He added:Because of a sheltered, privileged life and because of a large, formerly athletic frame, I have never needed or sought protection from a mob, a gang, an angry spouse, or anyone wishing to physically harm me. Nevertheless, from my decades of reading newspapers, I know that Mafia snitches must often escape their respective communities and assume another identity.
Fearing then tackled the majority's reading of the word "opportunities." In statutory construction, Fearing wrote, words importing the plural may also apply to the singular, and vice-versa.He wrote:The criminal justice system depends extensively on the cooperation of informants. Although Ahmet Hopovac may not have been an informant, a criminal gang considered him an informant. Public policy should encourage state protection of informants or purported informants facing the wrath of a mob, about whom the informant tattled.
When Fearing ran for re-election to the court last year, he said "appellate courts should hire an excellent writer, without any legal background, to review and edit decisions for their readability," and he pledged: "I will write opinions in language understandable to lay readers."Tuesday's opinion would suggest he is a judge true to his word.This article was originally published by the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that covers the US criminal justice system. Sign up for the newsletter, or follow the Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.The majority's reading the plural to exclude the singular would lead to silly consequences. A motel might post a placard that declares: 'Please no pets.' John Steinbeck could sleep with Charley as long as he traveled with only Charley. Steinbeck would have brought only one pet, not pets. A tavern may post a sign that reads: 'No minors allowed.' According to the majority, Holden Caulfield could enter the tavern if he is the only underage patron.