the New York County District Attorney.

​

​His name was Frank Hogan, a legend in his own time. Brilliant, great, fair, decent man. Um, and, um… I think I can tell you… I want to tell you a little anecdotal story in a second. But he was a great man, and he offered me a job, and the problem was, I had to live in… we lived in Brooklyn, and you had to live in New York County. Because that was the New York County District Attorney. And then, in any event, Mr. Morgenthau came along, and that's where I went, but a wonderful illustration of Frank Hogan was as follows. And I think I told you I went to work for Louis Neiser, and working for Mr. Neiser, one of the clients… a client of the firm is a very, very famous, well-known movie producer named Otto Preminger. If you can Google the name, you'll see he was one of the major figures of the day.

​

​And so Mr. Priminger was in a cocktail lounge with a guy whose name was Lazar, Swifty Lazar. Everybody's dead, so I'm not besmirching anybody. So they were arguing. The argument got a little heated. Lazar picks up a glass and smashes it over Primager's bald head and gashes him. That's basically an assault, resulting in injury. And, Mr. Perminger, being in the movie business, took pictures of it, etc. And he wanted to bring the case to the District Attorney for prosecution, and so it went to Mr. Neiser, who was his lawyer. And Neiser assigned Charles, the young federal prosecutor, to go down to the district attorney's office, where the lawyer for Mr. Lazar was going to try to convince the district attorney not to prosecute the case.

​

And the lawyer for Mr. Lazar was a retired federal judge of some major repute. And so, it's the three of us, Frank Hogan, young Stillman over here, and a retired federal judge over here. And the retired federal judge… is saying to Frank Hogan, look, I mean, a couple of old guys had a dispute, why do you want to prosecute a case like this? And Frank Hogan, God bless him, said, if he were a poor black guy from Harlem, would you be sitting there telling me I shouldn't prosecute him for smashing somebody with a bottle and creating a gash in his head? Would you be sitting here telling me that? I wish there were no answer, and of course, he prosecuted the case.

​

And so, my simplistic point is…yeah, justice has to be administered fairly, equally. And that's not what's happening now. The situation, not being political about this, is the dropping of the Adams case, which was strictly political.

There was no… if they didn't believe in the case, that would be one thing. They thought it was poor, but there was an indictment. Some federal prosecutors believed that it was a worthy cause. It should have been handled as everybody else's case gets handled. Go to trial and see what our literature… but I think that… justice system...we depend on it. Without it, we're lost. And right now, if the current administration continues unabated on the path that it's on. Justice as you would like it to be, ain't gonna be there.

​

Lauren: What would you say are the roles of alternative dispute resolutions? 

​

Charles Stillman: It clearly works on the civil side. And that is just civil disputes, mediation, ADR, if that's not a… I'd have to really look up the definition, but mediation, those processes, avoid the courtroom, avoid the clashing of litigation. I'm… a great fan of. My experience has… I really did not have a ton of experience in that; most of my cases were classic litigation. I have sat in the chair of the admitted… of the… been asked, they had, Charles, will you take this on for us and try to mediate the case, I tried, and maybe I wasn't good at it, um… But the couple of cases that I had where I was the mediator didn't really work out, but they required work. But it requires rational people on both sides. To come together to get past the bad moments. I'm laughing because I'm going to leave the names out, but… I was representing this one gentleman, and he had a dispute, and the judge in charge of the case itself sent us to a form of ADR mediation, and so we sat down, and with the mediator, the two parties and their lawyers, and I represented my client, who hates the adversary.

​

​And I did not think that this process was going to work. I did think that if we could have a discussion, maybe we could settle the case. And the mediator, arbitrator, very nice person. She said, No, the way I like to do this, I like to hear that the parties express themselves. And then we could go forward with the process. And I said, well, excuse me, respectfully, I… I don't think that's a good idea in this case.

​

​Well, I know I'm on the radio, but I think it's… I said. Honestly, I don't think it's a good idea. Nope, I'm the mediator up above this, what we're gonna do. So, I'm gonna let your client go first. And that's the so-and-so, what's your… what would you like to say?

Forgive the language, turns to the other guy, you're a no-good motherfucker, blah blah blah, son of a bitch, and I am… And the other guy, he's back… Of course, it was… the process was over by the time that happened.

​

Yeah, I think it can work, and I believe in it because going to court is a long, tedious, and expensive process. Is justice always done? I like to think so, but it is far better if you can sit down and mediate, arbitrate the dispute, and people go on living their lives. And I personally had a situation where, in one of my partings from a particular law firm, I felt that I had not been treated right, and I was talking about bringing some kind of a case to validate my rights. And I went to a lawyer who was also a friend, and he said, Charles, don't do it. Just forget about it.

​

​Get on with your life. Save yourself a lot of money and aggravation. And he did, he was right, and I did. So, it kind of depends, and there are times when there is a real dispute. And if ADR, mediation, and arbitration can resolve it without warfare, I certainly think it is helpful.

​

Lauren: My next question is one that I'm just very personally interested in, but what have been some of the most memorable cases you've covered, and what stuck out about them?

​

Charles Stillman: Wow, okay. So, Reverend Shan Myung Moon was a religious Christian figure. He came from Korea. He established a religion. The Unification Church was the name of his church. Unification Church. Well, Americans in the world just didn't quite see it that way. They saw the Moonies as a danger, and that they kidnap children?

​

And then the call came one day. I had just set up my new firm. And I go to a meeting, I'm gonna represent him, and I just know it is… changing the direction of my practice, that I'm now, in big time. Because he was a major figure of the day. Friends of mine would say, Charles, how can you represent this guy? Well, you want him to kidnap… my daughter's name… wanted to kidnap Nina? Take Nina in? I said, he's not taking… nobody's taking Nina. But inevitably, I represented him in a congressional investigation, and all other things. Then there was a criminal trial, which was, I think, a travesty, but nevertheless a criminal trial. We lost.

You spent a few months as a guest of the federal government. But he was not deported. Today, if you're convicted of a felony, you're automatically out of the country. In those days, it was discretionary with the judge. But it was a major piece of criminal justice business; it was something that really helped advance me to where I ultimately went.
 

Look, I've also represented Mayor Jenkins. There was an investigation, and he was my client. Represented the former Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford. And many of the clients were just ordinary people in difficult situations, and it was a great privilege to be chosen and a great responsibility to be chosen to try to help them out of the situation they were in. I'm not a hornblower, so… But I had a great run.

​

Lauren: Yes, that's amazing. I aspire to be like you. I really think what you do is amazing, so…

​

Charles Stillman: Well, it is very emotionally rewarding. At the same time, the bad moments, when something bad has happened that you've fought against, it's tough, it's not simple.But, it's the words of Winston Churchill that you never, never, never, never, never give up. Without being overdramatic, as a simple kid from Brooklyn, I  came from very lovely, really great people, my parents. Both of them are high school graduates. I had a blessed run.

​

Lauren: That's amazing. My next question is… so, in my club at Riverdale, we researched about Rikers Island, and I was just wondering what you think about holding conditions in general, like, before someone is officially sentenced, and it doesn't have to be specifically Rikers Island, but. Do you think conditions make people more likely to plead guilty just to escape those conditions, even if they aren't guilty?

​

Charles Stillman: All of your questions are good, and this is another. Let me just… be clear, I have limited experience with Rikers Island. I've never been there. I have had one or two clients who wound up there. There may be more than one or two; most of my clients were federal. And their confinement was at the Manhattan Federal Detention Center. Which was, again, there are times that the people were okay with it, and there were times that you heard some, you know, really hair-raising stories about the conditions.

​Certainly, in my experience, none of the lawyers that I've talked to over the years has ever said to me, Yeah, my clients just gave up and pleaded guilty because they didn't want to stay there. 

​

Lauren: That's interesting because we read about some stories where that happened, but I was just… kind of thinking about it, I'm like, well, how common is that really, or is it just that published stories include that.

​

Charles Stillman: Look… It's not going to happen. The federal system is much tighter. And yet the state system can be overwhelmed. And you get some prisoner who's in for a couple of years, before their case comes to court. That could lead to, hey, come on, let me get me out of here, cut a deal for me. But even in those cases. What we as outsiders don't know is how guilty or not guilty the person who now says, Yeah, I was forced to plead guilty because I wasn't. I'm not denying them, but I'm just saying, you don't have all the facts to be able to say that he, she was forced to plead guilty because they couldn't move their case forward. I know… I do not know of any situation where that happened.

​

Lauren: Yeah, okay, thank you.  How do you think someone's status influences their treatment within the trial process?

​

Charles Stillman: Well, I think status helps. First of all, it's either you know, everyone's entitled to bail, except in limited cases, but then there comes the question of being able to raise the funds, to be released on bail. I'm trying to think. I can't think of a case of mine where the client… couldn't get out because he, she couldn't raise the money.

​

Lauren: It's interesting because when you read about stories, obviously, sometimes they'll say the most extreme stories, but I… myself was just curious if that's sort of the day-to-day life, or if it's not, really.

​

Charles Stillman: Look, I am certain that there are people who would otherwise, who are ineligible for bail, and if they had access to the money, could get out, could and should get out. There's no question in my mind about that. Look, there are places where the accused has taken advantage of the bail being set at a sufficiently high level that there's no way they can make the bail. So it's a… You have to set bail. And so, if the presiding judicial officer sets the bail, okay, well, she can make 100. I'm setting bail at $200,000. Do those things happen? In my opinion, yes. Do I have personal knowledge of them? No.

​

Lauren: All right, yes, thank you. And then how often do you think people take plea deals?

​

Charles Stillman: Well, look at the stats, I mean, I don't have the percentage in the back of my head, and you can look it up. 90%? A little less on the state side, I think. No, they're relatively equal, the last time I had to look at it. Again, in New York, what I'm talking about, one was outweighed the other by a little bit. I don't remember which was more or less, but it's clearly north of 85%. 

​

Lauren: In cases that you've dealt with, do you feel like the sentencing has been fair? I know we talked about this a little bit before. And then also just in relation to the severity of the crime versus the punishment.​

​

Charles Stillman: Well, I have a clear answer to that. In most of the cases I've handled over the years, both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, I felt that the sentences were okay and were fair. No need to mealy-mouth the word fair. However, there are a few that stand out in my mind, or I think the judge made a terrible mistake. And one in particular, and I'm gonna leave it out, I don't want to put his name public. I was really angry. Fortunately, we ultimately were able to get him out on an earlier parole. But it was just a bad decision.

​

​But most of the time, look, when Reverend Moon was convicted, and now up for sentencing, the public would give them life! Give them life, send them to you know, blah blah blah. The judge gave a fair sentence, and indeed, the government, one of two, wanted the judge to deport him, order him deported, and the judge felt that was not required, and now he has no discretion today.

​And so it did not deport him. He finished his sentence, he came out, and he continued his religious life. When in the past, there was a sentence that I thought was a little on the harsh side, but by and large, I've felt that the federal judges were reasonably fair. Look, it's a very hard thing. In fairness to the judge, because I had the opportunity for the first 3 years before I became a lawyer to watch the process from the inside, and would see the materials the judge got, and that the judge would fashion a sentence.

​

Now, I can give you the clearest illustration of the point by virtue of the judge I worked for. So I worked for the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman. Judge Irving R. Kaufman. Judge Irving R. Kaufman is the judge who presided over the trial, United States versus Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. That doesn't register yet, Google. You will see that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the people who were both accused of giving the atomic bomb secrets to the Russians, and Judge Kaufman sentenced them to death. Death. And… shared by some, and wildly criticized by others, to this very day. 

​

And if you want a dramatic story on that point. When Judge Kaufman passed, the internment ceremony was over at Park Avenue Synagogue, with a large crowd in the sanctuary. It was one of the rabbis giving a eulogy, and the audience was reasonably packed, but all, you know, judges and lawyers, etc. And I was sitting near the center aisle. A couple of seats off the center aisle. As the rabbi is going on with a eulogy, the door opens, and there's a guy… For the dark, and… was it winter, you're wearing a dark coat. Dark hat, and… he stops at the top of the aisle.

​

Puts his hands to his mouth and screams as loud as a man could scream. He killed the Rosenbergs. He should rot in hell. And because there are a lot of judges in the room, and there were deputy marshals there, they grabbed the guy and yanked him. And so that was Irving Kaufman's eulogy. He killed the Rosenbergs.

​

​And that, the Rosenberg trial, was 50 years ago. 60 years ago. And so I didn't live through the sentencing. It happened before my time, about several years before I got there. But it became his eulogy. It became his epitaph, rather. He killed the Rosenbergs. So, the power of sentencing is the most extreme power that a judge can have. They try to get it right, sometimes they don't, some are harsher than others. I watched Judge Kaufman over the years that I was with him give sentences that I thought were basically fair. 

And as I say, in my own experience, both, first as a prosecutor, I thought the sentences were pretty fair. As a defense lawyer, with a couple of exceptions, I thought they were excessive, but we're in New York. We're not in places where big sentences are expected. It's part of the culture. There's a cultural aspect to sentencing as well. It's cultural generally, and then it's the individual. You're the judge, and this is how you are, this is what brought you to where you are, personally and professionally, and next to you is your colleague, Jane Smith. Well, she came up in a different circumstance; she has different attitudes that she brings to the process, and you both get the same case, and they've done studies on this.

​

It's not as though everybody gets it the same; it really isn't. And so the process is a combination of: who was giving the sentence? Who was the defendant? Who wrote… who gathered the information for them? It's the hardest part of the criminal justice process. Personal decision to prosecute, that's almost easier. Then the process of sentencing, because you're affecting somebody's life, and this one client who was given this overly harsh sentence, it would have crushed the lesser person. But he and his wife and his family just stood up to it, he went to state prison, handled it well, and exercised every day. When it came to the Christmas holiday, his wife and his family came up and they took a Christmas photo in prison and did not take it as a mark of Cain, but okay, this is what's happening, this is where we are. Merry Christmas to our friends. He's out now, living happily ever after. So, it's, uh… just, you know, it's… What is that? There are a million stories of the Naked City, and this are one of them, you know.

​

​Lauren: My final question is, what would be a piece of advice that you could give to young people in America who want to learn more about our justice system or want to just kind of get their feet wet and get involved?​

​

Charles Stillman: Well. The learning process requires action. You gotta do something about it, you know. You can read the newspapers, but there are organizations that look for volunteers, the Legal Aid Society and the prosecutor's offices do have summer programs. They're not a gazillion of them, but they're out there to be looked into. Pay attention to what's going on around you. I'll say this to you, and I'm not holding myself out as a shining example. But it was nothing I paid attention to. I mean, my true story goes like this.

​

My true story is, I was in a hurry. I went to Lafayette High School in Brooklyn, and was in a hurry to go forward, get somewhere. I did high school in three and a half years, and I was going to be a doctor. That's what I was gonna be, a doctor. And I went to NYU undergraduate, and I joined some clubs that had things about medicine and surgery. I was not very good at science courses. I said, No, I'm not going to be a doctor. What else can I do? I'm not going to be a dentist. Well, I'll be a lawyer. And it was the smartest decision I ever made. What can I do?

​

Lauren: That's so interesting, and that's great advice you have. As you were even saying before, where you are in this in-between space right now, where you see things going on, and you want to do something about it, and I feel the same way, of course. I don't have as much experience, and so it's hard for me to think of ways to get involved. But it's so hard to kind of just sit back and watch it happen.

​

Charles Stillman: Well, I agree with that. But at the same time, watching, listening, and learning are also part of the problem. Why do you want to read this? It's paying attention to what's going on around you, and look, they're volunteers. I mean, look, political campaigns, they're volunteers. There are things that one can do to at least attempt to keep your toe… not your toe in the water, but to know what's going on.