The Role of Courts in Managing the Collateral Consequences of Conviction: A Conversation with Judge John Gleeson

Held on Thursday, September 29, 2016

Last year, Judge John Gleeson caused a stir when he expunged the record of a woman he had sentenced years before and later issued what he called a "certificate of rehabilitation" to one of her codefendants.  The 2nd Ciruit reversed his order, holding that federal courts, unlike the courts in many states, have no authority to grant this relief.  At the time, Judge Gleeson said that he wanted to "get the conversation started" about what courts can do to assist people dealing with the debilitating effects of a criminal record.  Following Judge Gleeson's lead, the program considered the role of the courts in mitigating or avoiding collateral consequences, including how courts interact with other branches of government in restoring right and status after conviction.

Judge Gleeson was joined by Judge Matthew J. D'Emic, Margaret Love, Michael Pope, and Ted Patricus.


9:00am      Welcome and Introductions
Esta R. Bigler, Director, Labor & Employment Law Program, Cornell ILR

9:05am      Opening Comments and Background
Margaret Love, Law Office of Margaret Love, former U.S. Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department, Moderator

9:10am      The Courts and Collateral Consequences of Conviction
†John Gleeson, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; former U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of New York
†Matthew J. D’Emic, NYS Supreme Court, Administrative Judge for Criminal Matters, Kings County Supreme Court
†Michael Pope, Director of Legal Services, Youth Represent, and Board Member for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Youth at Risk  
†Ted Potrikus, President and CEO, Retail Council of NYS

10:30am     Q & A

11:00am     Closing



Jane Doe I
Jane Doe v. United States of America, No. 1:2014mc01412 - Document 9 Memorandum and Order granting motion to expunge (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
Jane Doe v. United States of America, 15-1967-cr (2nd Cir. 2016)
Jane Doe II
Jane Doe v. United States of America Amicus Brief of Margaret Colgate Love, No. 1:15-mc-01174-JG Eastern District NY (October 8, 2015)
Jane Doe v. United States of America no. 1:15-mc-01174-JG Memorandum and Order (E.D.N.Y. 2016)
Boone v NY Department of Education Supreme Court NY (PDF, 4 MB)no. 100633/2015 (July 13, 2016)
Boone v. NYC Department of Education, Petitioner Memorandum of Law (PDF, 140 KB), (Supreme Court of State of NY, 2015)
Boone v NYC Department of Education, Verified Petition (PDF, 111 KB), (Supreme Court of State of NY, 2015)
Garcia v. Teitler, 443 F.3d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 2006)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994)
Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007)
United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 480 (3rd Cir. 2001)
United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2010)
United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 859-60 (8th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Mitchell, 683 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 n.10 (E.D. Va. 2010)
United States v. Nesbeth, 15-CR-18 (FB) (Eastern District NY, 2016)
United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977)
United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1014 (3rd Cir. 2001)

Agan, Amanda Y. and Starr, Sonja B., “Ban the Box, Criminal Records and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment,” Social Science Research Network (2016)
Dorleac, Jennifer L. and Hansen, Benjamin, “Does ‘Ban the Box’ Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers?  Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories are Hidden,” Social Science Research Network (2016)
Garretson, Heather, “Legislating Forgiveness: A Study of Post-Conviction Certificates as Policy to Address the Employment Consequences of a Conviction,” Public Interest Law Journal, Vol. 25 (2016)
Hager, Eli, “Forgiving v. forgetting: A new redemption tool,” published in The Marshall Project (, Collateral Consequences Resource Center (March 19, 2015)
Jain, Eisha, "Prosecuting Collateral Consequences,".pdf (PDF, 228 KB) The Georgetown Law Journal Vol. 104:1197 (2016)
Keshner, Andrew, “Expungement is Denied, but Court Offers Novel Relief,” New York Law Journal (March 14, 2016) [available through LexisNexis]
Love, Margaret Colgate, “Managing Collateral Consequences in the Sentencing Process: The Revised Sentencing Articles of the Model Penal Code,” Wisconsin Law Review (2015)
Mason, Sandra G., “Collateral Consequences and the Preventive State,” Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 91:1 (2015)
Murray, Brian M., “A New Era for Expungement Law Reform?  Recent Developments at the State and Federal Levels,” 10 Harvard Law and Policy Review 361 (2016)
Polk, Zoe and Rodriguez, Michelle Natividad, "Best Practices in Fair-Chance Enforcement: Ensuring Work Opportunity for People with Convictions," NELP (June 2015)
Wegman, Jesse, “A Federal Judge’s New Model for Forgiveness,” The New York Times (March 16, 2016)

“Article 6x. Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction,”
Model Penal Code: Sentencing, The American Law Institute (2014)
Article 23-A (DOCX, 14 KB), of the New York State Correction Law
Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (2010)