Mistaken Identification and Rush To Judgment

On December 26, 1862 the Dakota Indian named We-Chank-Washta-don-pee, or also known as “Chaska”, was sentenced to death by a military court of justice.  Prior to the execution of sentence President Abraham Lincoln pardoned Chaska.  However, his jailers confused him with another Dakota Indian and hanged him anyway.  Of course everyone would agree that this was a tragic example of mistaken identification.

To often in the rush to close a case and go to the next open case the police will make a prudential judgment as to the guilt of a suspect without any evidence other than a hunch. 

In a recent case that came to my office this week, a prior arrest free African-American female college student was accused of stealing a pocket book from the doctor’s office in which she had been sent for an IME by an insurance company.  Inside the pocket book were numerous credit cards and other identifying information.

The same day the pocket book was stolen, a Black female was observed attempting to purchase a large amount of expensive merchandise at the Short Hills Mall with the stolen credit cards.  Having nothing to go on but a grainy video of this individual purchasing these items with the stolen credit cards, the police decided to charge this college student on a hunch.

The college student is innocent and it appears that the police did nothing to really attempt to solve this crime and catch the real perpetrator of the crime.  If the cops in this case had engaged in real honest police work they would have learned quickly that the college student was innocent and should never have been charged.  Clearly this is a case of mistaken identity.

Again a rush to judgment on a hunch is unethical, unfair and dishonest and does nothing in the pursuit of justice.  Unfortunately, this type of shoddy police work is more the rule than the exception and causes me great concern as a criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey.

As Pope John Paul I was quoted as saying, “If you want peace work for Justice.”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

False Confessions and Police Misconduct.

It is astounding and sometimes hard for people to imagine or understand why someone would confess to a crime in which he or she did not commit.

Unfortunately the number of false confessions that are given each year in the United States is astounding.  Attorney Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project in New York has estimated that a quarter of the DNA exonerations involve cases in which people have given false confessions.

The most famous of the false confession cases is the infamous Norfolk Four.  United States Naval Officers, Tice, Williams, Dick and Wilson, stationed at the naval base in Norfolk Virginia were convicted of the brutal rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in 1997.  The only evidence against the sailors was the coerced confessions by a detective who was later charged and convicted for police misconduct (knowingly extracting false confessions).  In that case the detective, Detective Ford, fed to the sailors held back facts of the case that only the detective knew, and later typed those facts into the signed or taped confessions.  Even when the real killer, Omar Ballard, was charged and convicted based on DNA evidence, and his confession that he committed the crime alone, the police still refused to dismiss the charges against the Norfolk Four.  Detective Ford knew that Sailor Dick was innocent because navel logs showed that Sailor Dick was on the ship U.S. Saipan at the time of the murder.

The Norfolk four continued to maintain that their confessions, which were either signed or taped, were made on the basis that they were coerced with threats that included that they would receive the death penalty if they did not plead guilty. 

This was not the first time Detective Ford was accused of extracting false confessions from suspects.  In the Lafayette Grill case in 1990 he was also accused of similar misconduct.  Detective Ford was known to brag to fellow detectives that he could coerce a false confession out of anyone to solve a crime, regardless of person’s innocence, or lack of evidence against the accused.

All of the Norfolk Four defendants were sentenced to long prison sentences and in 2008 30 retired FBI agents asked the governor of Virginia to pardon the sailors.

After spending many years in prison the Norfolk Four were eventually pardoned over the objections of the State Attorney General who for years fought against their release knowing that the four were truly innocent.

Another infamous and troubling case was the false confession of Douglas Warney who spent nine years in prison for a murder which he did not commit.  At the time of his confession Mr. Warner was suffering from AIDS and AIDS dementia. In that case the police claimed that Mr. Warney confessed to the crime and with facts that only the murderer would know.  Unfortunately, the facts which they claimed he knew about the murder were facts which the facts also knew and which they fed to him.  In the Warney prosecution there were no witnesses, no physical evidence, or DNA evidence to link Mr. Warney to the crime.  Mr. Warney was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence and the arrest and conviction of the person who committed the crime whose DNA was at the crime scene.

The American Psychological Association has continually maintained in their studies that susceptible individuals subject to common police interrogation techniques will confess to anything.  Even less susceptible individuals often confess to crimes that they did not commit with the false and misleading information from the detective that “if you just tell me what I want to hear, we will wrap this up and you will be going home.”  Or, if “you admit to what you did, you will not be charged with a crime.”  Of course, all of these lies are done off the audio-visual camera. 

I am currently handling a pending case in Union County New Jersey in which I am representing an individual who was tricked into given a confession to a crime in which he did not commit.  A motion to suppress the statements is pending with the court, and it is likely that the confession will be thrown out.  In that case the detective interrogating my client asked my client what happened and when the facts did not conform to the facts of the crime, the detective told him what to say.  Fortunately, in that case all of the promises and lies were off camera.  However, the feeding of the facts to my client was captured on video and will make the difference in suppressing the statement as being a product of a coerced false confession.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

The Necessity of the Immediate Investigation of the Alleged Crime Scene by Criminal Defense Lawyer before any Surveillance Video is Destroyed.

In many of my previous blogs I have written about the early investigation of the alleged crime scene.  This immediate investigation is even more important in recent years with the proliferation of surveillance videos, both official and private surveillance cameras. 

Recently I spoke about a case in which one of my client’s was falsely accused of sexual assault on the sidewalk of an Elizabeth Street, not far from a city police surveillance video camera.  The charges of sexual assault were dropped by the Union County Prosecutor’s Office when an examination of the alleged site, by me, in which the assault allegedly occurred, revealed a police video camera, not far from the alleged assault.  Upon this discovery a notice to the police to perverse the video, and their failure to do so, resulted in all charges being dropped. 

On June 17, 2011 it was reported that a narcotics detective, Payano, assigned to undercover detective work in the Bronx, New York, was charged with perjury in claiming to have witness a hand-to-hand narcotics transaction which never occurred.  The dishonest cop was exposed when the defense attorney brought to the attention of the Bronx D.A., evidence from the private surveillance camera that the detective had lied about what he alleged so, in fact, he was not even at the scene.  As a result all of the criminal charges had been dropped by the Bronx D.A., and the dishonest detective was indicted in a 64 count indictment for preparing a false police report and perjury.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 21, 2011

Prior to Trial Defense Counsel Must Force the Prosecutor to State Whether it Intends to Introduce Evidence of Uncharged Criminal Conduct, and Disclose to the Defense any Evidence to Support this Alleged Criminal Conduct

All to often at the time of trial the prosecutor will attempt to introduce what is commonly known in New Jersey criminal practice as “other crime evidence”, or Rule 404(b) evidence against the defendant.  This typically is evidence of other crimes or wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.  This evidence is not admitted to prove that the defendant had a propensity to commit the instant offense which he is on trial for, but rather to prove another relevant issue of the case, such as to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or absence of mistake or accident, when such evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial. 

This evidence is probably the most damaging type of evidence offered against a criminal defendant because the jury hears that the defendant had committed another crime or wrong before, and often it is difficult if not impossible for the jury not to use this evidence improperly.

Therefore, it is essential in every criminal case that defense counsel in his initial discovery request demand that the prosecutor state whether it intends to introduce evidence of uncharged criminal conduct, when the State presents its case, or during the State’s cross-examination of the defendant, if he or she testifies.

Further, the letter should demand that if the State intends to proffer this type of evidence that it immediately disclose the specific wrongful acts, and that the State furnish to the defense during discovery any and all evidence to support such evidence, which includes, but not limited to any and all evidence that is relevant to such uncharged criminal conduct.

Lastly, defense counsel should make it clear that in the event that this information is not disclosed to the defense during discovery that the defense will object to the State’s attempt to introduce such evidence at the time of trial, because the defense would clearly be prejudiced by such a delay in disclosure.

On June 6, 2011, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared for his arraignment in New York Supreme Court at the criminal courts building in Manhattan to enter his plea of not guilty.  In connection with that plea the first thing that his defense attorneys (Taylor and Brafman) did by way of discovery to the prosecutor, was to demand from the prosecutor that it disclose to the defense any uncharged criminal conduct which might include allegations of other victims that Mr. Strauss-Kahn engaged in other sexual crimes or wrongs with these women. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated:  June 7, 2011

Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker and His Continued Cover-up of the Newark Police Department and His Lack of Integrity as Mayor.

Since becoming Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker has done nothing to address the continued abuse and corruption prevalent in the Newark Police Department. 

On September 9, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a federal civil rights suit against the City of Newark and its police department alleging that over a period of two-and-a-half-year officers of the Newark Police Department engaged in various forms of police misconduct such as false arrests, violence and excessive force, and shake downs and various other forms of abuse and corruption.

When the suit was filed Mayor Booker called the suit “misleading and “manipulative.”  He further said himself or through his spokespersons that the petition was “frivolous” and “filed in bad faith”, and that Newark would use every means at their disposal to get it dismissed.  Such response by the Mayor shows at a minimum, that he was either ignorant of the pervasive corruption of city police force, or engaged in a cover-up.  Such behavior, either way, is unacceptable as the mayor for our largest city in this State. 

Instead of investigating the internal affairs department to ascertain whether the ACLU suit had any merit, Booker stated on a radio talk show, “We don’t need to be taken on wild chases that suck up time and energy, and take police officers away from their mission on Internal Affairs and their mission on public safety.”  This statement of Booker shows his ignorance of the essential and important function of a police internal affairs unit.

On May 14, 2011, eight months later, when the federal government announced that it would engage in its own investigation of the Newark Police Department, Booker said that it was on board with the fed’s from day one.  In fact, Booker lied to the press when he said that he was against the ACLU lawsuit because the ACLU lawsuit did not call for a federal investigation.  In fact, if he had read the ACLU Complaint the first line reads, “The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey respectfully requests that the Special Litigation Section, acting pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, commence an investigation into the Newark, New Jersey Police Department.”

For years experienced attorneys were aware that the internal affairs division in the Newark Police Department was virtually non-existent in practice and that any grievance that reached their desk was quickly dismissed with no real integrity or investigation.  In fact it was a common practice for citizens complaining about a Newark Police Officer to be threatened by members of the internal affairs department, with arrest, or with the threat of forcing the grievant to submit to a polygraph test, a violation of the Attorney General Guidelines.

Almost without exception, however, the grievance was simply dismissed as frivolous by the I.A. unit because in every case the officer’s version of events was deemed more credible than the grievant.  Notwithstanding, that often the same cops were being complained about over and over again, no integrity tests or other types of investigations were being undertaken against the suspected cops. 

Attorney Sanzone has had first hand experience and has in federal court confronted the corruption and police misconduct of police officers for the City of Newark in his civil rights cases against the city (CriminalDefenseNJ.com).  Likewise, in criminal cases Attorney Sanzone has successfully defended defendant’s charged with false allegation by Newark Police Officers and has obtained dismissals or acquittals because of various forms of police misconduct.

The Cory Booker cover-up unfortunately is not limited to him or his city.  Unfortunately, in almost every town and city in this State, mayors, police commissions and directors have internal affairs units which are a virtual joke.  Contrary to law and public safety, these police directors’ use their internal affairs units not to protect the public from bad and corrupt cops, but rather, as a device to quash and silence citizens from making valid complaints, with the purpose to discourage and dissuade them from filing grievances and complaints against police officers and police departments in the future. 

The federal government and state attorney’s general office has a daunting task in reforming police departments, but it is clear that left to their self policing they will continue to abuse and violate citizens’ constitutional rights with impunity.  It would benefit everyone including honest and hard working police officers to weed out cops who engage in corruption and police misconduct; why it does not happened I do not know.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 1, 2011

United States Supreme Court affirms lower Courts Ruling that Prison Conditions in the California Penal System amounts to Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 24, 2011, in a five to four split decision the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Brown v. Plata, held that because of the horrendous conditions at many of California’s prisons, especially facilities and units which house prisoners with mental disabilities, that California prison officials can no longer be trusted with policing themselves, and therefore, must reduce their prison population by federal court order.

In increasing numbers many enlightened and progressive jurist are now recognizing that because people sentenced to prison have no one to speak on their behalf, and that politicians caring only to be re-elected have no interest in protecting the rights and dignity of their prison population, that the judiciary is now forced to step in under the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution to protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.  The Constitution under the Eighth Amendment states that no one shall be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and the conditions of many of our nations jails are just that cruel and inhuman. 

Because all of the States have cut back on funds allocated to their prison systems, more and more prisoners are languishing under prison conditions which are inhuman and violate the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy writing for the majority wrote, “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” 

If society expects and demands that a prisoner upon release live a good and law abiding life, society must treat the prisoner like a human being and afford that person every civil dignity possible under the conditions of incarceration.

As the Court noted, in California inmates were kept in man- sized cages until a bed became available or inmates with mental disorders standing “in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic.”

In 2007, here in New Jersey one very enlightened and progressive Federal District Court Judge, the Honorable Katherine S. Hayden, held that the conditions at the Passaic County Jail in which federal prisoners were being held awaiting trials or sentences, was “shameful”.  As Justice Hayden wrote in her written opinion, “...forces the question of how long we continue to turn a deaf ear, mine included.  It has become a tired fact of life in these courtrooms that Passaic County Jail is overcrowded, is breaking down, and is a very rough place to serve time.”

As noted, the Passaic County Jail was noted for severe overcrowding, with hundred of inmates packed into dorm like rooms, inches apart. The jail had infestations of rats, mice, and other assorted types of insects.  The jail was notorious for serving food not fit for human consumption, with dead insects and rat and mice dropping in the food.  Because of the food many inmates received little or no nourishment.

Because of the deplorable conditions of the jail Judge Hayden correctly reduced the jail sentence which she imposed upon a defendant who was incarcerated under these cruel and harsh conditions.

Because of Judge Hayden’s courageous decision, and the United States Attorneys concern that she would reduce other prison sentences with other defendants serving time at the Passaic County Jail, the United States Marshall Service pulled out all of the federal inmates from that facility.

It is time that more judges take into account in sentencing defendants the conditions that are being imposed in our local, county, state and federal jails, and act with courage and compassion for speaking out and protecting a segment of society that has no voice.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: May 25, 2011, Elizabeth, N.J.

Police Dispatcher Misidentifying Detained Suspect Calls for the Suppression of Evidence from the Wrongly Arrested Suspect

On April 26, 2011 the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Handy suppressed narcotics seized from a defendant who was wrongly identified by a police dispatcher has having an open warrant.

The facts of the case were that a Millville Police Officer requested from the police dispatcher the confirmation of identities of a number of individuals detained and not possessing any identification.  The police dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had an open warrant and Mr. Handy was arrested.  A search incident to the arrest revealed that Mr. Handy was in possession of CDS and was charged with that offense.  The dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had a warrant notwithstanding that Mr. Handy had given the officer his date of birth which was different than the one listed on the warrant.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the Appellate Division erred in holding that the officer acted reasonably and good faith.  This case by the Supreme Court for the first time holds that a police dispatcher is an integral part of law enforcement and that errors made by a police dispatcher either intentionally or negligently will be visited upon the police officer relying on such erroneous information.  Accordingly, such an arrest is an illegal arrest and any evidence seized by such erroneous information, leading to an illegal arrest, will be suppressed.

For more information regarding the suppression of contraband in any criminal case in New Jersey you are invited to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., at CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: May 24, 2011