Sex crimes dissonance
Sometimes child rapists in America go free while masturbators go to prison. Of course, the same is true with murderers and pot smokers. Law in America, especially criminal law, is arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and unpredictable.
Nowhere in the criminal law is this dissonance more apparent than in matters of human sexuality, where the distinction between predator and non-predator is almost non-existent, and the “crimes” often have more to do with what the accused was thinking than what he was doing.
Sex “crimes” don’t always involve “victims,” and many “sex crime victims” are willing participants involved in normal harmless human behavior. On the other hand, there are sexual predators out there that do devastating harm to others. Those are the ones who should be in prison. A true sexual predator uses force on unwilling victims.
Few would argue that sexual predators should go free. Yet that is exactly what happened in Utah this week when a convicted child sex predator was freed from a state mental hospital, deemed incompetent for trial, but no danger to society.
In 2006, this same guy was convicted of raping a teenage girl; sent to prison for less than a year; and by 2007 was facing multiple new charges of aggravated child rape and sexual abuse; all first-degree felonies carrying life sentences.
But in Utah, a criminal defendant is incompetent to stand trial if he suffers from mental illness, can’t understand the charges against him, or is unable to participate in his own defense. A trial judge found him incompetent under this standard in 2008 because of a “cognitive disorder,” and institutionalized him at a state mental hospital.
Miraculously, today this legally “incompetent” serial predator of kids is “no longer considered any danger to society,” according to his Utah State Hospital shrinks, so the state, under that standard, had to let him loose. He’s still considered not guilty under the law for all his new offenses, and he won’t be facing trial anytime soon, if ever.
I must say in somewhat grudging admiration: if this child sex monster can manage all of that, being mentally incompetent, just imagine how well he could do when he’s competent.
Seriously though, we don’t ask whether a rabid dog is mentally competent enough for society to decide whether it bit someone. Why should we do so with human predators? Competent or not, they are always dangerous.
I’ve said this many times before: Insanity and incompetence have no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether a crime was committed and who committed it. Those are ancillary issues, which, in a more fair and logical justice system, would be considered for sentencing and disposition after the trial. (See: Reliable Justice: Must it Cost Us a Fortune?)
Contrast that legal nonsense with this:
A typical 18 year old kid in the American heartland is caught enjoying sex with his 17 year old girlfriend; found guilty of felony statutory rape; sentenced to hard time in prison; and required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Who is the victim here? Where is the damage? How is the cause of justice the better with this?
A silly 15 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself in a text to her boyfriend; she’s charged with felony “distribution” of child porn; and her boyfriend with felony “possession.” There’s another gross overreaction here; and two bright young innocent lives ruined over a victimless “crime.”
Innocent women are prosecuted with the “crime” of prostitution for voluntarily selling sex, and innocent men for the “crime” of voluntarily paying. These are not predators. We’re talking about imaginary “crimes” here – not crimes against victims, but “crimes” involving normal and natural human behavior.
A Michigan man, who admitted to masturbating a few times inside his van near a day care center, is charged with aggravated indecent exposure, punishable by up to two years in prison, even though no one saw him do it, much less one of the kids.
The harmless dupe admitted to doing it to himself there more than once so he’s also charged as a sexual delinquent, placing him in jeopardy of serving from one day all the way up to life in prison. A conviction of sexual delinquency allows the Michigan Department of Corrections to hold a convict as long as they like for “treatment.”
Another Michigan man, a talented and much loved physician and family practitioner, was devastated after his wife was involved in a car accident that left her in a wheelchair and functioning at the level of a child. Rather than leave her, he turned to porn on the Internet; first adult porn, but later children. Now he’s serving 46 months in prison for “possessing” child pornography on his computer.
No one disputes that this Dr. always provided excellent professional care in his medical practice without any complaint or hint of impropriety. That doesn’t matter. His personal and professional life is ruined because he looked at some pictures of naked kids on his computer.
At the risk of punching a political hot button and offending the national sex police, I have to say that this kind of ‘justice’ is grossly out of proportion to the wrong. These guys didn’t rape, molest, take indecent liberties with, or otherwise exploit any child. They are not predators -- obsessed with thoughts of kinky unnatural prohibited sex maybe -- but not predators. They’re guilty of no more than private “thought crimes.”
If things ever come to a point in America where our deepest and most private thoughts may be discovered and revealed by the law, I swear, we’ll all have to go to prison.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t
By JOHN THOMPSON
I SPENT 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. I’ve been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date. Those prosecutors were never punished. Last month, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to overturn a case I’d won against them and the district attorney who oversaw my case, ruling that they were not liable for the failure to turn over that evidence — which included proof that blood at the robbery scene wasn’t mine.
Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today.
I was arrested in January 1985 in New Orleans. I remember the police coming to my grandmother’s house — we all knew it was the cops because of how hard they banged on the door before kicking it in. My grandmother and my mom were there, along with my little brother and sister, my two sons — John Jr., 4, and Dedric, 6 — my girlfriend and me. The officers had guns drawn and were yelling. I guess they thought they were coming for a murderer. All the children were scared and crying. I was 22.
They took me to the homicide division, and played a cassette tape on which a man I knew named Kevin Freeman accused me of shooting a man. He had also been arrested as a suspect in the murder. A few weeks earlier he had sold me a ring and a gun; it turned out that the ring belonged to the victim and the gun was the murder weapon.
My picture was on the news, and a man called in to report that I looked like someone who had recently tried to rob his children. Suddenly I was accused of that crime, too. I was tried for the robbery first. My lawyers never knew there was blood evidence at the scene, and I was convicted based on the victims’ identification.
After that, my lawyers thought it was best if I didn’t testify at the murder trial. So I never defended myself, or got to explain that I got the ring and the gun from Kevin Freeman. And now that I officially had a history of violent crime because of the robbery conviction, the prosecutors used it to get the death penalty.
I remember the judge telling the courtroom the number of volts of electricity they would put into my body. If the first attempt didn’t kill me, he said, they’d put more volts in.
On Sept. 1, 1987, I arrived on death row in the Louisiana State Penitentiary — the infamous Angola prison. I was put in a dead man’s cell. His things were still there; he had been executed only a few days before. That past summer they had executed eight men at Angola. I received my first execution date right before I arrived. I would end up knowing 12 men who were executed there.
Over the years, I was given six execution dates, but all of them were delayed until finally my appeals were exhausted. The seventh — and last — date was set for May 20, 1999. My lawyers had been with me for 11 years by then; they flew in from Philadelphia to give me the news. They didn’t want me to hear it from the prison officials. They said it would take a miracle to avoid this execution. I told them it was fine — I was innocent, but it was time to give up.
But then I remembered something about May 20. I had just finished reading a letter from my younger son about how he wanted to go on his senior class trip. I’d been thinking about how I could find a way to pay for it by selling my typewriter and radio. “Oh, no, hold on,” I said, “that’s the day before John Jr. is graduating from high school.” I begged them to get it delayed; I knew it would hurt him.
To make things worse, the next day, when John Jr. was at school, his teacher read the whole class an article from the newspaper about my execution. She didn’t know I was John Jr.’s dad; she was just trying to teach them a lesson about making bad choices. So he learned that his father was going to be killed from his teacher, reading the newspaper aloud. I panicked. I needed to talk to him, reassure him.
Amazingly, I got a miracle. The same day that my lawyers visited, an investigator they had hired to look through the evidence one last time found, on some forgotten microfiche, a report sent to the prosecutors on the blood type of the perpetrator of the armed robbery. It didn’t match mine; the report, hidden for 15 years, had never been turned over to my lawyers. The investigator later found the names of witnesses and police reports from the murder case that hadn’t been turned over either.
As a result, the armed robbery conviction was thrown out in 1999, and I was taken off death row. Then, in 2002, my murder conviction was thrown out. At a retrial the following year, the jury took only 35 minutes to acquit me.
The prosecutors involved in my two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.
Why weren’t they punished for what they did? When the hidden evidence first surfaced, Mr. Connick announced that his office would hold a grand jury investigation. But once it became clear how many people had been involved, he called it off.
In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.
I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.
Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.
If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.
A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
By JOHN THOMPSON
I SPENT 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. I’ve been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date. Those prosecutors were never punished. Last month, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to overturn a case I’d won against them and the district attorney who oversaw my case, ruling that they were not liable for the failure to turn over that evidence — which included proof that blood at the robbery scene wasn’t mine.
Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today.
I was arrested in January 1985 in New Orleans. I remember the police coming to my grandmother’s house — we all knew it was the cops because of how hard they banged on the door before kicking it in. My grandmother and my mom were there, along with my little brother and sister, my two sons — John Jr., 4, and Dedric, 6 — my girlfriend and me. The officers had guns drawn and were yelling. I guess they thought they were coming for a murderer. All the children were scared and crying. I was 22.
They took me to the homicide division, and played a cassette tape on which a man I knew named Kevin Freeman accused me of shooting a man. He had also been arrested as a suspect in the murder. A few weeks earlier he had sold me a ring and a gun; it turned out that the ring belonged to the victim and the gun was the murder weapon.
My picture was on the news, and a man called in to report that I looked like someone who had recently tried to rob his children. Suddenly I was accused of that crime, too. I was tried for the robbery first. My lawyers never knew there was blood evidence at the scene, and I was convicted based on the victims’ identification.
After that, my lawyers thought it was best if I didn’t testify at the murder trial. So I never defended myself, or got to explain that I got the ring and the gun from Kevin Freeman. And now that I officially had a history of violent crime because of the robbery conviction, the prosecutors used it to get the death penalty.
I remember the judge telling the courtroom the number of volts of electricity they would put into my body. If the first attempt didn’t kill me, he said, they’d put more volts in.
On Sept. 1, 1987, I arrived on death row in the Louisiana State Penitentiary — the infamous Angola prison. I was put in a dead man’s cell. His things were still there; he had been executed only a few days before. That past summer they had executed eight men at Angola. I received my first execution date right before I arrived. I would end up knowing 12 men who were executed there.
Over the years, I was given six execution dates, but all of them were delayed until finally my appeals were exhausted. The seventh — and last — date was set for May 20, 1999. My lawyers had been with me for 11 years by then; they flew in from Philadelphia to give me the news. They didn’t want me to hear it from the prison officials. They said it would take a miracle to avoid this execution. I told them it was fine — I was innocent, but it was time to give up.
But then I remembered something about May 20. I had just finished reading a letter from my younger son about how he wanted to go on his senior class trip. I’d been thinking about how I could find a way to pay for it by selling my typewriter and radio. “Oh, no, hold on,” I said, “that’s the day before John Jr. is graduating from high school.” I begged them to get it delayed; I knew it would hurt him.
To make things worse, the next day, when John Jr. was at school, his teacher read the whole class an article from the newspaper about my execution. She didn’t know I was John Jr.’s dad; she was just trying to teach them a lesson about making bad choices. So he learned that his father was going to be killed from his teacher, reading the newspaper aloud. I panicked. I needed to talk to him, reassure him.
Amazingly, I got a miracle. The same day that my lawyers visited, an investigator they had hired to look through the evidence one last time found, on some forgotten microfiche, a report sent to the prosecutors on the blood type of the perpetrator of the armed robbery. It didn’t match mine; the report, hidden for 15 years, had never been turned over to my lawyers. The investigator later found the names of witnesses and police reports from the murder case that hadn’t been turned over either.
As a result, the armed robbery conviction was thrown out in 1999, and I was taken off death row. Then, in 2002, my murder conviction was thrown out. At a retrial the following year, the jury took only 35 minutes to acquit me.
The prosecutors involved in my two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.
Why weren’t they punished for what they did? When the hidden evidence first surfaced, Mr. Connick announced that his office would hold a grand jury investigation. But once it became clear how many people had been involved, he called it off.
In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.
I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.
Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.
If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.
A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Two decades after pregnant teenager was raped and strangled, DNA tests put 'killer' on trial and free innocent man
Two decades after a pregnant teenager was raped, beaten and strangled, a Connecticut man is going on trial for her death based on new DNA tests that linked him to the crime and cleared an innocent man who served 20 years in prison.
A Hartford Superior Court jury will begin hearing evidence on Tuesday in the case of 53-year-old Pedro Miranda, who is also awaiting trial for the killings of two other teenage girls in 1980s.
The upcoming trial involves the 1988 killing of 17-year-old Carmen Lopez, who was six months pregnant at the time. Her boyfriend, Miguel Roman, was convicted of her murder and served 20 years of a 60-year prison sentenced before a judge set him free in December 2008 based on the DNA test results. A judge dismissed Roman's case and formally exonerated him in 2009.
Miranda, who denies the allegations in all three cases, is charged with capital felony and murder. He could face the death penalty. Miranda, who's on the state's sex offender registry for a 1998 conviction for raping a 24-year-old woman in West Hartford, is also charged in the murders of 16-year-old Rosa Valentin in 1986 and 13-year-old Mayra Cruz in 1987. Authorities say all three killings were sexually motivated.
Officers arrested Miranda at his home in December 2008 and charged him with the three killings as part of a cold case investigation by prosecutors and state and local police.
The probe was launched in July 2008 when new evidence was uncovered by the state public defenders' Connecticut Innocence Project, which looks into potentially wrong convictions.
The state's Innocence Project, formed in 2005, has also helped free two other Connecticut men who were sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. James Tillman was released from a state prison in 2006 after serving 18 years for rape. In 2009, Kenneth Ireland was set free after serving two decades for murder and rape.
Lopez disappeared after leaving a family party in January 1988. She told her cousin she was going to meet Roman, an arrest warrant says. Her body was found a few days later in a Hartford apartment where she had been house-sitting, police said.
The warrant said Miranda, who was dating Lopez's cousin, knew from other family members that Lopez would be alone in the apartment, but denied any involvement in her death.
Roman was convicted of his girlfriend's death, despite an FBI investigator testifying during his trial that tests eliminated him as a suspect. Authorities say the jury convicted him based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.
The new DNA testing 20 years later on evidence found in the apartment excluded Roman as a suspect and linked Miranda to the crime, authorities said. The testing used technology that wasn't available in the 1980s.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Two decades after a pregnant teenager was raped, beaten and strangled, a Connecticut man is going on trial for her death based on new DNA tests that linked him to the crime and cleared an innocent man who served 20 years in prison.
A Hartford Superior Court jury will begin hearing evidence on Tuesday in the case of 53-year-old Pedro Miranda, who is also awaiting trial for the killings of two other teenage girls in 1980s.
The upcoming trial involves the 1988 killing of 17-year-old Carmen Lopez, who was six months pregnant at the time. Her boyfriend, Miguel Roman, was convicted of her murder and served 20 years of a 60-year prison sentenced before a judge set him free in December 2008 based on the DNA test results. A judge dismissed Roman's case and formally exonerated him in 2009.
Miranda, who denies the allegations in all three cases, is charged with capital felony and murder. He could face the death penalty. Miranda, who's on the state's sex offender registry for a 1998 conviction for raping a 24-year-old woman in West Hartford, is also charged in the murders of 16-year-old Rosa Valentin in 1986 and 13-year-old Mayra Cruz in 1987. Authorities say all three killings were sexually motivated.
Officers arrested Miranda at his home in December 2008 and charged him with the three killings as part of a cold case investigation by prosecutors and state and local police.
The probe was launched in July 2008 when new evidence was uncovered by the state public defenders' Connecticut Innocence Project, which looks into potentially wrong convictions.
The state's Innocence Project, formed in 2005, has also helped free two other Connecticut men who were sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. James Tillman was released from a state prison in 2006 after serving 18 years for rape. In 2009, Kenneth Ireland was set free after serving two decades for murder and rape.
Lopez disappeared after leaving a family party in January 1988. She told her cousin she was going to meet Roman, an arrest warrant says. Her body was found a few days later in a Hartford apartment where she had been house-sitting, police said.
The warrant said Miranda, who was dating Lopez's cousin, knew from other family members that Lopez would be alone in the apartment, but denied any involvement in her death.
Roman was convicted of his girlfriend's death, despite an FBI investigator testifying during his trial that tests eliminated him as a suspect. Authorities say the jury convicted him based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.
The new DNA testing 20 years later on evidence found in the apartment excluded Roman as a suspect and linked Miranda to the crime, authorities said. The testing used technology that wasn't available in the 1980s.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Saturday, April 09, 2011
'Rape Cops' footage shows NY officers leaving and returning to alleged victim's apartment
PROSECUTORS released never-before-seen surveillance video in New York's sensational "Rape Cops" case yesterday, showing the victim as she is escorted to her East Village door in December, 2008 by the pair of officers accused of conspiring in her rape later that night.
The bulk of the video is hugely incriminating, showing the cops - accused rapist Officer Kenneth Moreno, and accused lookout Officer Franklin Mata - making three return trips to the drunken woman's apartment over the course of five hours, the New York Post reported.
But defense lawyers are hanging their acquittal hopes on a three or four-second snippet at the start of the tape. In it, the victim - a drunken, then-28-year-old fashion executive - is clearly depicted walking unassisted while talking to Mata and pushing open her own front door.
The two cops are charged with conspiring to rape the woman under a criminal statute requiring proof she was too drunk and helpless to consent.
So while the cops are denying there was any intercourse at all that night, they are still hoping to clinch their case on a crucial technicality using this equation: No intoxication equals no conviction.
In the tape, Mata, a three-year-rookie, gives no more aid to the woman than to place his hand on her back as she approaches her door. Moreno follows them inside at several feet's distance.
Still, prosecutors Coleen Balbert and Randolph Clarke have promised jurors a mountain of evidence proving the woman was indeed too drunk to consent, including test results indicating her blood alcohol content hovered around .20 during those five hours - more than twice the legal driving limit.
And so far in the three-day-old trial, three friends of the woman and her cab driver from that night have told jurors that she was a booze-filled wreck after a night of Champagne chased with five big cups of Red Bull and Jack Daniels.
The woman's fashion business boss, Joanna Elizabeth Kreling, also bolstered the prosecution case by telling jurors that the woman was "devastated" and "just demoralized" even days after the incident.
"She seemed completely broken down and crying and emotional," Kreling said of speaking to her friend by phone an hour after she'd woke up naked on her bed the next morning. "She said that she had been raped and that it was a cop."
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
PROSECUTORS released never-before-seen surveillance video in New York's sensational "Rape Cops" case yesterday, showing the victim as she is escorted to her East Village door in December, 2008 by the pair of officers accused of conspiring in her rape later that night.
The bulk of the video is hugely incriminating, showing the cops - accused rapist Officer Kenneth Moreno, and accused lookout Officer Franklin Mata - making three return trips to the drunken woman's apartment over the course of five hours, the New York Post reported.
But defense lawyers are hanging their acquittal hopes on a three or four-second snippet at the start of the tape. In it, the victim - a drunken, then-28-year-old fashion executive - is clearly depicted walking unassisted while talking to Mata and pushing open her own front door.
The two cops are charged with conspiring to rape the woman under a criminal statute requiring proof she was too drunk and helpless to consent.
So while the cops are denying there was any intercourse at all that night, they are still hoping to clinch their case on a crucial technicality using this equation: No intoxication equals no conviction.
In the tape, Mata, a three-year-rookie, gives no more aid to the woman than to place his hand on her back as she approaches her door. Moreno follows them inside at several feet's distance.
Still, prosecutors Coleen Balbert and Randolph Clarke have promised jurors a mountain of evidence proving the woman was indeed too drunk to consent, including test results indicating her blood alcohol content hovered around .20 during those five hours - more than twice the legal driving limit.
And so far in the three-day-old trial, three friends of the woman and her cab driver from that night have told jurors that she was a booze-filled wreck after a night of Champagne chased with five big cups of Red Bull and Jack Daniels.
The woman's fashion business boss, Joanna Elizabeth Kreling, also bolstered the prosecution case by telling jurors that the woman was "devastated" and "just demoralized" even days after the incident.
"She seemed completely broken down and crying and emotional," Kreling said of speaking to her friend by phone an hour after she'd woke up naked on her bed the next morning. "She said that she had been raped and that it was a cop."
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Friday, April 08, 2011
CT: Bill seeks to protect public’s right to photograph police officers
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would protect the right of the public to photograph or videotape the public activities of police officers.
In an age when even the least expensive cell phones usually come equipped with cameras, supporters say the measure will provide greater transparency while protecting members of the public who record police actions from harassment and arrest.
"There have been numerous incidents...in which citizens have been harassed, threatened and arrested for recording what would seem to be public action by police officers,'' state Sen. Martin Looney said at a legislative hearing this morning.
"It's difficult to understand how a police officer has an expectation of privacy in the performance of his or her public duties," Looney added.
The law would only apply in cases where a citizen is filming in a public place and not interfering with the officer's work. But West Hartford police Chief James Strillacci said if "somebody...gets in our face and follows us around while were trying to arrest a suspect or give first aide to somebody," it could constitute interfering.
State Sen. John Kissel said lawmakers were struggling to determine where to draw a line. "We want to continue to have an open and free society where people can monitor what the police are doing,'' he said. "If they're five-feet away...a police officer may feel harassed by that...but the individual who is doing the filming really isn't doing anything,'' he said.
The bill is under consideration by the legislature's Judiciary Committee; a vote is not expected today.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would protect the right of the public to photograph or videotape the public activities of police officers.
In an age when even the least expensive cell phones usually come equipped with cameras, supporters say the measure will provide greater transparency while protecting members of the public who record police actions from harassment and arrest.
"There have been numerous incidents...in which citizens have been harassed, threatened and arrested for recording what would seem to be public action by police officers,'' state Sen. Martin Looney said at a legislative hearing this morning.
"It's difficult to understand how a police officer has an expectation of privacy in the performance of his or her public duties," Looney added.
The law would only apply in cases where a citizen is filming in a public place and not interfering with the officer's work. But West Hartford police Chief James Strillacci said if "somebody...gets in our face and follows us around while were trying to arrest a suspect or give first aide to somebody," it could constitute interfering.
State Sen. John Kissel said lawmakers were struggling to determine where to draw a line. "We want to continue to have an open and free society where people can monitor what the police are doing,'' he said. "If they're five-feet away...a police officer may feel harassed by that...but the individual who is doing the filming really isn't doing anything,'' he said.
The bill is under consideration by the legislature's Judiciary Committee; a vote is not expected today.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Thursday, April 07, 2011
MA: Disorderly conduct cases draw fresh legal scrutiny
Despite losing in two trials, the cops are still not admitting fault. What does it take?
Lowell police Officer Brian M. Kinney was working the night shift three years ago when he was called to investigate a report of an unwanted person on private property.
He arrived to find Vesna Nuon, 43, a Cambodian father of two, who according to the police report, appeared to have been drinking, was belligerent, and refused to return quietly to his friend’s house. “You’re a coward, hiding behind your badge,’’ Kinney said Nuon yelled as he stood outside the house. “Get off my property.’’
Kinney arrested Nuon on charges of disorderly conduct, forcing him to spend several hours in a city jail. The following week, the charges were dismissed, but Nuon, a community activist who disputes Kinney’s account, said he was infuriated and humiliated. He filed a complaint, alleging the arrest was without probable cause, and a federal judge this month agreed, finding Kinney liable for false arrest.
City officials defend the officer’s actions, but civil libertarians say the case reflects evolving attitudes about the use of disorderly conduct charges to arrest someone who is behaving aggressively or insulting an officer but not breaking any laws.
Last week, the US Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that a Kentucky man charged with disorderly conduct after he called an officer a “fat slob’’ had been arrested without probable cause. In March 2009, a federal judge ruled against a Pittsburgh police officer who issued a citation against a man who gave him the middle finger.
In Cambridge, where police withstood withering criticism in July 2009 when a Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., was arrested after he screamed at an officer from inside his home, officials have started looking more closely at individual disorderly conduct arrests to ensure officers are not overstepping their authority.
“The issue is where you draw the line between free speech and disorderly conduct,’’ said Jon Shane, a former Newark Police Department captain who teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. “That is a perpetual debate in law enforcement circles.’’
Massachusetts law defines disorderly conduct as publicly fighting, threatening, engaging in “violent or tumultuous behavior,’’ or creating a hazardous or physically dangerous condition. To justify a disorderly conduct arrest, an officer should show that the suspect prevented the officer from carrying out his or her duties, caused a crowd to form and possibly to riot, or had gotten too close to the officer, Shane said. “It’s contextually based,’’ he said. “When John Q. Citizen is getting loud with you at a friend’s house and you say ‘I’m going to lock you up,’ you’re going nowhere with that. It’s a nowhere situation for the government and the police.’’
In the Lowell case, Nuon and Kinney agree they spoke several times to each other just before Nuon’s arrest at the Hale Street duplex, as Kinney took a report from a neighbor of Nuon’s friend. What the officer and the community activist disagree on is each other’s behavior. Nuon said Kinney was rude and aggressive from the moment he arrived, questioning him so loudly that he was practically yelling. Kinney said that Nuon immediately was hostile, waving his arms angrily at the officer and telling him “nobody wants you here.’’
Kinney said he decided to arrest Nuon, who he said reeked of alcohol, because of his “irrational behavior.’’ “He was screaming and yelling at me over nothing,’’ the officer said in a deposition. “I was just looking at him, at first, thinking, I don’t know what this man’s problem is.’’
In an interview at his lawyer’s office, Nuon said he had two beers that night but was not drunk. “I wouldn’t be rude to an officer who is responding to a crisis, a crime,’’ said Nuon, who sits on the state’s Sex Offenders Registry Board and was once liaison between the Middlesex district attorney’s office and the city’s Asian community.
When the officer asked for identification, Nuon said, he went inside his friend’s house to retrieve it. The officer followed him inside, he said. “I said, ‘You can’t come in without a warrant,’ ’’ Nuon said. Nuon said he then called 911 because he wanted to speak to Kinney’s supervisor. Minutes later, he was in handcuffs.
US Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin said in his summary judgment that he made his decision by looking at the incident from Kinney’s point of view. Even from that perspective, it was clear the officer arrested Nuon without probable cause, Sorokin said. “Expressive conduct, even of a coarse and vulgar nature, cannot be punished as a disorderly offense,’’ he wrote in the 20-page decision.
Kinney could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Stephen C. Pfaff, said that the officer stands by the arrest. “A reasonable police officer standing in his shoes would in fact have done the same thing,’’ Pfaff said. Nuon “created a physically offensive condition, effectively, by not obeying his order to leave.’’
Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said Sorokin’s decision is a reminder to police officers that even if they are dealing with an irate person, he or she is still protected by the Constitution. “They don’t have an easy job,’’ Wunsch said of police. “They do have to put up with people who are yelling at them and disapproving of what they’re doing. But they’re supposed to be trained to deal with that. . . . They’re supposed to remain calm.’’
Nuon’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wiesner, said his client does not want money but would like to see Lowell police trained on assessing disorderly conduct. A jury trial to decide potential damages is scheduled for July.
Lowell Police Superintendent Kenneth Lavallee declined to comment, citing the pending complaint.
Brian Leahey, a lawyer for the city, said officials are considering training options and an analysis of disorderly conduct arrests. “Even though we don’t think [Kinney] did anything wrong, we’re still going to address the judge’s ruling,’’ he said. “Going forward, we’ll address the issue of what’s permissible and not permissible.’’
Nuon, a city zoning board member, said some officials and officers have responded coolly to him since he filed the complaint. “I love the city, and I have a lot of good friends in the Lowell Police Department,’’ he said. “But I want them to know that if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone in the Asian community. We don’t want to be mistreated.’’
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Despite losing in two trials, the cops are still not admitting fault. What does it take?
Lowell police Officer Brian M. Kinney was working the night shift three years ago when he was called to investigate a report of an unwanted person on private property.
He arrived to find Vesna Nuon, 43, a Cambodian father of two, who according to the police report, appeared to have been drinking, was belligerent, and refused to return quietly to his friend’s house. “You’re a coward, hiding behind your badge,’’ Kinney said Nuon yelled as he stood outside the house. “Get off my property.’’
Kinney arrested Nuon on charges of disorderly conduct, forcing him to spend several hours in a city jail. The following week, the charges were dismissed, but Nuon, a community activist who disputes Kinney’s account, said he was infuriated and humiliated. He filed a complaint, alleging the arrest was without probable cause, and a federal judge this month agreed, finding Kinney liable for false arrest.
City officials defend the officer’s actions, but civil libertarians say the case reflects evolving attitudes about the use of disorderly conduct charges to arrest someone who is behaving aggressively or insulting an officer but not breaking any laws.
Last week, the US Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that a Kentucky man charged with disorderly conduct after he called an officer a “fat slob’’ had been arrested without probable cause. In March 2009, a federal judge ruled against a Pittsburgh police officer who issued a citation against a man who gave him the middle finger.
In Cambridge, where police withstood withering criticism in July 2009 when a Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., was arrested after he screamed at an officer from inside his home, officials have started looking more closely at individual disorderly conduct arrests to ensure officers are not overstepping their authority.
“The issue is where you draw the line between free speech and disorderly conduct,’’ said Jon Shane, a former Newark Police Department captain who teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. “That is a perpetual debate in law enforcement circles.’’
Massachusetts law defines disorderly conduct as publicly fighting, threatening, engaging in “violent or tumultuous behavior,’’ or creating a hazardous or physically dangerous condition. To justify a disorderly conduct arrest, an officer should show that the suspect prevented the officer from carrying out his or her duties, caused a crowd to form and possibly to riot, or had gotten too close to the officer, Shane said. “It’s contextually based,’’ he said. “When John Q. Citizen is getting loud with you at a friend’s house and you say ‘I’m going to lock you up,’ you’re going nowhere with that. It’s a nowhere situation for the government and the police.’’
In the Lowell case, Nuon and Kinney agree they spoke several times to each other just before Nuon’s arrest at the Hale Street duplex, as Kinney took a report from a neighbor of Nuon’s friend. What the officer and the community activist disagree on is each other’s behavior. Nuon said Kinney was rude and aggressive from the moment he arrived, questioning him so loudly that he was practically yelling. Kinney said that Nuon immediately was hostile, waving his arms angrily at the officer and telling him “nobody wants you here.’’
Kinney said he decided to arrest Nuon, who he said reeked of alcohol, because of his “irrational behavior.’’ “He was screaming and yelling at me over nothing,’’ the officer said in a deposition. “I was just looking at him, at first, thinking, I don’t know what this man’s problem is.’’
In an interview at his lawyer’s office, Nuon said he had two beers that night but was not drunk. “I wouldn’t be rude to an officer who is responding to a crisis, a crime,’’ said Nuon, who sits on the state’s Sex Offenders Registry Board and was once liaison between the Middlesex district attorney’s office and the city’s Asian community.
When the officer asked for identification, Nuon said, he went inside his friend’s house to retrieve it. The officer followed him inside, he said. “I said, ‘You can’t come in without a warrant,’ ’’ Nuon said. Nuon said he then called 911 because he wanted to speak to Kinney’s supervisor. Minutes later, he was in handcuffs.
US Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin said in his summary judgment that he made his decision by looking at the incident from Kinney’s point of view. Even from that perspective, it was clear the officer arrested Nuon without probable cause, Sorokin said. “Expressive conduct, even of a coarse and vulgar nature, cannot be punished as a disorderly offense,’’ he wrote in the 20-page decision.
Kinney could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Stephen C. Pfaff, said that the officer stands by the arrest. “A reasonable police officer standing in his shoes would in fact have done the same thing,’’ Pfaff said. Nuon “created a physically offensive condition, effectively, by not obeying his order to leave.’’
Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said Sorokin’s decision is a reminder to police officers that even if they are dealing with an irate person, he or she is still protected by the Constitution. “They don’t have an easy job,’’ Wunsch said of police. “They do have to put up with people who are yelling at them and disapproving of what they’re doing. But they’re supposed to be trained to deal with that. . . . They’re supposed to remain calm.’’
Nuon’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wiesner, said his client does not want money but would like to see Lowell police trained on assessing disorderly conduct. A jury trial to decide potential damages is scheduled for July.
Lowell Police Superintendent Kenneth Lavallee declined to comment, citing the pending complaint.
Brian Leahey, a lawyer for the city, said officials are considering training options and an analysis of disorderly conduct arrests. “Even though we don’t think [Kinney] did anything wrong, we’re still going to address the judge’s ruling,’’ he said. “Going forward, we’ll address the issue of what’s permissible and not permissible.’’
Nuon, a city zoning board member, said some officials and officers have responded coolly to him since he filed the complaint. “I love the city, and I have a lot of good friends in the Lowell Police Department,’’ he said. “But I want them to know that if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone in the Asian community. We don’t want to be mistreated.’’
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
DoJ investigates use of force by Seattle police
The Washington ACLU and other groups called for the inquiry after several beatings and shootings over the last year involving minorities
The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Seattle police have used excessive force — particularly against minorities — in the wake of several controversial beatings and shootings, one of which resulted in a homeless woodcarver's death, officials said Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and other community groups called for an inquiry after more than a year of high-profile incidents, including the death of John T. Williams, a partially deaf Native American who was shot and killed in downtown Seattle in August after failing to drop his 3-inch carving knife. The officer who shot him has resigned.
That followed the videotaped beating in April of a Latino robbery suspect, whom a gang detective kicked while threatening to beat the "Mexican piss" out of him, and a confrontation in June in which an officer punched a 17-year-old African American girl in the face when she protested the arrest of her friend for jaywalking.
"The officers appear to inflict injury out of anger at the individual rather than the need to protect public safety," said the groups' letter to federal officials.
The inquiry, which follows a months-long preliminary review of the police department's use-of-force practices, will include evaluating policies, sifting through records, interviewing officers and community members and observing the rank and file, Assistant Atty. Gen. Thomas E. Perez said in a statement.
Officials emphasized that the investigation was civil, not criminal, and not tied to a particular incident.
The goal is "to ensure that the community has an effective, accountable police department that controls crime, ensures respect for the Constitution, and earns the trust of the public it is charged with protecting," said Perez, who leads the agency's Civil Rights Division.
A Seattle police spokesman declined to comment. A spokesman for Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said the city would fully cooperate with federal investigators.
Jennifer Shaw, deputy director of the ACLU of Washington, welcomed the investigation, which she hoped would pinpoint any faulty supervisory or training practices. "The big thing is to look at why things have gone astray," she said.
Minority communities, in particular, have grown wary of dealing with police, she said, after so many hot-button incidents. In October, for example, an officer was videotaped kicking a seemingly compliant African American teenager in the groin and head, the ACLU letter said.
"It divides the community and makes us feel like there are people who are able to trust the police and people who aren't," Shaw said.
The Justice Department recently wrapped a similar investigation of New Orleans police, which found an array of misconduct including the use of excessive force, racial and ethnic profiling, and discrimination against gays.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
The Washington ACLU and other groups called for the inquiry after several beatings and shootings over the last year involving minorities
The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Seattle police have used excessive force — particularly against minorities — in the wake of several controversial beatings and shootings, one of which resulted in a homeless woodcarver's death, officials said Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and other community groups called for an inquiry after more than a year of high-profile incidents, including the death of John T. Williams, a partially deaf Native American who was shot and killed in downtown Seattle in August after failing to drop his 3-inch carving knife. The officer who shot him has resigned.
That followed the videotaped beating in April of a Latino robbery suspect, whom a gang detective kicked while threatening to beat the "Mexican piss" out of him, and a confrontation in June in which an officer punched a 17-year-old African American girl in the face when she protested the arrest of her friend for jaywalking.
"The officers appear to inflict injury out of anger at the individual rather than the need to protect public safety," said the groups' letter to federal officials.
The inquiry, which follows a months-long preliminary review of the police department's use-of-force practices, will include evaluating policies, sifting through records, interviewing officers and community members and observing the rank and file, Assistant Atty. Gen. Thomas E. Perez said in a statement.
Officials emphasized that the investigation was civil, not criminal, and not tied to a particular incident.
The goal is "to ensure that the community has an effective, accountable police department that controls crime, ensures respect for the Constitution, and earns the trust of the public it is charged with protecting," said Perez, who leads the agency's Civil Rights Division.
A Seattle police spokesman declined to comment. A spokesman for Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said the city would fully cooperate with federal investigators.
Jennifer Shaw, deputy director of the ACLU of Washington, welcomed the investigation, which she hoped would pinpoint any faulty supervisory or training practices. "The big thing is to look at why things have gone astray," she said.
Minority communities, in particular, have grown wary of dealing with police, she said, after so many hot-button incidents. In October, for example, an officer was videotaped kicking a seemingly compliant African American teenager in the groin and head, the ACLU letter said.
"It divides the community and makes us feel like there are people who are able to trust the police and people who aren't," Shaw said.
The Justice Department recently wrapped a similar investigation of New Orleans police, which found an array of misconduct including the use of excessive force, racial and ethnic profiling, and discrimination against gays.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
DC: Jury finds cops unlawfully arrested woman for questioning authority
After a jury sided Friday with a woman who had sued Washington police officers for arresting her after she publicly criticized them, attorney Jeffrey Skinner of Goodwin Procter said he hopes the verdict will prompt a full investigation into the extent of "contempt-of-cop" arrests in the city.
Skinner, along with fellow Goodwin Procter attorneys Andrew Hudson and John Moustakas, represented Washington resident Lindsay Huthnance pro bono in her suit against the officers who arrested her, as well as the city’s Metropolitan Police Department.
The jury found the city and two officers who arrested Huthnance liable for $97,500 in damages for false arrest, emotional distress and a slew of constitutional violations committed in the course of her arrest and imprisonment; a third officer was not found liable. In addition to charges stemming directly from the arrest, she also charged the city with failing to properly train officers and take steps to stop unlawful “contempt-of-cop” arrests.
Skinner, in a phone interview Monday, said his team built their case against the city by reviewing hundreds of arrest reports filed the year before Huthnance’s arrest in November 2005. Of the nearly 900 arrest reports provided by the city – more than 100 reports were missing, Skinner said – the plaintiff’s experts determined that more than 30% contained errors or failed to make a case for probable cause.
The analysis of arrest reports provided “pretty strong proof that either the District wasn’t training [officers] properly, or it could also indicate MPD supervision was also lacking and deficient,” he said.
Police department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump declined to comment on the case, but did confirm that the three officers charged remain employed by the city. Ariel Waldman, a spokesman for the city’s attorney general, also declined to comment.
Huthnance claimed she was arrested in November 2005 on a trumped-up charge in retaliation for publicly criticizing a group of police officers. According to her complaint, Huthnance had stopped inside a 7-Eleven around midnight when she spotted a group of officers inside. After asking the officers if any incident had happened in the neighborhood and, according to her complaint, receiving a rude response, Huthnance made a comment that she didn’t think it was a good use of her tax dollars for the officers to be standing around the 7-Eleven.
After a verbal exchange with officers inside and outside of the store, Huthnance was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace, but claimed she never became belligerent or disorderly. She also accused the police of holding her in jail for several hours after she should have been released. At one point, she claimed, an officer told her she would be released if she would sit in her cell and “cry like a good girl.”
During the trial before U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, the officers disputed Huthnance’s version of events. They claimed she was screaming obscenities and was so loud that she attracted the attention of passers-by and residents living across the street from the 7-Eleven.
After she was released from jail, Huthnance contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital, which put her in touch with Goodwin Proctor and assisted during the trial. ACLU legal director Arthur Spitzer said Huthnance’s arrest highlights flaws in how the city has dealt with the problem of unlawful retaliation against individuals who speak out against the police.
“We’re glad that the jury was able to see the reality of what had happened to Ms. Huthnance and the reality about the District of Columbia’s failure to train and supervise officers about not making contempt-of-cop arrests,” Spitzer said in a phone interview Monday.
The verdict came one day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled on March 24 that a man who was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after calling a police officer a "fat slob" could move forward with a retaliatory arrest claim. More on this case from The National Law Journal's Leigh Jones can be found here.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
After a jury sided Friday with a woman who had sued Washington police officers for arresting her after she publicly criticized them, attorney Jeffrey Skinner of Goodwin Procter said he hopes the verdict will prompt a full investigation into the extent of "contempt-of-cop" arrests in the city.
Skinner, along with fellow Goodwin Procter attorneys Andrew Hudson and John Moustakas, represented Washington resident Lindsay Huthnance pro bono in her suit against the officers who arrested her, as well as the city’s Metropolitan Police Department.
The jury found the city and two officers who arrested Huthnance liable for $97,500 in damages for false arrest, emotional distress and a slew of constitutional violations committed in the course of her arrest and imprisonment; a third officer was not found liable. In addition to charges stemming directly from the arrest, she also charged the city with failing to properly train officers and take steps to stop unlawful “contempt-of-cop” arrests.
Skinner, in a phone interview Monday, said his team built their case against the city by reviewing hundreds of arrest reports filed the year before Huthnance’s arrest in November 2005. Of the nearly 900 arrest reports provided by the city – more than 100 reports were missing, Skinner said – the plaintiff’s experts determined that more than 30% contained errors or failed to make a case for probable cause.
The analysis of arrest reports provided “pretty strong proof that either the District wasn’t training [officers] properly, or it could also indicate MPD supervision was also lacking and deficient,” he said.
Police department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump declined to comment on the case, but did confirm that the three officers charged remain employed by the city. Ariel Waldman, a spokesman for the city’s attorney general, also declined to comment.
Huthnance claimed she was arrested in November 2005 on a trumped-up charge in retaliation for publicly criticizing a group of police officers. According to her complaint, Huthnance had stopped inside a 7-Eleven around midnight when she spotted a group of officers inside. After asking the officers if any incident had happened in the neighborhood and, according to her complaint, receiving a rude response, Huthnance made a comment that she didn’t think it was a good use of her tax dollars for the officers to be standing around the 7-Eleven.
After a verbal exchange with officers inside and outside of the store, Huthnance was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace, but claimed she never became belligerent or disorderly. She also accused the police of holding her in jail for several hours after she should have been released. At one point, she claimed, an officer told her she would be released if she would sit in her cell and “cry like a good girl.”
During the trial before U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, the officers disputed Huthnance’s version of events. They claimed she was screaming obscenities and was so loud that she attracted the attention of passers-by and residents living across the street from the 7-Eleven.
After she was released from jail, Huthnance contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital, which put her in touch with Goodwin Proctor and assisted during the trial. ACLU legal director Arthur Spitzer said Huthnance’s arrest highlights flaws in how the city has dealt with the problem of unlawful retaliation against individuals who speak out against the police.
“We’re glad that the jury was able to see the reality of what had happened to Ms. Huthnance and the reality about the District of Columbia’s failure to train and supervise officers about not making contempt-of-cop arrests,” Spitzer said in a phone interview Monday.
The verdict came one day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled on March 24 that a man who was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after calling a police officer a "fat slob" could move forward with a retaliatory arrest claim. More on this case from The National Law Journal's Leigh Jones can be found here.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Monday, April 04, 2011
British police face £750k bill for false pornography charges
Police face a legal bill of £750,000 for falsely accusing a man of possessing child pornography. Jeremy Clifford, 51, from Watford, was arrested in 2003 as part of Operation Ore, Britain's biggest ever computer crime investigation. The nationwide swoop targeted thousands of people whose credit card details were found in a database taken from a network of child pornography websites in America.
A computer expert found no evidence to prosecute Mr Clifford, but Hertfordshire police charged him anyway.
Yesterday a judge at the High Court ruled that Det Con Brian Hopkins had “no honest belief” that Mr Clifford had downloaded indecent images of children, and brought charges “to protect his own position”.
Mr Clifford, who lost his film equipment business as a result of the allegation against him, was awarded damages of £20,000 and costs which a police spokesman said will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Hertfordshire Constabulary was criticised by Mr Clifford's solicitors for the way it defended his claim of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.
“In my opinion it is an absolute disgrace that the police have been allowed to spend huge sums of public money recklessly and without apparent check or merit attacking Mr Clifford, in order to deflect from their own shortcomings,” said Andre Clovis of Tuckers Solicitors. “This course of conduct caused costs to escalate. There appears to be no control mechanism over police spending in such circumstances, but this does not mean that the Chief Constable and his legal department should not be called to account for their actions.”
The court heard that Mr Clifford’s credit card details appeared on the Operation Ore suspect database as a result of fraud, and that at the time he had complained and received refunds of payments. Mr Justice Mackay found there was no evidence he had been a subscriber to Landslide, the illegal pornography firm at the centre of the investigation.
The false charges were based on 10 indecent images of children found in the “temporary internet files” folder of a computer seized from Mr Clifford’s former business partner’s premises. They “can appear as advertisements without the user of the computer requesting them or even being aware that they were on the machine”, the court heard.
Assessing the damages, the judge said that Mr Clifford was devastated by his arrest, which caused difficulties for his business and put a strain on his relationship with his wife.
There was no ordeal in the form of a criminal trial to be gone through but the numerous procedural court appearances - four before magistrates and seven in the crown court - caused him particular distress and fear of publicity.
After the charges were dropped Mr Clifford made a complaint and an internal investigation was launched. It found that Hertfordshire Constabulary’s computer forensics expert, George Fouhey, had told DC Hopkins that the “thumbnail” images were not sufficient evidence to charge.
A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said: “Legal advice was taken beforehand and it was advised and expected that we had a reasonable chance of winning our case.” “We will seek to learn from this case and service improvements have already been implemented in the years since this case started.”
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Police face a legal bill of £750,000 for falsely accusing a man of possessing child pornography. Jeremy Clifford, 51, from Watford, was arrested in 2003 as part of Operation Ore, Britain's biggest ever computer crime investigation. The nationwide swoop targeted thousands of people whose credit card details were found in a database taken from a network of child pornography websites in America.
A computer expert found no evidence to prosecute Mr Clifford, but Hertfordshire police charged him anyway.
Yesterday a judge at the High Court ruled that Det Con Brian Hopkins had “no honest belief” that Mr Clifford had downloaded indecent images of children, and brought charges “to protect his own position”.
Mr Clifford, who lost his film equipment business as a result of the allegation against him, was awarded damages of £20,000 and costs which a police spokesman said will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Hertfordshire Constabulary was criticised by Mr Clifford's solicitors for the way it defended his claim of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.
“In my opinion it is an absolute disgrace that the police have been allowed to spend huge sums of public money recklessly and without apparent check or merit attacking Mr Clifford, in order to deflect from their own shortcomings,” said Andre Clovis of Tuckers Solicitors. “This course of conduct caused costs to escalate. There appears to be no control mechanism over police spending in such circumstances, but this does not mean that the Chief Constable and his legal department should not be called to account for their actions.”
The court heard that Mr Clifford’s credit card details appeared on the Operation Ore suspect database as a result of fraud, and that at the time he had complained and received refunds of payments. Mr Justice Mackay found there was no evidence he had been a subscriber to Landslide, the illegal pornography firm at the centre of the investigation.
The false charges were based on 10 indecent images of children found in the “temporary internet files” folder of a computer seized from Mr Clifford’s former business partner’s premises. They “can appear as advertisements without the user of the computer requesting them or even being aware that they were on the machine”, the court heard.
Assessing the damages, the judge said that Mr Clifford was devastated by his arrest, which caused difficulties for his business and put a strain on his relationship with his wife.
There was no ordeal in the form of a criminal trial to be gone through but the numerous procedural court appearances - four before magistrates and seven in the crown court - caused him particular distress and fear of publicity.
After the charges were dropped Mr Clifford made a complaint and an internal investigation was launched. It found that Hertfordshire Constabulary’s computer forensics expert, George Fouhey, had told DC Hopkins that the “thumbnail” images were not sufficient evidence to charge.
A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said: “Legal advice was taken beforehand and it was advised and expected that we had a reasonable chance of winning our case.” “We will seek to learn from this case and service improvements have already been implemented in the years since this case started.”
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Murder charge is dismissed by Boston judge
Finds misconduct by prosecution -- another case of exculpatory evidence "accidentally" withheld
Murder charges against one of the men accused of killing two friends as they sat in a car on a Dorchester street following a party in 2007 were dismissed yesterday after a Suffolk Superior Court judge found that prosecutors had delayed turning over key evidence to the defense.
“I find the prosecutor’s misconduct in this case to be grossly negligent,’’ Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frank M. Gaziano said yesterday, according to a partial transcript of the proceedings. The delay “in my mind was unacceptable and the Commonwealth has not been well served in this case.’’
The highly unusual ruling means that prosecutors will have to bring their case against Donald Williams, 26, who police say is a gang member, for a second time to a grand jury in the fatal shootings of Jarrid Campbell and Jeffrey Jones.
Attorney Rosemary Scapicchio said she had asked that the charges be dismissed because Assistant District Attorney Masai-Maliek King had waited until weeks before the March 23 trial date to turn over exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that could help prove her client’s innocence. She said that evidence, much of which the prosecution had for at least two years, included fingerprint analysis and crucial witness information.
“We would have been able to investigate the exculpatory nature of [the evidence] and build a defense based on it,’’ Scapicchio said. “It’s unethical and unconstitutional of them to have exculpatory evidence in their possession and not turn it over.’’
Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said that King agreed that the charges should be dismissed without prejudice, so that prosecutors could re-indict Williams, who remains in state prison. He is serving eight to 10 years for a September 2007 shooting unrelated to the case.
Wark declined to describe the evidence or to say why it was not released sooner. He also said there was evidence favorable to the defendant and evidence that damaged his case. “Those documents were a fraction of the thousands of pages,’’ Wark said. “At the end of the day, the delay was unjustified. What’s important is that we took immediate action when we learned those documents had not been turned over.’’
He said that King learned in a meeting with Boston police detectives a few weeks ago that not all evidence had been turned over to the defense. King replaced another prosecutor who had initially been assigned to the case.
Wark declined to say whether it was prosecutors or detectives who had erred in providing the material in the discovery process. Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston police, said that investigators acted appropriately. “Our detectives provided the necessary information to the first prosecutor assigned to the case,’’ Driscoll said. “We are working closely with the DA’s office to ensure a similar incident does not occur again.’’
In court yesterday, Gaziano said that the fault lies with the prosecution. “Whether or not [King] didn’t receive the information from the police or whatever the circumstances were, it is the Commonwealth’s or the prosecutor’s absolute obligation to turn over discovery in a timely fashion,’’ he said. But, Gaziano said, he did not believe King had withheld evidence intentionally.
At King’s request, Gaziano ordered that Williams, hand over other, separate evidence he had received through his attorney and was keeping in his cell.
Wark said that prosecutors believe Williams has used that evidence to go after witnesses. Last week he was indicted on charges of witness intimidation after he allegedly told a third party to kill one of the witnesses, Wark said.
Scapicchio said it is customary for defendants to relinquish evidence when charges are dismissed.
She called the third party a liar who has asserted that three defendants in three separate counties have asked him to kill witnesses. “They’re trying to spin this to make it something it isn’t,’’ said Scapicchio. “The story is about them withholding documents in a double homicide because they violated my client’s constitutional rights.’’
Wark said prosecutors expect to indict Williams within the year, which could be difficult, given that detectives struggled to gather information after the killings and many witnesses testified before a special grand jury under court orders. “We expect it will be a challenge, like most of our cases, but we are confident we will be able to do so,’’ Wark said.
The other man charged in the killing, Stanley Earl Jenkins Jr., is scheduled to stand trial on murder charges in December.
Williams is expected to be tried next week in another, unrelated shooting that took place in November 2007.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Finds misconduct by prosecution -- another case of exculpatory evidence "accidentally" withheld
Murder charges against one of the men accused of killing two friends as they sat in a car on a Dorchester street following a party in 2007 were dismissed yesterday after a Suffolk Superior Court judge found that prosecutors had delayed turning over key evidence to the defense.
“I find the prosecutor’s misconduct in this case to be grossly negligent,’’ Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frank M. Gaziano said yesterday, according to a partial transcript of the proceedings. The delay “in my mind was unacceptable and the Commonwealth has not been well served in this case.’’
The highly unusual ruling means that prosecutors will have to bring their case against Donald Williams, 26, who police say is a gang member, for a second time to a grand jury in the fatal shootings of Jarrid Campbell and Jeffrey Jones.
Attorney Rosemary Scapicchio said she had asked that the charges be dismissed because Assistant District Attorney Masai-Maliek King had waited until weeks before the March 23 trial date to turn over exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that could help prove her client’s innocence. She said that evidence, much of which the prosecution had for at least two years, included fingerprint analysis and crucial witness information.
“We would have been able to investigate the exculpatory nature of [the evidence] and build a defense based on it,’’ Scapicchio said. “It’s unethical and unconstitutional of them to have exculpatory evidence in their possession and not turn it over.’’
Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said that King agreed that the charges should be dismissed without prejudice, so that prosecutors could re-indict Williams, who remains in state prison. He is serving eight to 10 years for a September 2007 shooting unrelated to the case.
Wark declined to describe the evidence or to say why it was not released sooner. He also said there was evidence favorable to the defendant and evidence that damaged his case. “Those documents were a fraction of the thousands of pages,’’ Wark said. “At the end of the day, the delay was unjustified. What’s important is that we took immediate action when we learned those documents had not been turned over.’’
He said that King learned in a meeting with Boston police detectives a few weeks ago that not all evidence had been turned over to the defense. King replaced another prosecutor who had initially been assigned to the case.
Wark declined to say whether it was prosecutors or detectives who had erred in providing the material in the discovery process. Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston police, said that investigators acted appropriately. “Our detectives provided the necessary information to the first prosecutor assigned to the case,’’ Driscoll said. “We are working closely with the DA’s office to ensure a similar incident does not occur again.’’
In court yesterday, Gaziano said that the fault lies with the prosecution. “Whether or not [King] didn’t receive the information from the police or whatever the circumstances were, it is the Commonwealth’s or the prosecutor’s absolute obligation to turn over discovery in a timely fashion,’’ he said. But, Gaziano said, he did not believe King had withheld evidence intentionally.
At King’s request, Gaziano ordered that Williams, hand over other, separate evidence he had received through his attorney and was keeping in his cell.
Wark said that prosecutors believe Williams has used that evidence to go after witnesses. Last week he was indicted on charges of witness intimidation after he allegedly told a third party to kill one of the witnesses, Wark said.
Scapicchio said it is customary for defendants to relinquish evidence when charges are dismissed.
She called the third party a liar who has asserted that three defendants in three separate counties have asked him to kill witnesses. “They’re trying to spin this to make it something it isn’t,’’ said Scapicchio. “The story is about them withholding documents in a double homicide because they violated my client’s constitutional rights.’’
Wark said prosecutors expect to indict Williams within the year, which could be difficult, given that detectives struggled to gather information after the killings and many witnesses testified before a special grand jury under court orders. “We expect it will be a challenge, like most of our cases, but we are confident we will be able to do so,’’ Wark said.
The other man charged in the killing, Stanley Earl Jenkins Jr., is scheduled to stand trial on murder charges in December.
Williams is expected to be tried next week in another, unrelated shooting that took place in November 2007.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Saturday, April 02, 2011
New Orleans officers jailed after post-Katrina murder
The two cops on the Left above
TWO New Orleans police officers convicted of shooting and burning a man in the 2005 post-Hurricane Katrina chaos have been sentenced to 25 and 17 years in jail. They were two of three police officers convicted in December in the September 2, 2005 slaying which was not investigated until early 2009 - shortly after a high-profile media report.
Former NOPD Officer David Warren was sentenced to 25 years for shooting a fleeing Henry Glover, 31, from the balcony of a police station.
Glover's brother and a friend flagged down a passing motorist, who put the mortally wounded man in his car to try to get medical attention for him.
When the men drove up to a makeshift police station seeing help, the police officers surrounded them at gunpoint, handcuffed them and let Glover die in the back seat of the car.
Greg McRae, who maintains his position with the department, was sentenced to 17 years in jail for driving off with the car, with Glover's body inside, and burning both the body and the car with a traffic flare.
"Today's sentences send a powerful message that no one is above the law, and that those who are sworn to protect our citizens are never, under any circumstances, relieved of their sacred responsibilities," Jim Letten, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, said in a statement.
"Today is an important step forward for the courageous Glover family and the people of New Orleans, and an important move toward the city's healing and rebuilding."
Nearly 80 per cent of New Orleans was flooded after the low-lying coastal city's levees burst under the massive storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The city descended quickly into chaos as tens of thousands were left stranded for days with no food on water on their rooftops and ill-prepared emergency shelters. About 1500 people lost their lives to the storm and its aftermath.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
The two cops on the Left above
TWO New Orleans police officers convicted of shooting and burning a man in the 2005 post-Hurricane Katrina chaos have been sentenced to 25 and 17 years in jail. They were two of three police officers convicted in December in the September 2, 2005 slaying which was not investigated until early 2009 - shortly after a high-profile media report.
Former NOPD Officer David Warren was sentenced to 25 years for shooting a fleeing Henry Glover, 31, from the balcony of a police station.
Glover's brother and a friend flagged down a passing motorist, who put the mortally wounded man in his car to try to get medical attention for him.
When the men drove up to a makeshift police station seeing help, the police officers surrounded them at gunpoint, handcuffed them and let Glover die in the back seat of the car.
Greg McRae, who maintains his position with the department, was sentenced to 17 years in jail for driving off with the car, with Glover's body inside, and burning both the body and the car with a traffic flare.
"Today's sentences send a powerful message that no one is above the law, and that those who are sworn to protect our citizens are never, under any circumstances, relieved of their sacred responsibilities," Jim Letten, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, said in a statement.
"Today is an important step forward for the courageous Glover family and the people of New Orleans, and an important move toward the city's healing and rebuilding."
Nearly 80 per cent of New Orleans was flooded after the low-lying coastal city's levees burst under the massive storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The city descended quickly into chaos as tens of thousands were left stranded for days with no food on water on their rooftops and ill-prepared emergency shelters. About 1500 people lost their lives to the storm and its aftermath.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Friday, April 01, 2011
To get funds, wrongly convicted CA man must re-prove innocence
Police over-reaction leads to big trouble
An Orange County man wrongfully convicted of assaulting police officers with a deadly weapon must prove his innocence anew to receive compensation for the five years he spent in prison.
The California Attorney General’s Office is contesting Ernest Benefiel’s claim for $188,000 from the state’s Erroneously Convicted Persons program. The fund pays select exonerees $100 for every day incarcerated.
Benefiel filed his claim a year ago, after a state appellate court reversed his assault conviction and ruled him innocent in a December 2009 opinion. The ruling secured Benefiel’s freedom, but does not ensure his right to state money.
Rather, in a review of the case filed last week, Tia Coronado, a deputy attorney general, dismisses the appellate court’s arguments, contending that Benefiel was guilty as charged. "Benefiel has not demonstrated his innocence,” Coronado wrote. “On the contrary, an abundance of evidence confirms that Benefiel knowingly and intentionally fired at police officers.”
The Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, which operates the exonerate program, is scheduling a hearing on Benefiel’s case to take place within the next two months. Jon Meyers, a spokesman for the board, said the agency’s hearing officer would present evidence against the exoneree’s claim. The three-member board will rule on whether to grant him funds.
Benefiel said he couldn’t understand how a state lawyer could reach this conclusion based on the facts of his case. “It’s like them saying the appellate court doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
If Benefiel prevails, he will be among the minority to do so. Since 2000, 132 people wrongfully convicted in the California courts have filed claims with the state board for funds intended to help them rebuild their lives.
A California Watch investigation, published earlier this month, found that just 11 have received compensation. The board denied 107 of the claims and 14 await a hearing.
Benefiel said he isn’t sure he can afford the travel from Fullerton to Sacramento for the hearing. He does not have an attorney. Benefiel is essentially homeless, relying on relatives for shelter. Previously a heavy equipment operator, he said he struggles to find work due to back pain and psychological troubles exacerbated by his incarceration.
The legal saga that has consumed Benefiel’s life began with his suicide attempt on the night of Dec. 30, 2004 in the apartment he shared with his elderly father. Benefiel ingested more than 20 prescription sleeping pills that rendered him unconscious. Fearing for his son’s life, the father called 911.
He informed paramedics and police of the pills, court records show, and told them his son had a handgun in his bedroom. The Fullerton Police Department called its SWAT team to the scene. Officers attempted to communicate with Benefiel using a public address speaker and shone spotlights in his window, which was blocked by blinds.
Ninety minutes into the incident, police detonated a flash-bang grenade by the window, which also apparently failed to rouse Benefiel. Taking a more aggressive approach, a tactical unit officer fired seven beanbag bullets into the apartment bedroom, according to court records. Benefiel finally awoke.
He says he was severely disoriented from the medication and was wounded by either glass or bullet fragments sprayed across his chest.
Accounts by police officers at the scene suggest Benefiel then repeatedly looked out his window, allowing him to identify the people outside as law enforcement. They also contend that Benefiel fired two shots in the officers’ direction, the attorney general’s report states.
Shell casings that police collected later confirm Benefiel discharged two bullets, court records show, but that one of them might have been fired into the ceiling – not at officers.
In her report to the compensation board, Coronado, the deputy attorney general, states definitively that Benefiel twice shot at law enforcement. Also, she argues that Benefiel was not acting in self-defense, but “made the decision to take aim at the officers and fire his weapon at them.”
Following Benefiel’s gunshot, police returned fire, discharging five bullets into the apartment. Benefiel and the officers then began to communicate verbally; he climbed out the window unarmed and surrendered to police shortly thereafter.
An Orange County jury convicted Benefiel of assaulting police officers with a firearm in 2005, sentencing him to 27 years. An appellate court overturned the conviction because the judge admitted inappropriate evidence (prosecutors detonated a flash-bang grenade in the court room).
Two years later, another jury acquitted Benefiel of intentionally shooting at officers, though it convicted him on lesser charges. The appellate court in 2009 vacated that conviction as well. In their opinion, the judges said there was scant proof that Benefiel did anything but exercise his legal right to self-defense.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Police over-reaction leads to big trouble
An Orange County man wrongfully convicted of assaulting police officers with a deadly weapon must prove his innocence anew to receive compensation for the five years he spent in prison.
The California Attorney General’s Office is contesting Ernest Benefiel’s claim for $188,000 from the state’s Erroneously Convicted Persons program. The fund pays select exonerees $100 for every day incarcerated.
Benefiel filed his claim a year ago, after a state appellate court reversed his assault conviction and ruled him innocent in a December 2009 opinion. The ruling secured Benefiel’s freedom, but does not ensure his right to state money.
Rather, in a review of the case filed last week, Tia Coronado, a deputy attorney general, dismisses the appellate court’s arguments, contending that Benefiel was guilty as charged. "Benefiel has not demonstrated his innocence,” Coronado wrote. “On the contrary, an abundance of evidence confirms that Benefiel knowingly and intentionally fired at police officers.”
The Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, which operates the exonerate program, is scheduling a hearing on Benefiel’s case to take place within the next two months. Jon Meyers, a spokesman for the board, said the agency’s hearing officer would present evidence against the exoneree’s claim. The three-member board will rule on whether to grant him funds.
Benefiel said he couldn’t understand how a state lawyer could reach this conclusion based on the facts of his case. “It’s like them saying the appellate court doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
If Benefiel prevails, he will be among the minority to do so. Since 2000, 132 people wrongfully convicted in the California courts have filed claims with the state board for funds intended to help them rebuild their lives.
A California Watch investigation, published earlier this month, found that just 11 have received compensation. The board denied 107 of the claims and 14 await a hearing.
Benefiel said he isn’t sure he can afford the travel from Fullerton to Sacramento for the hearing. He does not have an attorney. Benefiel is essentially homeless, relying on relatives for shelter. Previously a heavy equipment operator, he said he struggles to find work due to back pain and psychological troubles exacerbated by his incarceration.
The legal saga that has consumed Benefiel’s life began with his suicide attempt on the night of Dec. 30, 2004 in the apartment he shared with his elderly father. Benefiel ingested more than 20 prescription sleeping pills that rendered him unconscious. Fearing for his son’s life, the father called 911.
He informed paramedics and police of the pills, court records show, and told them his son had a handgun in his bedroom. The Fullerton Police Department called its SWAT team to the scene. Officers attempted to communicate with Benefiel using a public address speaker and shone spotlights in his window, which was blocked by blinds.
Ninety minutes into the incident, police detonated a flash-bang grenade by the window, which also apparently failed to rouse Benefiel. Taking a more aggressive approach, a tactical unit officer fired seven beanbag bullets into the apartment bedroom, according to court records. Benefiel finally awoke.
He says he was severely disoriented from the medication and was wounded by either glass or bullet fragments sprayed across his chest.
Accounts by police officers at the scene suggest Benefiel then repeatedly looked out his window, allowing him to identify the people outside as law enforcement. They also contend that Benefiel fired two shots in the officers’ direction, the attorney general’s report states.
Shell casings that police collected later confirm Benefiel discharged two bullets, court records show, but that one of them might have been fired into the ceiling – not at officers.
In her report to the compensation board, Coronado, the deputy attorney general, states definitively that Benefiel twice shot at law enforcement. Also, she argues that Benefiel was not acting in self-defense, but “made the decision to take aim at the officers and fire his weapon at them.”
Following Benefiel’s gunshot, police returned fire, discharging five bullets into the apartment. Benefiel and the officers then began to communicate verbally; he climbed out the window unarmed and surrendered to police shortly thereafter.
An Orange County jury convicted Benefiel of assaulting police officers with a firearm in 2005, sentencing him to 27 years. An appellate court overturned the conviction because the judge admitted inappropriate evidence (prosecutors detonated a flash-bang grenade in the court room).
Two years later, another jury acquitted Benefiel of intentionally shooting at officers, though it convicted him on lesser charges. The appellate court in 2009 vacated that conviction as well. In their opinion, the judges said there was scant proof that Benefiel did anything but exercise his legal right to self-defense.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Australian man loses $45m damages claim for wrongful conviction on a technicality
A $45 million claim for damages by an Australian pilot who was wrongfully convicted of child sex tourism and jailed for almost three years has been dismissed by a court.
Queensland Supreme Court Justice Stanley Jones today ordered north Queensland pilot Fred Martens' damages claim against the federal government be struck out after ruling it had been filed under the wrong legislation.
Justice Jones ruled the claim for $45 million should have been filed under Queensland legislation rather than federal law and the document had "shown little regard" for the rules governing legal procedures.
The claim, he said, should have been filed under Queensland's Personal Injury Proceedings Act and, because Mr Martens' legal team had not followed the procedures required by that legislation, it must be dismissed.
He also ordered Mr Martens to pay the legal costs of the government in relation to the claim.
Mr Martens' barrister Michael Sumner-Potts said the legal team was considering whether to appeal the decision or file a claim under the state legislation.
Mr Martens spent almost 1000 days in a north Queensland jail after being convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old girl in Papua New Guinea.
However, the conviction was overturned after his family was able to obtain official documentation which proved he was not in the same town as the girl at the time of the alleged offence.
In overturning the conviction Queensland Court of Appeal justice Richard Chesterman was scathing at Australian Federal Police officers' handling of the case.
In his statement of claim, Mr Martens says the action taken against him by the AFP resulted in the collapse of several business ventures in Papua New Guinea.
He also claimed the decision to freeze his assets ahead of his 2006 trial prevented him from seeking life-saving treatment for his baby daughter Stephanie who died of malaria in Port Moresby.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
A $45 million claim for damages by an Australian pilot who was wrongfully convicted of child sex tourism and jailed for almost three years has been dismissed by a court.
Queensland Supreme Court Justice Stanley Jones today ordered north Queensland pilot Fred Martens' damages claim against the federal government be struck out after ruling it had been filed under the wrong legislation.
Justice Jones ruled the claim for $45 million should have been filed under Queensland legislation rather than federal law and the document had "shown little regard" for the rules governing legal procedures.
The claim, he said, should have been filed under Queensland's Personal Injury Proceedings Act and, because Mr Martens' legal team had not followed the procedures required by that legislation, it must be dismissed.
He also ordered Mr Martens to pay the legal costs of the government in relation to the claim.
Mr Martens' barrister Michael Sumner-Potts said the legal team was considering whether to appeal the decision or file a claim under the state legislation.
Mr Martens spent almost 1000 days in a north Queensland jail after being convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old girl in Papua New Guinea.
However, the conviction was overturned after his family was able to obtain official documentation which proved he was not in the same town as the girl at the time of the alleged offence.
In overturning the conviction Queensland Court of Appeal justice Richard Chesterman was scathing at Australian Federal Police officers' handling of the case.
In his statement of claim, Mr Martens says the action taken against him by the AFP resulted in the collapse of several business ventures in Papua New Guinea.
He also claimed the decision to freeze his assets ahead of his 2006 trial prevented him from seeking life-saving treatment for his baby daughter Stephanie who died of malaria in Port Moresby.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Still hope for justice in the case of British newspaper seller attacked and killed by cop?
G20 inquest told police officers could still be charged over Ian Tomlinson death
Prosecutors may review the decision not to charge police officers over the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, an inquest heard today. Jurors were urged to ignore previous investigations by the Crown Prosecution Service and Independent Police Complaints Commission as the inquiry into the newspaper seller's collapse in April 2009 got under way.
Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner at the central London hearing, said the cause of his death was "likely to be a controversial area".
Dr Freddy Patel's initial verdict that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes was contradicted by a second and third pathologist, the inquest heard.
In his opening comments, Mr Thornton told the inquest: "There is likely to be controversy too about the finding of Dr Patel in the first post-mortem of the presence of fluid in the abdomen and to what extent it contained blood.
Relatives of the 47-year-old looked on as dramatic video of him being confronted by police was shown to the jury. Footage showed Mr Tomlinson being hit with a baton and pushed to the ground by an officer. He then sits up to gesture to police.
He died after staggering about 100 yards and falling to the ground in Cornhill, near St Michael's Alley. Footage showed him being attended to by officers near a Starbucks cafe. The footage became global news after it challenged the original official version of events.
Pc Simon Harwood, a member of the Met's territorial support group, originally escaped prosecution but faces being sacked under misconduct proceedings.
The jury, sitting at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was told the inquest will examine the actions of police, the pathologist and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
G20 inquest told police officers could still be charged over Ian Tomlinson death
Prosecutors may review the decision not to charge police officers over the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, an inquest heard today. Jurors were urged to ignore previous investigations by the Crown Prosecution Service and Independent Police Complaints Commission as the inquiry into the newspaper seller's collapse in April 2009 got under way.
Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner at the central London hearing, said the cause of his death was "likely to be a controversial area".
Dr Freddy Patel's initial verdict that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes was contradicted by a second and third pathologist, the inquest heard.
In his opening comments, Mr Thornton told the inquest: "There is likely to be controversy too about the finding of Dr Patel in the first post-mortem of the presence of fluid in the abdomen and to what extent it contained blood.
Relatives of the 47-year-old looked on as dramatic video of him being confronted by police was shown to the jury. Footage showed Mr Tomlinson being hit with a baton and pushed to the ground by an officer. He then sits up to gesture to police.
He died after staggering about 100 yards and falling to the ground in Cornhill, near St Michael's Alley. Footage showed him being attended to by officers near a Starbucks cafe. The footage became global news after it challenged the original official version of events.
Pc Simon Harwood, a member of the Met's territorial support group, originally escaped prosecution but faces being sacked under misconduct proceedings.
The jury, sitting at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was told the inquest will examine the actions of police, the pathologist and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Australia: District Court overturns child sex charges
A MAN had his convictions on child sex charges overturned on appeal today after it was found there were major problems with the alleged victims testimony at trial.
It is rare for a Court of Appeal to enter verdicts of acquittal in cases where the credibility of the complainant is the issue and the matters are usually sent back to trial.
In a District Court trial in Brisbane last year, the man was found guilty of five counts including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 years, indecent dealing with a child, and attempting to procure a child to commit an indecent act. He was acquitted on a sixth count.
The offences were alleged to have been committed between June 1996 and January 2001 when the man had an off and on relationship with the girl's mother. The girl was aged between eight and 10 years for most of the alleged offences and 12 and 13 for the final alleged offence.
She alleged the man would come into her room, touch her and perform oral sex. The court heard the girl did not make a complaint until she told her mother about nine years later when they were living in Tasmania.
The man, who can't be named for legal reasons, appealed on the grounds the convictions were unreasonable because the girl's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. In an unanimous judgment the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the verdicts and entered judgments of acquittal.
Justice Richard Chesterman noted the girl did not complain about the man's alleged conduct until nine years after it commenced and she had been reluctant to complain until pushed by her mother. He said one aspect of her testimony was shown to be wrong, and in two cases she had changed it to improve the prosecution case.
Justice Chesterman said a Court of Appeal should not lightly set aside a jury's verdict. However, he said there was an obligation on the Court to make its own independent assessment of evidence which cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
A MAN had his convictions on child sex charges overturned on appeal today after it was found there were major problems with the alleged victims testimony at trial.
It is rare for a Court of Appeal to enter verdicts of acquittal in cases where the credibility of the complainant is the issue and the matters are usually sent back to trial.
In a District Court trial in Brisbane last year, the man was found guilty of five counts including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 years, indecent dealing with a child, and attempting to procure a child to commit an indecent act. He was acquitted on a sixth count.
The offences were alleged to have been committed between June 1996 and January 2001 when the man had an off and on relationship with the girl's mother. The girl was aged between eight and 10 years for most of the alleged offences and 12 and 13 for the final alleged offence.
She alleged the man would come into her room, touch her and perform oral sex. The court heard the girl did not make a complaint until she told her mother about nine years later when they were living in Tasmania.
The man, who can't be named for legal reasons, appealed on the grounds the convictions were unreasonable because the girl's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. In an unanimous judgment the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the verdicts and entered judgments of acquittal.
Justice Richard Chesterman noted the girl did not complain about the man's alleged conduct until nine years after it commenced and she had been reluctant to complain until pushed by her mother. He said one aspect of her testimony was shown to be wrong, and in two cases she had changed it to improve the prosecution case.
Justice Chesterman said a Court of Appeal should not lightly set aside a jury's verdict. However, he said there was an obligation on the Court to make its own independent assessment of evidence which cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Monday, March 28, 2011
The prosecutor who wrongly put a paraplegic in prison wants to be a judge
When the SWAT team came for Richard Paey in 1997, officers battered down the front door of the Florida home he shared with his wife and their two children. Paey is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair after a car accident and a botched back surgery. He also suffers from multiple sclerosis. Paey was accused of distributing the medication he used to treat his chronic pain, even though there was no evidence he had sold or given away a single pill. Thanks to Florida’s draconian drug laws, he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Paey’s prosecution was an outrage, and it generated significant media attention. In 2007, after Paey had served nearly four years of his sentence, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist gave him a full pardon. Yet Scott Andringa, who prosecuted the case as an assistant state attorney in New Port Richey, has never expressed a hint of remorse. In fact, Andringa, now a defense attorney in private practice, brags about his efforts to imprison Paey on his professional website, noting that he “was the prosecutor assigned to a controversial drug trafficking case that was later profiled on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and in the New York Times.”
And now Andringa wants to be a judge. In December he announced his candidacy in Pinellas County’s 2012 elections. The position currently is held by Andringa’s father, who is retiring. As of this writing, no one has filed to oppose him.
At the time of his arrest, Paey was undergoing high-dose opioid therapy, a relatively new form of treatment for chronic pain that titrates doses upward as a patient develops tolerance. The tolerance eventually plateaus, but at that point the patient is taking large doses of narcotics every day, enough to kill someone who has not built up the same tolerance. Paey was initially under the care of a New Jersey physician, but he found it difficult to find treatment when his family moved to Florida, a state overcome by anti-opioid hysteria. Depending on whom you believe, either Paey’s New Jersey doctor illegally sent him several prescriptions to continue his treatment or Paey forged those prescriptions. In any case, a local pharmacist, alarmed at the volume of medication Paey was taking, tipped off the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office.
Although Andringa has conceded he had no evidence Paey was selling or giving away medication, Florida law allowed him to charge Paey with distribution because of the alleged forgeries and the volume of medication he possessed.
But simply because the law allows a charge does not mean it is merited or in the interest of justice. And here’s where Andringa’s discretion comes into question. Over the years, Andringa has said he is “proud” of putting Richard Paey in prison, that he has “no personal or professional” regret about the case, and that he’s certain his office “did the right thing.”
Paey’s time in prison was rough. He spent more than 30 days in solitary confinement—retaliation, he believes, for telling his story to New York Times columnist John Tierney. When I interviewed him in 2007, he described systematic sleep deprivation, psychological abuse, and jail cells with little air circulation where the heat index could top 100 degrees.
Andringa did not have to file distribution charges, and he could have asked the judge to waive the mandatory minimum 25-year sentence in Paey’s case. He didn’t. He would later tell Tampa’s Weekly Planet, “As a [prosecutor], you normally charge the highest crime that you can prove.” That’s one way of approaching the job. Another would be to charge someone with a crime only when doing so serves justice. (Andringa did not respond to my request for comment.)
The injustice of treating Paey as a drug trafficker is clear from the enormous disparity between the sentence he received and the punishment he would have gotten under a plea deal Andringa offered him. Paey would have received only probation and counseling if he admitted he was a drug addict and pleaded guilty to attempted drug distribution. Paey refused. He wasn’t a dealer and, more important to him, he wasn’t an addict. He was a patient. He was no more addicted to pain medication than a diabetic is to insulin. The pills merely helped him live a more normal life.
Andringa still could have gone to trial only on the attempted distribution charge, or he could have prosecuted Paey for forgery. He could have chosen not to prosecute Paey at all. Instead, he threw the book at Paey—punishment for his obstinacy. Andringa told the Weekly Planet, “I understand someone wanting to have their day in court. But they have to accept that with that there’s a risk, and in the case of Richard Paey it was a 25-year mandatory minimum, which he knowingly and willingly accepted.”
The state tried Paey three times before it got a conviction, and then only after the jury foreman told fellow jurors that the sentence would be no worse than probation. Andringa used some form of the phrase drug addict eight times in his closing argument. He charged Paey as a trafficker but was clearly trying him for being an addict. Even assuming the facts most unfavorable to Paey, he was neither. At worst, he was guilty of forging prescriptions, not to get high but to get the medical treatment he needed.
That he required such treatment is not in dispute. While in prison, he received morphine via a subdermal pump. “It became a comedy of bureaucracies,” Paey told me. “One agency prosecutes me for taking too much medication. And that was their explanation—that my dose was too high for one person to be taking, therefore I must be selling it.…Then I get to prison, and the doctors examine my records and my medical history, and they decide that as doctors, they have to give me this medication…in higher doses than what I’d been getting before.”
Andringa recently started a blog to coincide with his campaign for judge. In a post titled “Thoughts About ‘The System,’ ” he chastises those who say the criminal justice system is flawed. Andringa explains that “The System” is run by “a group of people who are as capable, or fallible, as any other group of people one might find.” He adds, “When mistakes are made, time is wasted, scarce resources are squandered and the primary and axiomatic mission of the criminal justice system; to see that justice is done, is thwarted…I believe the appropriate question is not whether ‘The System’ is flawed, but whether one or more of the people involved has failed; as we all will from time to time.”
It’s an eloquent (if peculiarly punctuated) passage, but it isn’t accurate. A system that identifies, compensates for, and attempts to correct mistakes would be what Andringa describes: a good system complicated by human failing. A system that rewards human failing is broken.
Scott Andringa’s defense of “The System” is actually a strong argument for keeping Scott Andringa far away from a judge’s gavel. Andringa not only squandered scarce resources in his prosecution of Paey; he ignored his responsibility “to see that justice is done.” He continues to fail by refusing to acknowledge that the case was a travesty of justice. If he is rewarded with a promotion to judge, a position where he’ll be charged with ensuring that others accused of crimes are treated fairly, then “The System” will have failed.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
When the SWAT team came for Richard Paey in 1997, officers battered down the front door of the Florida home he shared with his wife and their two children. Paey is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair after a car accident and a botched back surgery. He also suffers from multiple sclerosis. Paey was accused of distributing the medication he used to treat his chronic pain, even though there was no evidence he had sold or given away a single pill. Thanks to Florida’s draconian drug laws, he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Paey’s prosecution was an outrage, and it generated significant media attention. In 2007, after Paey had served nearly four years of his sentence, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist gave him a full pardon. Yet Scott Andringa, who prosecuted the case as an assistant state attorney in New Port Richey, has never expressed a hint of remorse. In fact, Andringa, now a defense attorney in private practice, brags about his efforts to imprison Paey on his professional website, noting that he “was the prosecutor assigned to a controversial drug trafficking case that was later profiled on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and in the New York Times.”
And now Andringa wants to be a judge. In December he announced his candidacy in Pinellas County’s 2012 elections. The position currently is held by Andringa’s father, who is retiring. As of this writing, no one has filed to oppose him.
At the time of his arrest, Paey was undergoing high-dose opioid therapy, a relatively new form of treatment for chronic pain that titrates doses upward as a patient develops tolerance. The tolerance eventually plateaus, but at that point the patient is taking large doses of narcotics every day, enough to kill someone who has not built up the same tolerance. Paey was initially under the care of a New Jersey physician, but he found it difficult to find treatment when his family moved to Florida, a state overcome by anti-opioid hysteria. Depending on whom you believe, either Paey’s New Jersey doctor illegally sent him several prescriptions to continue his treatment or Paey forged those prescriptions. In any case, a local pharmacist, alarmed at the volume of medication Paey was taking, tipped off the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office.
Although Andringa has conceded he had no evidence Paey was selling or giving away medication, Florida law allowed him to charge Paey with distribution because of the alleged forgeries and the volume of medication he possessed.
But simply because the law allows a charge does not mean it is merited or in the interest of justice. And here’s where Andringa’s discretion comes into question. Over the years, Andringa has said he is “proud” of putting Richard Paey in prison, that he has “no personal or professional” regret about the case, and that he’s certain his office “did the right thing.”
Paey’s time in prison was rough. He spent more than 30 days in solitary confinement—retaliation, he believes, for telling his story to New York Times columnist John Tierney. When I interviewed him in 2007, he described systematic sleep deprivation, psychological abuse, and jail cells with little air circulation where the heat index could top 100 degrees.
Andringa did not have to file distribution charges, and he could have asked the judge to waive the mandatory minimum 25-year sentence in Paey’s case. He didn’t. He would later tell Tampa’s Weekly Planet, “As a [prosecutor], you normally charge the highest crime that you can prove.” That’s one way of approaching the job. Another would be to charge someone with a crime only when doing so serves justice. (Andringa did not respond to my request for comment.)
The injustice of treating Paey as a drug trafficker is clear from the enormous disparity between the sentence he received and the punishment he would have gotten under a plea deal Andringa offered him. Paey would have received only probation and counseling if he admitted he was a drug addict and pleaded guilty to attempted drug distribution. Paey refused. He wasn’t a dealer and, more important to him, he wasn’t an addict. He was a patient. He was no more addicted to pain medication than a diabetic is to insulin. The pills merely helped him live a more normal life.
Andringa still could have gone to trial only on the attempted distribution charge, or he could have prosecuted Paey for forgery. He could have chosen not to prosecute Paey at all. Instead, he threw the book at Paey—punishment for his obstinacy. Andringa told the Weekly Planet, “I understand someone wanting to have their day in court. But they have to accept that with that there’s a risk, and in the case of Richard Paey it was a 25-year mandatory minimum, which he knowingly and willingly accepted.”
The state tried Paey three times before it got a conviction, and then only after the jury foreman told fellow jurors that the sentence would be no worse than probation. Andringa used some form of the phrase drug addict eight times in his closing argument. He charged Paey as a trafficker but was clearly trying him for being an addict. Even assuming the facts most unfavorable to Paey, he was neither. At worst, he was guilty of forging prescriptions, not to get high but to get the medical treatment he needed.
That he required such treatment is not in dispute. While in prison, he received morphine via a subdermal pump. “It became a comedy of bureaucracies,” Paey told me. “One agency prosecutes me for taking too much medication. And that was their explanation—that my dose was too high for one person to be taking, therefore I must be selling it.…Then I get to prison, and the doctors examine my records and my medical history, and they decide that as doctors, they have to give me this medication…in higher doses than what I’d been getting before.”
Andringa recently started a blog to coincide with his campaign for judge. In a post titled “Thoughts About ‘The System,’ ” he chastises those who say the criminal justice system is flawed. Andringa explains that “The System” is run by “a group of people who are as capable, or fallible, as any other group of people one might find.” He adds, “When mistakes are made, time is wasted, scarce resources are squandered and the primary and axiomatic mission of the criminal justice system; to see that justice is done, is thwarted…I believe the appropriate question is not whether ‘The System’ is flawed, but whether one or more of the people involved has failed; as we all will from time to time.”
It’s an eloquent (if peculiarly punctuated) passage, but it isn’t accurate. A system that identifies, compensates for, and attempts to correct mistakes would be what Andringa describes: a good system complicated by human failing. A system that rewards human failing is broken.
Scott Andringa’s defense of “The System” is actually a strong argument for keeping Scott Andringa far away from a judge’s gavel. Andringa not only squandered scarce resources in his prosecution of Paey; he ignored his responsibility “to see that justice is done.” He continues to fail by refusing to acknowledge that the case was a travesty of justice. If he is rewarded with a promotion to judge, a position where he’ll be charged with ensuring that others accused of crimes are treated fairly, then “The System” will have failed.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Sunday, March 27, 2011
NC: CMPD Internal Affairs investigating alleged beating
The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department says it is investigation allegations concerning police misconduct, after a suspect and officer exchanged gunfire over the weekend. Both men were wounded.
Several neighbors in the Camp Greene neighborhood of west Charlotte say they witnessed police officers beating the suspect after he was arrested and in handcuffs on the ground.
"I seen them hitting him, hitting him, hitting him," said Wade Miller who lives a few feet from where the incident occurred on Garibaldi Avenue.
Malcolm Springs was arrested Saturday night and transported to the hospital. Police say earlier that night, Springs was involved in an armed robbery and shooting at a nearby gas station on West Trade Street.
Police say they tracked his car to the Camp Greene neighborhood where Springs jumped and ran. They chased him to Garibaldi Avenue where police say Springs fired his gun at an officer and the officer fired back.
Miller says CMPD Internal Affairs was interviewing witnesses in the neighborhood Monday concerning the beating allegations.
Springs' mother, Debra Walls, says she just wants to make sure justice is served. "If he's responsible for any of these things, he's gonna go through the system, and he's gonna have to be held accountable for that," said Walls.
She said if police crossed the line, they need to be held accountable too. "They took it too far. he was detained. He was detained," she said.
Neighbors on Garibaldi Avenue say they want answers, too. Miller said he understand the adrenaline and emotion officers may have been feeling that night, knowing one of their own had been shot -- but he questions what happened after the arrest. "I didn't see the man move or nothing," he said.
CMPD released this statement Tuesday: An Internal Affairs investigation began immediately after the shooting involving Officer Harrison and the arrest of Mr. Springs. This is standard procedure for any case in which an officer fires his service weapon or when an officer uses force to make an arrest. In an effort to preserve the trust and confidence of the community, the CMPD investigates all accusations of officer misconduct. This investigation will be no different than any other internal affairs investigation.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department says it is investigation allegations concerning police misconduct, after a suspect and officer exchanged gunfire over the weekend. Both men were wounded.
Several neighbors in the Camp Greene neighborhood of west Charlotte say they witnessed police officers beating the suspect after he was arrested and in handcuffs on the ground.
"I seen them hitting him, hitting him, hitting him," said Wade Miller who lives a few feet from where the incident occurred on Garibaldi Avenue.
Malcolm Springs was arrested Saturday night and transported to the hospital. Police say earlier that night, Springs was involved in an armed robbery and shooting at a nearby gas station on West Trade Street.
Police say they tracked his car to the Camp Greene neighborhood where Springs jumped and ran. They chased him to Garibaldi Avenue where police say Springs fired his gun at an officer and the officer fired back.
Miller says CMPD Internal Affairs was interviewing witnesses in the neighborhood Monday concerning the beating allegations.
Springs' mother, Debra Walls, says she just wants to make sure justice is served. "If he's responsible for any of these things, he's gonna go through the system, and he's gonna have to be held accountable for that," said Walls.
She said if police crossed the line, they need to be held accountable too. "They took it too far. he was detained. He was detained," she said.
Neighbors on Garibaldi Avenue say they want answers, too. Miller said he understand the adrenaline and emotion officers may have been feeling that night, knowing one of their own had been shot -- but he questions what happened after the arrest. "I didn't see the man move or nothing," he said.
CMPD released this statement Tuesday: An Internal Affairs investigation began immediately after the shooting involving Officer Harrison and the arrest of Mr. Springs. This is standard procedure for any case in which an officer fires his service weapon or when an officer uses force to make an arrest. In an effort to preserve the trust and confidence of the community, the CMPD investigates all accusations of officer misconduct. This investigation will be no different than any other internal affairs investigation.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Must not criticize red light cameras
One man’s battle with corrupt city officials in Scottsdale, Ariz., who, he says, are controlled by executives at one of the nation’s largest red-light camera companies, is highlighted in a new video.
On Tuesday, Neville Cramer, a veteran of almost 30 years in local and federal law enforcement, told an Arizona television talk show host about how he was charged and convicted of a serious crime despite being able to produce evidence proving he was innocent of the charge against him.
Cramer’s story casts a pall on a slew of misleading television spots that, along with a saturation campaign of radio advertisements, are promoting photo-enforcement systems as a means of increasing safety at intersections in Missouri.
According to one report, the ads are being run by the National Coalition for Safer Roads which is, according to the NCSR website, “supported by American Traffic Solutions.”
Locally, Matt Hay doesn’t buy into the ATS message and is actively campaigning against it in Missouri. Success for his effort is defined on his group’s Wrong On Red Facebook Page as being realized only when the Missouri General Assembly passes legislation that results in a “complete prohibition on all photo-enforcement systems installed or operated by any political subdivision on ANY roadway within the Great State of Missouri.”
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
One man’s battle with corrupt city officials in Scottsdale, Ariz., who, he says, are controlled by executives at one of the nation’s largest red-light camera companies, is highlighted in a new video.
On Tuesday, Neville Cramer, a veteran of almost 30 years in local and federal law enforcement, told an Arizona television talk show host about how he was charged and convicted of a serious crime despite being able to produce evidence proving he was innocent of the charge against him.
Cramer’s story casts a pall on a slew of misleading television spots that, along with a saturation campaign of radio advertisements, are promoting photo-enforcement systems as a means of increasing safety at intersections in Missouri.
According to one report, the ads are being run by the National Coalition for Safer Roads which is, according to the NCSR website, “supported by American Traffic Solutions.”
Locally, Matt Hay doesn’t buy into the ATS message and is actively campaigning against it in Missouri. Success for his effort is defined on his group’s Wrong On Red Facebook Page as being realized only when the Missouri General Assembly passes legislation that results in a “complete prohibition on all photo-enforcement systems installed or operated by any political subdivision on ANY roadway within the Great State of Missouri.”
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Friday, March 25, 2011
MI: Patrol car video prompts prosecutors to review shooting involving Pittsfield Township police officer
Another trigger-happy dickless Tracy. Females are too nervous to be safe with a gun in a police environment
Washtenaw County prosecutors said Monday they're reviewing their decision to clear a Pittsfield Township police officer of criminal wrongdoing in the January shooting of an unarmed man. The review comes after prosecutors received a video of the shooting township police said was not previously available because of technical problems.
That video, obtained by AnnArbor.com under the Freedom of Information Act, shows Officer Tracy Yurkunas shooting domestic violence suspect Devin Reddick once in the abdomen about 5 p.m. Jan. 15 in a parking lot at the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane.
Yurkunas shot Reddick shortly after he got out of a car and turned to face her, the video shows. Immediately after the shot was fired, a male officer yelled, "Put your hands up." Yurkunas told another officer at the scene Reddick had been reaching for something.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later charged with domestic violence.
Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller told AnnArbor.com on Monday that he has watched the video, and prosecutors will re-examine their decision based on the video and other materials they expect to receive from Michigan State Police, who handled the investigation into the shooting. He declined to be more specific about what other evidence may be turned over.
The video was shot from a patrol car that was stopped behind Yurkunas' patrol car. Hiller said he didn't learn the video existed until Pittsfield Township police chief Matt Harshberger told him about it March 10. Hiller said he received a copy the next day.
Prosecutors had already ruled in February that Yurkunas acted in self-defense, and AnnArbor.com reported those findings on March 2, which is the same day AnnArbor.com filed a public information request. “We are certainly going to re-examine the original decision,” Hiller said.
State police Sgt. Dale Smith, who investigated the case, said Monday that he was aware of the video, but hadn't been told that prosecutors were taking another look at the case. He said he doesn't expect the video to change anything. "As far as we're concerned, the investigation is done," he said. "We turned it over and our findings have not changed."
An internal investigation is on hold pending the latest review by prosecutors, Harshberger said. Yurkunas has been back at work since late February on desk duty after being placed on paid administrative leave, which is routine in such an incident, Harshberger said.
Harshberger said Pittsfield Township police were unaware the video was available until March 10, after an official at L-3 Communications was able to retrieve it. The recording system had previously shown an error message to police. “It’s new technology for us,” Harshberger said. “So we’re still working out the kinks.”
The shooting
The shooting occurred after Reddick parked and got out of the driver's side door of a car, records show. Police say they were conducting a traffic stop, and the video shows Yurkunas' car lights were flashing. In his arraignment, Reddick disputed that he was being pulled over.
The video shows Yurkunas get out of her patrol car and draw her gun as she stands behind the driver's side door of her car.
On the video, Reddick gets out of his car, faces her, and is then shot and falls in the snow. Immediately after Yurkunas shoots Reddick, a male police officer can be heard yelling, "Put your hands up."
According to a report by officer Shawn Willmuth, Yurkunas said at the scene the man was reaching for something. Police said in a news release after the shooting that the suspect "made what the officer perceived to be a life-threatening action." Willmuth also wrote in his report that he found Reddick was holding a cell phone after the shooting. He said a pat-down search determined Reddick did not have a weapon.
Willmuth stated in his report officer Dennis Marra said Reddick had been combative during an arrest attempt in 2010 and that information was relayed to Yurkunas during the pursuit.
A domestic assault
Officers were looking for Reddick after a woman he knows called 911 at 3:57 p.m., reporting Reddick had assaulted her at an Arbor Circle East apartment. She said Reddick left in her car and might have headed to his brother's home in Pittsfield Township, 911 recordings show. She said she didn't think he had any weapons, but his brother had a registered gun. She added she didn't think his brother would let him have the gun.
According to reports, the woman was assaulted after Reddick asked her to pay a bill, but she declined. He broke her computer, police reports say, grabbed her by the neck and pushed her to the ground. He kicked and punched her, leaving her with bruises to her face, her arm and her shoulder, police reports say. She also complained of pain in her abdomen, but did not require medical attention.
Reddick, 30, of Pittsfield Township, was charged three days later with domestic violence, operating with a suspended license and refusing to be fingerprinted, all of which are misdemeanors. He was not charged with resisting and obstructing police.
Washtenaw County Assistant Public Defender Ronald Brown, who is representing Reddick, could not be reached for comment Monday. Neither Reddick nor the woman who said she was assaulted could be reached for comment.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later taken to the Washtenaw County Jail, where he had an outburst at his arraignment. He was held without bond, but later released on a $1,000 bond after the arraignment was completed on another day.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Another trigger-happy dickless Tracy. Females are too nervous to be safe with a gun in a police environment
Washtenaw County prosecutors said Monday they're reviewing their decision to clear a Pittsfield Township police officer of criminal wrongdoing in the January shooting of an unarmed man. The review comes after prosecutors received a video of the shooting township police said was not previously available because of technical problems.
That video, obtained by AnnArbor.com under the Freedom of Information Act, shows Officer Tracy Yurkunas shooting domestic violence suspect Devin Reddick once in the abdomen about 5 p.m. Jan. 15 in a parking lot at the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane.
Yurkunas shot Reddick shortly after he got out of a car and turned to face her, the video shows. Immediately after the shot was fired, a male officer yelled, "Put your hands up." Yurkunas told another officer at the scene Reddick had been reaching for something.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later charged with domestic violence.
Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller told AnnArbor.com on Monday that he has watched the video, and prosecutors will re-examine their decision based on the video and other materials they expect to receive from Michigan State Police, who handled the investigation into the shooting. He declined to be more specific about what other evidence may be turned over.
The video was shot from a patrol car that was stopped behind Yurkunas' patrol car. Hiller said he didn't learn the video existed until Pittsfield Township police chief Matt Harshberger told him about it March 10. Hiller said he received a copy the next day.
Prosecutors had already ruled in February that Yurkunas acted in self-defense, and AnnArbor.com reported those findings on March 2, which is the same day AnnArbor.com filed a public information request. “We are certainly going to re-examine the original decision,” Hiller said.
State police Sgt. Dale Smith, who investigated the case, said Monday that he was aware of the video, but hadn't been told that prosecutors were taking another look at the case. He said he doesn't expect the video to change anything. "As far as we're concerned, the investigation is done," he said. "We turned it over and our findings have not changed."
An internal investigation is on hold pending the latest review by prosecutors, Harshberger said. Yurkunas has been back at work since late February on desk duty after being placed on paid administrative leave, which is routine in such an incident, Harshberger said.
Harshberger said Pittsfield Township police were unaware the video was available until March 10, after an official at L-3 Communications was able to retrieve it. The recording system had previously shown an error message to police. “It’s new technology for us,” Harshberger said. “So we’re still working out the kinks.”
The shooting
The shooting occurred after Reddick parked and got out of the driver's side door of a car, records show. Police say they were conducting a traffic stop, and the video shows Yurkunas' car lights were flashing. In his arraignment, Reddick disputed that he was being pulled over.
The video shows Yurkunas get out of her patrol car and draw her gun as she stands behind the driver's side door of her car.
On the video, Reddick gets out of his car, faces her, and is then shot and falls in the snow. Immediately after Yurkunas shoots Reddick, a male police officer can be heard yelling, "Put your hands up."
According to a report by officer Shawn Willmuth, Yurkunas said at the scene the man was reaching for something. Police said in a news release after the shooting that the suspect "made what the officer perceived to be a life-threatening action." Willmuth also wrote in his report that he found Reddick was holding a cell phone after the shooting. He said a pat-down search determined Reddick did not have a weapon.
Willmuth stated in his report officer Dennis Marra said Reddick had been combative during an arrest attempt in 2010 and that information was relayed to Yurkunas during the pursuit.
A domestic assault
Officers were looking for Reddick after a woman he knows called 911 at 3:57 p.m., reporting Reddick had assaulted her at an Arbor Circle East apartment. She said Reddick left in her car and might have headed to his brother's home in Pittsfield Township, 911 recordings show. She said she didn't think he had any weapons, but his brother had a registered gun. She added she didn't think his brother would let him have the gun.
According to reports, the woman was assaulted after Reddick asked her to pay a bill, but she declined. He broke her computer, police reports say, grabbed her by the neck and pushed her to the ground. He kicked and punched her, leaving her with bruises to her face, her arm and her shoulder, police reports say. She also complained of pain in her abdomen, but did not require medical attention.
Reddick, 30, of Pittsfield Township, was charged three days later with domestic violence, operating with a suspended license and refusing to be fingerprinted, all of which are misdemeanors. He was not charged with resisting and obstructing police.
Washtenaw County Assistant Public Defender Ronald Brown, who is representing Reddick, could not be reached for comment Monday. Neither Reddick nor the woman who said she was assaulted could be reached for comment.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later taken to the Washtenaw County Jail, where he had an outburst at his arraignment. He was held without bond, but later released on a $1,000 bond after the arraignment was completed on another day.
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Thursday, March 24, 2011
British Man jailed for murdering his pregnant wife accuses government of covering up prosecutors' 'dishonesty'
A convicted murderer accused Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke of trying to cover up the 'dishonesty' of police and prosecutors that he claimed led to his conviction. Eddie Gilfoyle, 49, who has protested his innocence since being arrested for the murder of his pregnant wife in 1992, was released from prison in December after 18 years behind bars.
But the terms of his parole included the condition that he did not make any contact with the media, even indirectly. That was later dropped after Lord Hunt of Wirral, his former MP, challenged the 'gagging order' with the Ministry of Justice and Parole Board chairman Sir David Latham.
Gilfoyle addressed the media for the first time today at a press conference organised by Lord Hunt, a former Conservative minister, in Parliament.
'I didn't kill my wife and I didn't kill my baby,' he said. 'When I was released from prison in December, I was told in no uncertain terms that neither myself, my sister, my legal team or anybody associated with me could talk to the media. 'If I had have, I was straight back to prison. Kenneth Clarke, the justice minister, authorised it. The reason he authorised it is because he didn't want me coming out and telling the truth.'
Gilfoyle lodged a request for an appeal against his conviction with the Criminal Cases Review Commission last August, but said today he still had not been assigned a case officer.
He accuses Merseyside Police, who investigated the death by hanging of his wife Paula in 1992, of destroying the scene and seeking to cover up their mistakes by 'framing' him.
'Having taken 18 years of my life, I am not prepared to wait five years, I'm not prepared to wait two years, until they get their act together and sort out this case,' he said. 'I'm going to be in your faces, kicking at your door to sort out the dishonesty in this case and give me my life back.'
He called for a meeting with Mr Clarke to ask him 'what he's prepared to do'. 'He's responsible for the gagging order. I need answers and I think it's only right I should be given those answers,' he said. 'I might be out of prison but I'm always going to be a prisoner while this is over my head.'
His solicitor, Matt Foot, said there had been no forensic evidence for murder. 'The reason for that is that it was a suicide,' he said. 'What the prosecution did was distort the evidence to give the appearance that there was forensic evidence in this case.'
Mr Foot claimed there were two 'fallacies' in the murder case - that Mrs Gilfoyle would not have been able to keep her balance as she walked up the ladder to where she was hanged, and that she would not have been able to get the rope over the beam. 'These were complete and utter myths that were created by the prosecution and went into the trial,' he said.
It was an 'extraordinary coincidence' that today's press conference came as the Law Commission had recommended changing the rules on expert evidence in jury trials. 'What they are saying is that there shouldn't be unjustifiable assumptions going into trials from experts,' Mr Foot said. 'And that's exactly what happened in this case, and if the new rules that are being suggested were in force in 1992 this case would never have gone to trial.'
Lord Hunt, who first took up Gilfoyle's case as MP for Wirral West in the 1990s, said: 'At last the truth is coming to the surface.' The peer said the Parole Board had informed him in January it had taken further legal advice on the restriction on Gilfoyle's communications with the media. 'I am still inquiring as to why it was ever imposed in the first place,' he added.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: 'This is not true - the Secretary of State cannot authorise licence conditions in respect of life sentence prisoners. 'It is for the independent Parole Board to agree any licence conditions of lifers released from prison and for the courts to decide if an individual is guilty of a crime.
A Merseyside Police spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on this case which is currently under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.'
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
A convicted murderer accused Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke of trying to cover up the 'dishonesty' of police and prosecutors that he claimed led to his conviction. Eddie Gilfoyle, 49, who has protested his innocence since being arrested for the murder of his pregnant wife in 1992, was released from prison in December after 18 years behind bars.
But the terms of his parole included the condition that he did not make any contact with the media, even indirectly. That was later dropped after Lord Hunt of Wirral, his former MP, challenged the 'gagging order' with the Ministry of Justice and Parole Board chairman Sir David Latham.
Gilfoyle addressed the media for the first time today at a press conference organised by Lord Hunt, a former Conservative minister, in Parliament.
'I didn't kill my wife and I didn't kill my baby,' he said. 'When I was released from prison in December, I was told in no uncertain terms that neither myself, my sister, my legal team or anybody associated with me could talk to the media. 'If I had have, I was straight back to prison. Kenneth Clarke, the justice minister, authorised it. The reason he authorised it is because he didn't want me coming out and telling the truth.'
Gilfoyle lodged a request for an appeal against his conviction with the Criminal Cases Review Commission last August, but said today he still had not been assigned a case officer.
He accuses Merseyside Police, who investigated the death by hanging of his wife Paula in 1992, of destroying the scene and seeking to cover up their mistakes by 'framing' him.
'Having taken 18 years of my life, I am not prepared to wait five years, I'm not prepared to wait two years, until they get their act together and sort out this case,' he said. 'I'm going to be in your faces, kicking at your door to sort out the dishonesty in this case and give me my life back.'
He called for a meeting with Mr Clarke to ask him 'what he's prepared to do'. 'He's responsible for the gagging order. I need answers and I think it's only right I should be given those answers,' he said. 'I might be out of prison but I'm always going to be a prisoner while this is over my head.'
His solicitor, Matt Foot, said there had been no forensic evidence for murder. 'The reason for that is that it was a suicide,' he said. 'What the prosecution did was distort the evidence to give the appearance that there was forensic evidence in this case.'
Mr Foot claimed there were two 'fallacies' in the murder case - that Mrs Gilfoyle would not have been able to keep her balance as she walked up the ladder to where she was hanged, and that she would not have been able to get the rope over the beam. 'These were complete and utter myths that were created by the prosecution and went into the trial,' he said.
It was an 'extraordinary coincidence' that today's press conference came as the Law Commission had recommended changing the rules on expert evidence in jury trials. 'What they are saying is that there shouldn't be unjustifiable assumptions going into trials from experts,' Mr Foot said. 'And that's exactly what happened in this case, and if the new rules that are being suggested were in force in 1992 this case would never have gone to trial.'
Lord Hunt, who first took up Gilfoyle's case as MP for Wirral West in the 1990s, said: 'At last the truth is coming to the surface.' The peer said the Parole Board had informed him in January it had taken further legal advice on the restriction on Gilfoyle's communications with the media. 'I am still inquiring as to why it was ever imposed in the first place,' he added.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: 'This is not true - the Secretary of State cannot authorise licence conditions in respect of life sentence prisoners. 'It is for the independent Parole Board to agree any licence conditions of lifers released from prison and for the courts to decide if an individual is guilty of a crime.
A Merseyside Police spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on this case which is currently under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.'
Original report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
