Friends,
As a
protester who has gone to court many times, the police witnesses are not known
for their probity. In a trial for an arrest at the Pentagon, a police
officer told the truth that he did not remember me, so my case was
dismissed. Outside the courtroom, I saw another officer berating him for
telling the truth. I am scheduled for trial on May 23 for joining with 12
others in trying to deliver a petition to Joe Biden. In my police report,
an officer wrote I wanted to get arrested. Au contraire, I was there to
help deliver a petition.
Kagiso,
Max
Chicago police officers block an entrance to City Hall during a march though the Loop calling for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to step down, December 9, 2015, in Chicago. (photo: Anthony Souffle/Chicago Tribune)
Cops
Rarely Punished When Judges Find Testimony False, Questionable
By Steve Mills and Todd
Lighty, Chicago Tribune
06 May 16
Late
last year, Judge William Hooks heard the kind of case that occurs at Cook
County's main courthouse every day and that, in most instances, ends with a
guilty verdict and the defendant headed off to prison. This time, though, the
case came to a different conclusion.
At the
center was a veteran Chicago police narcotics officer who testified that he and
his partner had abandoned an undercover drug surveillance to stop a minivan for
failing to signal for a right turn — and discovered about 2 1/2 pounds of
cocaine in the vehicle.
Lawyers
for the two men arrested in the case said the story did not ring true and asked
the judge to throw out the charges before trial. There was no way, they said,
that officers from a specialized narcotics unit would break away from their
surveillance for a traffic stop.
Hooks
agreed.
In
language that was unusually blunt even for Hooks, the veteran jurist railed
against what some other judges and lawyers who work in Cook County's criminal
justice system say occurs far too often: police officers shading the truth in
subtle ways or outright lying from the witness stand. The result, they said, is
that sometimes the innocent go to prison, the guilty go free and the criminal
justice system is tarnished.
Indeed,
a Chicago Tribune investigation documented that troubling phenomenon, with more
than a dozen examples over the past few years in which police officers,
according to judges, gave false or questionable testimony — but experienced
few, if any, repercussions.
It
happened in court hearings that involved a $50,000 brick of cocaine and a $30
bag of heroin. It happened in gun cases in Cook County court and
money-laundering hearings in federal court. It happened with big issues, such
as whether the officers had witnessed a crime as it occurred, and with smaller
details, such as the direction they were driving on patrol. And it happened
with defendants who had a string of convictions and those who had no previous
arrests.
Officers
come to court well aware they have a built-in advantage because so many cases
come down to their word against that of a defendant. As a result, they can
testify with little fear of prosecution or discipline. The Chicago Police
Department and the Cook County state's attorney's office almost never hold
officers accountable in spite of claims they have a zero-tolerance policy for
officers who do not tell the truth.
The
issue so erodes trust in the criminal justice system that the U.S. Department
of Justice, as part of its civil rights investigation into the Police
Department, has asked the Cook County public defender's office to refer cases
with evidence that officers testified falsely, the Tribune has learned.
Determining
whether an officer lied on the witness stand or was simply mistaken can be
difficult; a judge's ruling does not necessarily mean an officer intentionally
testified falsely. Nonetheless, top police officials and prosecutors make
little effort to get to the bottom of what some lawyers have come to call
"testilying."
The
exception: cases in which video undermines the testimony of the police officer.
In those rare cases, prosecutors have acted.
The
state's attorney's office, in response to inquiries from the Tribune, said
Thursday that its Professional Standards Unit has begun a review of several
cases to determine whether officers committed perjury. The office also issued a
memo to all prosecutors reminding them of their duty to notify supervisors when
an officer's conduct or credibility has been questioned, according to Sally
Daly, an office spokeswoman.
What's
more, the office said it would generate what is called a "disclosure
notice" — a document that tells the defense that a witness's credibility
has previously been called into doubt — for some of the cases highlighted by
the Tribune. Prosecutors also are trying to determine why the notices had not
already been generated in some of these cases. Numerous defense attorneys told
the Tribune they have not received such notices in the past, let alone heard of
such a document. State's Attorney Anita Alvarez also has ordered prosecutors to
notify police agencies when a disclosure notice is generated about an officer.
Anthony
Guglielmi, a Chicago police spokesman, said the department takes seriously any
accusation that an officer has lied. He said department officials work with
their "judicial and prosecutorial partners" to fire officers
"upon confirmation of perjury."
"Police
officers take an oath to enforce the law with the highest degree of honesty and
integrity and there is simply no tolerance or exemption for anything
less," Guglielmi said in a statement.
The
notion that police officers provide false or incredible testimony with impunity
is borne out by a handful of statistics. Over four years, from February 2012 to
February 2016, 11 Chicago police officers had disciplinary charges brought
against them for writing a false report or making a false statement. None of
the cases, though, was for false testimony in court, according to police
disciplinary records.
"We
judges sit and listen to this stuff all the time," said retired Cook
County Judge Marcus Salone, who spent 18 years on the bench at the Leighton
Criminal Court Building at 26th Street and California Avenue and another two
years as an Illinois Appellate Court judge before he retired in 2012. "But
we don't do enough about it. That's a fact."
A
clumsily hidden revolver
Last
July, Officer Wahbe Askar took the witness stand to testify about his arrest of
Steven Brown. Askar and his partner had taken Brown into custody in September
2014 after they had stopped Brown on the West Side in his Chevrolet Caprice.
The
hearing, in Judge Joseph Claps' courtroom, was the kind of proceeding that is a
necessary prelude to a trial and often foretells a defendant's fate. At issue
was whether officers had authority to make an arrest; officers often justify
their actions by saying they spotted evidence — drugs or a gun — out in the
open.
If the
defendant wins, prosecutors are likely to drop the charges. Lose, and a
conviction at trial or a plea bargain is more likely.
Askar,
who had joined the force in October 2011, testified that he saw a .45-caliber
revolver clumsily hidden in the dashboard behind the car radio. Brown, who had
no felony convictions, was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon,
according to police reports.
Assistant
Public Defender Samantha Slonim sought to have the gun thrown out as evidence
before trial. Throughout the hearing, Slonim was skeptical of Askar's claim
that he spotted the gun jammed behind the car's radio, which he said was
hanging loosely from the dashboard. Askar had not mentioned the radio in the
police reports that he wrote, according to copies of the reports in court
files.
Assistant
State's Attorney Akash Vyas tried to shore up the prosecution case, leading
Askar through a series of questions about the arrest. Claps, meantime, grew
increasingly frustrated with the officer, even chastising him for being
unprepared to testify, a transcript from the hearing shows.
A week
later, the judge threw out the gun as evidence.
"I
don't believe for a second that this police officer could see a gun behind this
radio," the judge said.
Prosecutors
then dismissed the case.
Askar
declined to comment.
'Walking
on eggshells'
Six
months later, a strikingly similar scene played out in the same courtroom,
before the same judge — and with the same prosecutor. It happened in January
when Officer James Lynch and defendant Elliott Wills took the witness stand to
testify about Wills' March 2015 arrest.
Like
Slonim, Wills' lawyer was seeking to have the arrest thrown out.
According
to Wills, a Columbia College graduate, he was sitting in his mother's 2007 BMW
outside a friend's house on the city's Southeast Side, waiting for the friend
to come out. Around 6 p.m., a police car drove by him, then backed up to where
he was parked, he said. Officers approached and asked for Wills'
identification. When he asked if he could get it from the back of the car, the
officers ordered him out and handcuffed him.
Wills
testified that the officers told him he could be waiting on a drug deal. He
said the officers searched his car, prying open the locked center console where
he had a gun that he kept for protection because of a brutal beating on the
streets he suffered as a child — a story covered in some newspapers.
He had
a holster in his closed backpack.
Wills
was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
Lynch's
testimony was starkly different. He testified that he and his partner were on
routine patrol when they spotted Wills sitting outside a vacant building. He
testified that as he approached Wills' car, he saw him place a dark object in
the center console. His partner spotted the holster, he said.
Lynch
said the officers searched the car, finding a loaded revolver in the unlocked
center console.
Wills'
lawyer, Paul DeLuca, argued that the officers had no reason to stop Wills and
that Lynch's story "doesn't fit."
Vyas,
the prosecutor, agreed that the case came down to a credibility contest between
Wills and Lynch. Defending Lynch, Vyas used a familiar prosecution tactic. If
Lynch was going to lie, the prosecutor said, he would have made up a better
story.
Claps
agreed the case was about credibility. But the judge, who questioned the
officer himself after DeLuca's cross-examination, said he just could not accept
Lynch's testimony that Wills had waited until the officer was next to his car
before he hid the handgun.
"That
just isn't credible or believable," Claps said.
Prosecutors
later dismissed the case.
Claps'
assessment of the two cases was clear: He did not believe the officers'
testimony.
But
neither Chicago police nor Cook County prosecutors took action against Askar or
Lynch, though Alvarez made bold statements about the problem of police lying
last summer after her office charged three Chicago narcotics officers and a
Glenview officer with perjury.
"We
expect (truthful testimony) from our witnesses," she said, "and we
demand it from our police officers."
That
case, though, had video contradicting the officers' testimony.
In an
interview, Wills, now 23, said he knew the officers were going to question him
after the squad car drove by and slowed. As he waited a year for his case to be
resolved, he said he feared going to prison. He said he knew police often are
viewed as more credible witnesses than defendants.
"It
was sort of walking on eggshells, worried about how it's going to turn
out," he said.
Officers,
DeLuca said, "say what they want and other officers back them up. They
usually get their way."
3
evils in the community
In
2011, Officer Gildardo Sierra stood as a striking example of the Police
Department's struggles to deal with police shootings. Between January and June,
the nine-year veteran of the force shot three people, killing two of them. In
the last of the shootings, captured on a police dashboard-camera video, he
fired 16 shots at a South Side man named Flint Farmer, hitting him seven times,
including while Farmer was on the ground.
That
year, Sierra was emblematic of another of the Police Department's persistent
problems: how officers testify in court. On March 21 — one day before the
second of Sierra's three shootings — the officer took the witness stand in
Hooks' courtroom in the trial of a man named George Davis on gun and marijuana
possession charges. Sierra's testimony was central to the prosecution.
In
2009, Sierra and a partner, Steven Carroll, had chased after an SUV with two
men in it. When the vehicle crashed, the men fled. according to Sierra. Davis
allegedly threw a gun and a black backpack with marijuana in it to the ground
as he ran. Yet Sierra testified that he and Carroll did not pick up the
backpack or the loaded gun, instead leaving both on the front lawn of a Far
South Side residence.
Davis
maintained his innocence. He said he had been carjacked and had reported it to
police. But police, believing Davis had made up the story, arrested him and he
was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, possession of marijuana
and filing a false report.
The
gun and the backpack became the focus of the case. Davis' lead lawyer, Sam Adam
Jr., called Sierra and Carroll's testimony "laughable," saying it was
inexplicable that police would leave behind such important evidence. In his
opening statement, he predicted the officers would commit perjury.
Assistant
State's Attorney Christina Brewer defended the officers. She insisted that
their accounts of the arrests were credible.
As the
trial played out, Hooks took on a larger role. As judges do sometimes, he
questioned the officers himself, asking why they had failed to collect the gun
and the backpack when they were so key to the prosecution. A resident walking
his dog found them and alerted a nearby officer.
In the
end, Hooks said he didn't find Sierra or Carroll credible.
Then
he did something else: he sought to make a larger point. He spoke about what he
said were three evils in the community: guns, drugs and dishonest police.
"We
all want to see guns and drugs off the street, but there's a method to doing
it, and it depends on competent, informed, and I emphasize the last one, honest
law enforcement," Hooks said as he acquitted Davis. "I have not seen
that with respect to the Chicago police officers involved in this
transaction."
Adam,
in an interview, compared the case to the fatal police shooting of Laquan
McDonald and how the reports of officers at the scene of the shooting differed
dramatically from the dashcam video. The shocking video sparked protests across
the city and embroiled Mayor Rahm Emanuel, as well as the Police Department, in
scandal, prompting the Justice Department investigation.
"You
start out lying about marijuana arrests, then maybe burglaries, then maybe gun
arrests. It's a slide that we have watched build and build in Chicago,"
Adam said. "It's a system that rewards you not for telling the truth but
for getting convictions. There is power in lies."
Carroll
could not be reached for comment.
Sierra,
who quit the force last August, told the Tribune he did not know Hooks had
found his testimony untruthful, but he insisted he did not lie. What's more, he
said he never heard from prosecutors or the Police Department about the
questions that surrounded his testimony.
"Let's
just say judges in Cook County are lenient toward criminals with guns," he
said.
'A
gift that fell from heaven'
The
arrests of Miguel Rodriguez and Antonio Garcia, and the seizure of a $50,000
brick of cocaine in the minivan, were a big deal. Anybody carrying that much
cocaine is a significant player in the drug business. Getting them and their
product off Chicago's streets was a victory.
Their
lawyers, Joseph Lopez and Fred Acosta, believed they could show that the
officers had given a false account of how they found the cocaine. That, in
turn, could lead to the cocaine being thrown out as evidence and the charges
dropped. The lawyers' plan: use one officer's own words to prove it.
At a
pretrial hearing last November, Lopez and Acosta called the officer, Jorge
Martinez, as their only witness. Martinez testified that he and other narcotics
officers were conducting undercover drug surveillance on the city's Southwest
Side on Aug. 13, 2013, when they saw a beige minivan make a right turn without
signaling. Martinez said he and his partner followed the van, hit their
emergency lights and pulled it over.
He
testified that as he approached the van, he noticed a "clear knotted
bag" on the floor. Suspecting it contained crack cocaine, he and his
partner took the two into custody. Martinez said he searched the van and found
the brick of cocaine under the front seat.
After
listening to Martinez's testimony, Judge Hooks began to question the officer.
His skepticism was evident.
"So,
let me understand this correctly," he said. "You just happened to
have been parked on the street when this vehicle came past and committed a
traffic violation, and then you stopped it and the $50,000 worth of narcotics
was in the vehicle?"
Martinez:
"Correct."
In
closing arguments, Assistant State's Attorney Michael Vojta defended the
officers. Lopez and Acosta, however, said Martinez's account made no sense. An
undercover team, they said, would never break from surveillance to stop a car
because it had failed to signal.
Hooks
did not buy it either.
"This
case is a very clear falsehood by the sole testifying witness," the judge
said, according to a court transcript. "The motion is granted, and this
huge amount of narcotics is quashed and suppressed thanks to Officer Jorge
Martinez."
Martinez
could not be reached for comment.
With
the evidence thrown out, prosecutors had no case. Hooks made it clear that he
had no choice but to let the two men go free — though he left no doubt he
believed they were trafficking in drugs.
"So,
you reap the benefit of what I feel was a law officer or police officer that
lied before me after he raised his right hand," Hooks told the two at a
hearing in January when prosecutors dropped the case, according to a
transcript. "You got a gift that fell from heaven."
A
lieutenant colonel and judge advocate during a two-decade Marine Corps career,
Hooks presides in a third-floor courtroom at the Leighton Criminal Court
Building that is decorated with framed American flags and portraits of
Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells. With a bald pate and bushy salt-and-pepper
mustache, he has a fairly baleful appearance, though the slight drawl he
retains from his native Memphis cuts against that.
He
became a judge in 2008 after spending 17 years in his own small law firm, and
he quickly began to set himself apart. In some cases, he does more than just
call out the officers. After he quashed the seizure of the cocaine in the
Rodriguez and Garcia case, Hooks told Vojta, the prosecutor, that he wanted the
case brought to the attention of Vojta's supervisor, as well as to officials at
the Police Department. He was concerned, he said, whether Vojta knew how
Martinez was going to testify.
Indeed,
Hooks said he wanted prosecutors to explain why Martinez would not be charged
criminally for his testimony.
"I
assume (police officers) will be as truthful as any other person who testifies,
and I want to know what the State's Attorney's office is going to do about this
situation," Hooks told Vojta, according to a transcript. "... You
didn't have a case against these defendants. You had a case against that police
officer."
A
month later, a supervisor, Assistant State's Attorney Brian Sexton, came to
court and told Hooks the office was looking into the matter.
Four
months later, Martinez remains on the street, though prosecutors told the
Tribune they were reviewing his testimony.
The
'safe way'
By
their own admission, judges know that police officers sometimes lie on the
witness stand. But many do little — or say nothing — about it. Indeed,
a task force appointed by Mayor Emanuel to recommend reforms in the wake of the
McDonald shooting found that police officers sometimes lie, and that judges,
prosecutors and police officials do too little about it.
"Although
some judges will go on record expressly finding that a police officer's
testimony is not credible, explicit findings are the exception," the
report said.
In
early 2012, Judge Dennis Porter, a veteran judge at the Leighton courthouse,
had a drug case in which both sides agreed that witness credibility was the key
issue. Assistant State's Attorney Michelle Spizzirri argued that Porter should
believe the testimony of Officer Garland Coleman, at the time a department
veteran of nearly 16 years who testified that he was conducting surveillance
when he saw a woman named Marilyn Monroe drop a $30 bag of heroin as he and his
partner approached her.
Known
as drop cases, they have raised questions at the criminal courthouse about
police conduct for decades.
Assistant
Public Defender Daniel Walsh argued that Monroe was more credible, though she
had four felony prostitution convictions. Monroe testified that she came out of
a store and that Coleman and his partner, Robert Ruiz, stopped her, threw her
down and illegally searched her.
That,
Monroe testified, was when officers found the heroin she admitted carrying.
Walsh asked Porter to throw out her arrest.
While
saying Monroe was impeached by her prostitution convictions, Porter ruled that
her testimony was more credible than Coleman's. He said he did not believe
Coleman's testimony that he and his partner had witnessed Monroe drop the bag
of heroin.
"She
was rousted," Porter said, according to a transcript of the hearing,
"and she was searched like she said she was searched."
Coleman
declined to comment.
Getting
tough with police and prosecutors does not come without peril. In his early
years on the bench, Salone said he often called out officers if he found their
testimony unbelievable. To let such testimony go without comment, he said,
risked making judges accomplices of sorts.
That,
he said, was unacceptable.
"I
didn't see a need to beat around the bush," Salone recalled in a recent
interview. "I'd just say, 'Officer, I don't believe you.'"
But
Salone said someone filed a complaint against him with the Judicial Inquiry
Board, the state agency that oversees judges, after he called out officers in a
case, and he said that he was admonished to watch his language. Prosecutors,
meantime, began submitting requests to have other judges hear high-profile
cases.
So
Salone said he began to call out fewer officers. Instead, he simply found in
favor of the defendant, without extensive comments. He achieved the same result
without antagonizing police or prosecutors.
It
was, he said, the "safe way."
Critical
finding removed from record
Even
when judges make particularly strong findings, their decisions do not always
stand. When
Adriana Gallardo sought to have her incriminating statements to authorities
thrown out of her 2013 federal money laundering case, U.S. District Judge John
Grady made clear the issue was essentially a credibility contest over the
circumstances of Gallardo's interrogation.
On one
side was Gallardo, who had a criminal history and who the judge said had a
"deep involvement in the nefarious trafficking of large amounts of
cocaine." On the other side was an IRS agent, William Desmond, and a
veteran Chicago police sergeant, George Karuntzos, who were working on a
federal drug task force.
Though
Grady said that he was acting with "great reluctance" because of his
regard for law enforcement, he sided with Gallardo. The judge said the officers
had "misled" him about whether Gallardo had asked for a lawyer or
waived her right to counsel and spoken willingly. His rationale: that someone
with so much experience with the criminal justice system — and so hostile to
the officers who stopped her — would no doubt ask for a lawyer, as well as the
government's failure, in his mind, to prove she did not make such a request.
"It's
with regret that my duty calls upon me to find that law enforcement officers,
and particularly federal law enforcement officers, have been untruthful,"
Grady concluded, according to a transcript of the May 2014 hearing.
In
spite of Grady's finding against the officers, it ultimately had no bearing on
the outcome of the case. The case was transferred to Judge Amy St. Eve, and a
jury convicted Gallardo of nine counts of money laundering last year.
What
happened next was unusual, however. Federal prosecutors asked St. Eve to narrow
Grady's ruling — essentially to strike from the record the judge's finding that
the officers' testimony had not been credible. Prosecutors believed Grady's
ruling was wrong and could have "significant professional
consequences" for the officers.
St.
Eve, a former federal prosecutor, granted the request. She ruled on somewhat
technical grounds that Grady's credibility finding was unnecessary after he had
determined that Gallardo had invoked her right to a lawyer before the officers
began questioning her.
"Agent
Desmond and Sergeant Karuntzos are dedicated and long-serving law enforcement
officers, and we respectfully disagree with Judge Grady's adverse credibility
findings," said Joseph Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's
office. "As we advised the District Court, we felt Judge Grady's findings
were not warranted in light of the conflicting and inconsistent testimony
offered by the defendant, and the fact that his ruling did not appear to be
based on any observations about the officers' demeanor on the stand."
Grady,
now retired, declined to comment.
Gallardo's
lawyer, Joseph Lopez, said in an interview that he was disappointed that
prosecutors sought to strike Grady's finding. With St. Eve's ruling, an
important finding — one reflecting the problems that he believes beset the
justice system — had simply disappeared.
"The
prosecutors are protecting their employees," he said. "They had to
rehabilitate their images."
C 2015 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment