The release of a career criminal, Johnson Earl, by Manhattan Judge Beverly Tatham has sparked controversy and raised questions about the judge’s decision-making process. Earl, 44, was arrested for allegedly assaulting an 83-year-old man on a subway train in December. Despite the severity of the charges and Earl’s extensive criminal history, Judge Tatham granted him supervised release, declining to set bail. This decision has been met with criticism, particularly given the Manhattan District Attorney’s request for a substantial bail amount and the potential danger Earl poses to the community. The Post’s attempt to interview Judge Tatham at her home was unsuccessful, as she declined to comment on the case.
The incident that led to Earl’s arrest occurred on December 20th on a southbound No. 5 train approaching Fulton Street station. According to police reports, the elderly victim accidentally stumbled over Earl’s foot, triggering a violent reaction. Earl allegedly punched the man in the face, initiating a physical altercation that escalated into a chokehold and further assault. The victim sustained cuts to his face and head and sought medical treatment at Kings County Hospital Center. During Earl’s arraignment on January 2nd, an assistant district attorney detailed the violent nature of the attack and requested bail be set at $75,000 cash or $100,000 bond. However, Judge Tatham chose to release Earl under supervision, a decision that has been widely questioned in light of his past record.
Earl’s criminal history spans decades, with at least 13 prior arrests. In July 2023, he was arrested for assaulting a security guard at a Bronx 99-cent store. According to the criminal complaint, Earl repeatedly punched the guard while demanding his attention. Though ordered to stay away from the victim, the case was later adjourned in contemplation of dismissal by Bronx prosecutors. This incident highlights a pattern of aggressive behavior and disregard for the law. Furthermore, police sources indicate that Earl has been arrested at least four other times for assault dating back to 1999, in addition to charges related to weapon and drug possession. This lengthy record raises serious concerns about the potential for recidivism and the risk posed by his release.
The decision by Judge Tatham to release Earl despite his history of violence has drawn scrutiny from various quarters. Critics argue that the judge’s leniency undermines public safety and sends a message that repeat offenders can avoid consequences. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office clearly believed that Earl posed a flight risk and a danger to the community, as evidenced by their request for a significant bail amount. The fact that Judge Tatham disregarded this recommendation and opted for supervised release has fueled concerns about the adequacy of the judicial system’s response to violent crime. The victim in the December attack, an elderly man, was subjected to a brutal and unprovoked assault, and the decision to release his alleged attacker back onto the streets has understandably caused outrage and fear.
The case of Johnson Earl raises broader questions about the role of judges in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect public safety. While supervised release is intended to allow individuals to remain in the community while awaiting trial, it is not appropriate in all cases, particularly those involving violent offenders with extensive criminal histories. Critics argue that Judge Tatham’s decision in this case reflects a concerning trend towards leniency that prioritizes the rights of criminals over the safety of law-abiding citizens. The fact that Judge Tatham declined to comment on her ruling further exacerbates the controversy, leaving the public with unanswered questions about her rationale and raising concerns about judicial transparency.
This case underscores the need for a more robust and consistent approach to bail decisions, particularly for repeat offenders with a history of violent crime. It also highlights the importance of judicial accountability and transparency. Judges should be prepared to explain their decisions to the public, particularly in cases that generate significant controversy. The lack of transparency in this instance only serves to erode public trust in the judicial system and raises concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice process. Earl’s next court appearance is scheduled for February 27th, and the outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the ongoing debate about bail reform and the appropriate response to violent crime in New York City.
