Cleaning up Joe Hynes’ mess

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Tuesday, February 25, 2014, 9:16 PM

By Harry Siegel

Forget about it, John. This is Brooklyn.

If any one case captures the stinking, spreading mess six-term Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes left in the office of the man who defeated him, Ken Thompson , it’s the “grid kid” slaying.
That was the tabloid wood in 2003, when Fairfield University student Mark Fisher made his first foray into the city. The 19-year-old football star met three male classmates for drinks in Manhattan. There he met another student he was flirting with, and, drunk, followed her to a late-night house party in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn.
Hours later, Fisher’s body was wrapped in a blanket on a quiet side street, his face bruised from a beating presumably delivered before he was shot five times.
The partying teens quickly lawyered up, leaving investigators frustrated and unable to press charges even as one suspect, known knucklehead Antonio Russo, cut off his signature braids and left for California hours later. Facing mounting criticism for failing to make a case and with an eye on a tough reelection bid, Hynes sent in his “elite team,” led by rackets chief Michael Vecchione and star trial attorney Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi .
Suddenly — a Vecchione trademark — witnesses began stepping up to testify against both Russo and his friend, John Giuca, who hosted the house party.
In a trial with two separate juries, Nicolazzi, who came in with a perfect trial record, took the much tougher, entirely circumstantial case against Giuca, whom no witnesses or physical evidence placed at the apparent scene of the crime.
Using a series of overlapping, sometimes conflicting accounts — from Giuca’s girlfriend, his longtime friend and Ditmas Park neighbor Al Cleary (who’d himself been seen as a person of interest at least through the grand jury, where he waived his immunity to testify) and finally a junkie named John Avitto, who claimed to have heard a confession — she laid out a theory in which Giuca either felt disrespected or, to toughen up his purported crew, had instructed Russo “to go show that guy what’s up.”

Calling Giuca “Tony Soprano” and a “self-styled mafioso,” she told the jury it didn’t matter if he was there when Fisher was killed, since “you know this defendant is every bit involved in this crime.”
The jury convicted both men of murder. Giuca got 25 to life, and will first go up for parole in 2029.
But the trial left more loose ends than clear answers. One juror was recorded afterward admitting he knew Giuca, lied about it in jury selection and pressed others to find him guilty. A witness repeatedly described as uncooperative with the initial investigation was later hired straight out of law school as a Brooklyn ADA. Vecchione’s reputation is in tatters.
And three witnesses, including Avitto, have recanted their trial testimony, risking perjury charges to do so (the other two now swear they were pressed into delivering false accounts by the DA), according to a letter from Giuca’s current lawyer, Mark Bederow, asking Thompson to revisit the case.
In a second letter from Bederow the DA received Monday, ex-ADA and law professor Bennett Gershman, who wrote the book “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” took aim at Nicolazzi, claiming that “in order to win a murder conviction in a high-profile case [she] recklessly disregarded a prosecutor’s overriding responsibility . . . that only reliable and trustworthy evidence be presented,” and instead used “misleading, deceptive and inflammatory tactics.”
Returning to Avitto, Nicolazzi’s surprise final witness, who, the defense was given no opportunity to prepare for: Not only was his testimony “almost certainly false,” Gershman writes, but “from the record it appears that ADA Nicolazzi knew it was false.” This is the witness whom she personally vouched for with the jury at least three times: “you know you could trust him.”
Avitto testified that while at Rikers, he overheard Giuca confess in a conversation with his father. But Giuca’s father couldn’t speak after strokes years earlier.
Worse, Avitto testified he’d volunteered to expose Giuca and received no consideration from the DA. In fact, he’d had seven serious violations of his rehab program (he admitted to only one in his testimony), any one of which should have triggered a substantial prison sentence. In one instance, writes Gershman, Nicolazzi privately vouched for Avitto with a judge to keep him from jail.
So Avitto lied in his Giuca testimony, and Nicolazzi apparently knew, both when he claimed just one violation, and again when he said he had no arrangement with the DA.
“The case you’re calling about is a complicated one,” said Thompson spokeswoman Sheila Stainback. “But it was carefully reviewed, tried and upheld by the appellate division. We have Mr. Bederow’s letters and they are being reviewed. Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi is a respected and outstanding prosecutor who has an exemplary trial record.”
It is complicated, and guilt and innocence may be lost behind the haze of the trial. But even giving Nicolazzi — who has had a sterling reputation in a sometimes troubled office, and is now leading the probe of 50 convictions tied to former Detective Louis Scarcella, like Vecchione a provider of suspiciously miraculous witnesses that led to bad convictions — every benefit of the doubt, Gershman’s claims warrant a substantial response.
Thompson has his work cut out cleaning up after Hynes. He could start with Giuca.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/cleaning-joe-hynes-mess-article-1.1701831

Conviction Panel Advisers Named in Brooklyn- Wall Street Journal

District Attorney Taps Three to Reinvestigate Questionable Convictions

By

Sean Gardiner

 

Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson on Friday appointed three attorneys who will act as independent advisers for his office's newly expanded Conviction Review Unit, which will reinvestigate questionable convictions.

The advisers are Bernard Nussbaum, who served on the congressional committee that conducted the Watergate impeachment hearings and later served as counsel to President Bill Clinton; Jennifer Rodgers, the executive director of Columbia Law School's Center for Advancement of Public Integrity and a former federal appellate prosecutor; and Gary Villanueva, a defense attorney who previously served as a Brooklyn homicide prosecutor.

"Their combined experience and uncompromising integrity will prove invaluable in my office's efforts to meticulously examine available evidence in order to right wrongs or confirm convictions," Mr. Thompson said.

Last year, during his successful run for district attorney, Mr. Thompson criticized then-District Attorney Charles Hynes for several high-profile wrongful convictions that occurred during his 24 years in office, promising to devote more resources to re-examining wrongful conviction claims.

The Conviction Review Unit has been "expanded and reorganized," Mr. Thompson said.

The unit consists of "experienced prosecutors, investigators and support staff tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough reinvestigation of cases identified as having a colorable claim of actual innocence or gross violations of a defendant's constitutional rights," said Mr. Thompson, who added that more details about the unit will be made available soon.

Mr. Nussbaum, Ms. Rodgers and Mr. Villanueva will advise on "a range of issues, including whether a conviction should stand, needs additional review or should possibility be overturned," Mr. Thompson said.

Mother of John Giuca hopes District Attorney Ken Thompson will review murder conviction

From the Brooklyn Daily:

http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2014/8/all-noth-hynes-movie-2014-02-21-bk_2014_8.html

By Will Bredderman

A Brooklyn mother is hoping the new district attorney will give a second chance to her son, who was convicted of murder in 2005 — and whose story will soon be a film starring actor Chris Noth.
Former top borough prosecutor Charles Hynes — whom Noth will play in upcoming independent film, according to the Daily News — and his star assistant district attorney Michael Vecchione found Flatbush youth John Giuca guilty of the 2003 murder of Fairfield University football star Mark Fisher. But Giuca’s mom is hoping that Ken Thompson — who defeated Hynes last year — will give the case a second look.

“We new he had no shot with Charles Hynes in office,” said Doreen Giuliano. “I’m hoping that Ken Thompson reviews the case, and is thorough in his investigation, and that ultimately John is exonerated.”
In the early hours of Oct. 12, 2003 police found Fisher’s body shot five times, wrapped in a blanket, and dumped in front of an Argyle Road residence after a night of partying with friends in Manhattan. That party had wound up at Giuca’s nearby home, and the blanket covering Fisher’s corpse belonged to Giuliano.
The prosecution successfully argued that Giuca — then 20 years old — had instructed his friend Antonio Russo to kill Fisher and had provided the never-recovered murder weapon to do the deed, as retribution against Fisher for sitting on his table earlier that night, and as a way to boost the reputation of their alleged gang “The Ghetto Mafia.”
But Giuliano believes her son never got a fair trial — due to both a biased jury and a biased prosecution. According to Giuliano, an overheard comment led her to doubt the credibility of one of the jurors. And, in a move straight from a Hollywood screenplay, Giuliano decided to disguise herself and use a false name to court the juror and catch him admitting to misconduct.

Giuliano recorded the juror, Bensonhurst resident Jason Allo, admitting he had lied during jury selection when he had claimed he did not know Giuca and Russo. The tapes became public through an article in the magazine Vanity Fair, but an Appeals Court judge refused to consider the recordings as evidence because Allo had not made a sworn statement that he had lied.
Giuliano and Giuca’s attorney, Mark Bederow, also submitted a brief to Thompson alleging that one of the prosecution’s key witnesses had perjured himself, and that Hynes’s team withheld evidence that would compromise the witness’s account.
The lawyer’s brief points out that during the investigation into the murder, the witness’s attorney submitted a polygraph test in which the witness stated he had no knowledge of how Fisher died — and the lie detector had determined he was telling the truth. But the witness later testified that Giuca had told him that he had ordered Fisher’s killing and supplied the gun. The brief alleges the prosecution failed to share the results of the polygraph test with the jury.
“He either (1) procured a false polygraph examination report, (2) truthfully passed the polygraph examination and thus repeatedly perjured himself over the course of three sworn statements, or (3) was such a talented liar that he ‘fooled’ the polygraph expert and convinced him that he was truthful despite the fact that he was lying,” Bederow wrote to Thompson.

Giuliano believes her case is strong enough to free her son.
“He was only a convicted murderer because he had a flawed trial,” Giuliano argued.
Thompson’s office declined to comment.

Attorney General announces revolutionary plan for the wrongfully convicted

By Charisma L. Miller, Esq.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Wednesday announced planned legislation that would allow those who are found wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for a crime to present a claim for damages against the state.

The "Unjust Imprisonment Act,” as the legislation will be called, is scheduled to be introduced to the legislature by New York State Assemblyman Joe Lentol (D-Northern Brooklyn).

"New York State law currently presents unnecessary and unjust barriers to recovery for some individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned,” said Lentol.

The current law presents a barrier for defendants to financially go after the state for wrongs committed against them. Under the current legal structure, a defendant can pursue a claim against the state for wrongful conviction only if the defendant can show he or she “did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction.”

In other words, if a person falsely confessed to the crime for which he or she was convicted or signed a statement under coercion, such a person cannot pursue damages against the state if it is later found out that the defendant was innocent of the crime.
The present law would not help the case of former Brooklyn defendant Sundhe Moses, who was wrongly convicted for the killing of a 4-year old girl by a stray bullet.  Moses confessed to the crime under the allegedly physically abusive persuasion tactics of controversial Brooklyn Detective Louis Scarcella.

After spending 18 years of his life behind bars, Moses was set free by the Parole Board in October 2013. Should Moses appeal to a judge for the conviction to be overturned, because Moses confessed to the crime, albeit falsely, he would not be able to claim damages against the state. Schneiderman’s proposed legislation would remedy that.

According to Schneiderman, the current law includes an overly broad exclusion that disregards certain extenuating, but all too common, circumstances for a false confession. It doubly victimizes innocent people who were in fear for their lives, who had a nervous, mental or psychological problem, or were simply too young to know better, so they admitted doing something they did not do.

“Those who are wrongfully convicted and unjustly deprived of liberty must be allowed to put their lives back together again, and we have a moral obligation to help them do so,” said Schneiderman, speaking to an audience at John Jay College.

Seymour W. James Jr., attorney-in-charge of the Legal Aid Society’s criminal practice,stated, “[i]nnocent people falsely confess to crimes for a variety of reasons.” James, a Brooklyn resident, noted that “[i]n approximately 25 percent of wrongful convictions that have been overturned with DNA evidence, false confessions, admissions or statements were made to law enforcement officials.”

Brooklyn has been plagued with reports of wrongful convictions and overturned verdicts in the past few years — many of these convictions occurring during the tenure of former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes.

Earlier this month, two men wrongly convicted for a triple murder have been freed after spending more than two decades in prison. Anthony Yarbough and Sharrif Wilson were released after Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Raymond Guzman overturned their convictions based on new DNA evidence.

Jabbar Collins, wrongfully convicted in 1995 for the murder of a Brooklyn rabbi, filed a suit against the Brooklyn DA’s Office for the 20-plus years he spent behind bars. And David Ranta, accused of the 1990 murder of another Brooklyn rabbi, was released from jail after Brooklyn prosecutors admitted that the case against Ranta had ““significantly eroded.”

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Miriam Cyrulnik expressed her sorrow as she ordered Ranta’s conviction vacated in May 2013: “To say that I am sorry for what you have endured would be grossly inadequate. But I’ll say it anyway. I am sorry.”

The Unjust Imprisonment Act would also extend, by one year, the statute of limitations for filing a claim for damages by those who seek to prove they were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

In an effort to ensure that no one who may be eligible for relief under the statute is shut out of his or her ability to make a claim, persons who were pardoned, or whose cases were dismissed based on exculpatory DNA evidence — such as Moses — constitutional violations or on any other ground enumerated in the statute, would have three years from the date of the pardon or dismissal, rather than the current two years, to file a claim for damages.

“Prosecutors are in the business of locking up the bad guys. But when the system fails us, and innocent people are sent to prison, they must be given a chance to rebuild their lives afterward -- it’s only fair,” noted Albany County District Attorney David Soares.

Wrongfully convicted Jeffrey Deskcovic agreed with Soares’ sentiment.

“As someone who served 16 years in prison and was exonerated of a crime I never committed, I know how hard it is to seek justice from the state. We need to support these innocent individuals with meaningful compensation,” said Deskcovic.

“The legal reforms we are proposing...are critically important not just to the futures of the people wrongfully convicted by our criminal justice system, but to our future as a just society,” Schneiderman said of his new legislation. “The Unjust Imprisonment Act will remove unjust and unnecessary burdens on those who have been imprisoned for a crime they did not commit."

Man Framed by Detective Will Get $6.4 Million From New York City After Serving 23 Years for Murder

By FRANCES ROBLESFEB. 20, 2014

A man who was framed by a rogue detective and served 23 years in prison for a murder he did not commit will receive $6.4 million from the City of New York in a settlement that came before a civil rights lawsuit was even filed, lawyers involved in the case said on Thursday.

A $150 million claim filed last year by the man, David Ranta, was settled by the city comptroller’s office without ever involving the city’s legal department — which the lawyers involved in the negotiations described as a “groundbreaking” decision that acknowledged the overwhelming evidence the city faced.

The comptroller’s quick acceptance of liability in the high-profile conviction is also significant because the case is the first of what is expected to be a series of wrongful conviction claims by men who were sent to prison based on the flawed investigative work of the detective, Louis Scarcella, who has been accused of inventing confessions, coercing witnesses and recycling informers.

 

“While no amount of money could ever compensate David for the 23 years that were taken away from him, this settlement allows him the stability to continue to put his life back together,” Mr. Ranta’s lawyer, Pierre Sussman, said. “We are now focusing our efforts on pursuing an unjust conviction claim with the State of New York.”

 

Mr. Sussman added that Mr. Ranta, who, at 58, had a heart attack the day after he was released last March, “would like everyone to know he is happy to have a chance at recovering his health, taking care of his heart and being there for his family and children.”

Mr. Ranta, who declined to comment on Thursday, was convicted of the 1990 killing in Brooklyn of a Hasidic rabbi, Chaskel Werzberger, a Holocaust survivor who had stepped into his car at dawn just as a jewelry robbery was taking place across the street. He was shot in the head and his station wagon was used as a getaway car while the jeweler escaped unharmed.

The rabbi’s death shook the Orthodox Jewish community in Williamsburg, which was a major voting bloc for the newly elected district attorney at the time, Charles J. Hynes.

Mr. Hynes’s office defended the conviction for decades, fighting off appeals and rejecting evidence that pointed to another killer. But when one eyewitness came forward decades later to say that a detective had told him to pick the man with “the big nose” out of a lineup — Mr. Ranta was the only person who fit that description — the district attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit conducted a yearlong investigation and discovered more serious problems.

When investigators approached two other witnesses in the case, they immediately admitted that they had lied.

The two career criminals who implicated Mr. Ranta in the crime used their cooperation in the case as a means to obtain get-out-of-jail excursions provided by Mr. Scarcella, who before retiring had been well regarded for his ability to solve homicides at a time when Brooklyn was awash in violence. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Mr. Ranta had always accused the detective of manufacturing his confession. Mr. Scarcella said Mr. Ranta confessed while handcuffed to a bench at Central Booking. Although the allegation about the confession was never proven, the mounting questions about Mr. Scarcella’s methods made it increasingly suspect.

Prosecutors also discovered that Mr. Scarcella had followed up on an anonymous telephone call that attributed the killing to a robber named Joseph Astin. Mr. Scarcella questioned Mr. Astin’s wife and tried to track down a parole officer to collect recent photographs of him. But he dropped that lead when Mr. Astin died in a car accident, and then the officer never submitted any paperwork documenting the time spent investigating him.

 

Years later, Mr. Astin’s widow came forward to say her husband was the real killer, but legal efforts to free Mr. Ranta based on that information failed.

Two months after Mr. Ranta was released, he filed a notice that he would sue the city. Negotiations took place for several months under the previous comptroller, John C. Liu. But it was Mr. Liu’s successor, Scott M. Stringer, swayed by the fact that the Brooklyn district attorney’s office had joined in the motion to free Mr. Ranta from prison, who ultimately agreed to settle the case.

“This settlement is in the best interests of all parties and closes the door on a truly regrettable episode in our city’s history,” Mr. Stringer said in a statement. “I am pleased that my office was able to move quickly on this case.”

A spokesman for the city’s Law Department, which would have had responsibility for defending the city had the case proceeded, declined to comment on the settlement, which is among the largest the city has ever reached with an individual.

Mr. Ranta is expected to make a separate wrongful conviction claim against the state. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman proposed legislation on Wednesday that would make it easier for people like Mr. Ranta to make such claims; under current law, it is difficult for people who made false confessions to be compensated for wrongful convictions.

The news of the settlement came as Kenneth P. Thompson, the Brooklyn district attorney, convened a new three-member panel to review dozens of Mr. Scarcella’s cases. The panel is to replace the one appointed by Mr. Hynes, which was widely criticized for including several people close to him, including campaign donors and the godfather of his children. Dogged by the fact that the majority of the cases that involved questionable behavior by Mr. Scarcella took place under his watch, Mr. Hynes was voted out of office in November in a landslide victory for Mr. Thompson.

According to Mr. Thompson’s office, his review panel will include Bernard W. Nussbaum, a former White House counsel to President Bill Clinton who was forced out over his role in an investigation of a failed savings and loan; Gary S. Villanueva, a defense lawyer and former assistant district attorney in Brooklyn; and Jennifer G. Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor who is now the executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia University.

Details of their responsibilities have not been ironed out, but they are expected to play an advisory role in the dozens of innocence claims that have arisen in cases investigated by Mr. Scarcella.

After Mr. Ranta’s release, an investigation by The New York Times found that Mr. Scarcella had used the same witness in several different murder cases and that at least six confessions had included similar phraseology: “You got it right. I was there.” Some confessions did not match the evidence.

One inmate, Sundhe Moses, who had been investigated by the detective, hired lawyers who tracked down a star witness, who said detectives had coached him to lie. The Parole Board released Mr. Moses in December after he served 16 years for the murder of a 4-year-old girl.

Chris Noth Set to Play Charles Hynes in New Movie

By Simone Weichselbaum AND Reuven Blau / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Noth hopes the movie helps free convicted killer John Giuca.

Actor Chris Noth plans to play former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes in an independent film being developed.
The movie is based on the case of 19-year-old Fairfield University honor student Mark Fisher, who was shot dead in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn, after a night of barhopping on Oct 12, 2003.
Two years later, two young men, John Giuca and Anthony Russo, were sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for his murder.

"It makes for a real damn good drama," said Noth, who is urging new DA Kenneth Thompson to review the case based on new evidence.

The Fischer case has long captivated the city.

Giuca's mother, Doreen Giuliano, went undercover to dig up dirt on a juror. But multiple appeals, based in part on recordings from those secret dates, were tossed.

Last month, Giuca's lawyer, Mark Bederow, filed a 76-page petition for review, arguing the conviction was built on serious flaws and misconduct by prosecutors.
"The DA ignored evidence which pointed away from John, unfairly portrayed him as a Mafia-style 'boss,' unduly pressured witnesses, presented perjury testimony…and trampled John's due process rights in support of five vastly inconsistent theories of John's guilt," the petition states.

The "Sex and the City" star agrees.
"This is a really big deal. What prosecutors are able to get away with is so unbelievable," Noth told The News.

Nancy and Michael Fisher have long believed more people at the party that night were involved in the murder.

Hynes has long defended the outcome of the case and the behavior of his longtime deputy Michael Vecchione.
On Sunday, he slammed the actor.

"It serves no purpose to respond to gratuitous comments by someone like Noth who is both vacuous and shallow," the former DA said.
The film is in its nascent stages.
Casting director Mary Vernieu, who worked on Black Swan and other major movies, is in the process of filling the other parts as the movie's backers seek funding.
This will not be Noth's first foray into Brooklyn politics.
Last year, Noth gave $10,000 to Brooklyn DA candidate Abe George before he dropped out of the race and supported Thompson.

Petition Seeking to Void Brooklyn Murder Conviction Calls Verdict a ‘Sham’ - NYT

By VIVIAN YEEFEB. 2, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/nyregion/lawyer-petitions-brooklyn-prosecutor-to-overturn-conviction-in-03-murder.html?_r=0 

The 2005 conviction of John Giuca for the murder of Mark Fisher, a college football player from New Jersey, was a “sham” built on prosecutorial misconduct, a feeble defense, contradictory evidence, a biased juror and the testimony of witnesses who have since recanted, Mr. Giuca’s lawyer wrote in a scathing petition to be sent to the Brooklyn district attorney on Monday.

Mr. Giuca has long maintained that he was innocent in the death of Mr. Fisher, a 19-year-old college sophomore who was shot to death in Brooklyn in 2003. Mr. Fisher’s body was found wrapped in a yellow blanket near Mr. Giuca’s house after a night of drinking and partying with him and other young people. His lawyer asserts that prosecutors mishandled the case and that the trial verdict should be voided after revelations that three key prosecution witnesses have recanted, saying they testified under pressure or to avoid prosecution.

“Justice is not served by the continued incarceration of a man who did not receive a fair trial and who was convicted on false, flimsy, incompatible, and now thoroughly discredited, evidence,” Mr. Giuca’s lawyer, Mark Bederow, wrote in the petition to overturn the conviction.

The petition’s timing favors Mr. Giuca: The new Brooklyn district attorney, Kenneth P. Thompson, vowed before he took office in January to aggressively review dozens of possible wrongful murder convictions won by his predecessor, Charles J. Hynes — who prosecuted Mr. Giuca.

Mr. Giuca’s “continued incarceration will only add to the public’s growing lack of confidence in the Brooklyn criminal justice system, which in recent years has suffered black eye after black eye,” Mr. Bederow wrote.

At the trial, the lead prosecutor, Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, offered several different theories for why and how Mr. Giuca, along with his co-defendant, Antonio Russo, shot Mr. Fisher.

In one, Mr. Russo, a Brooklyn friend of Mr. Giuca, decided to rob Mr. Fisher and asked Mr. Giuca to give him a gun, which he used to kill Mr. Fisher and then returned to Mr. Giuca. At the trial, Lauren Calciano, Mr. Giuca’s former girlfriend, testified that Mr. Giuca later admitted he had given a gun to Mr. Russo. But Mr. Bederow wrote that Ms. Calciano recently contacted him, admitting she had lied because prosecutors had intimidated her.

In an affidavit, she said prosecutors had implied she was involved in the crime, threatened to charge her with perjury or obstruction, told her investigators had recovered compromising photos of her and threatened to bring up a delicate personal matter if she did not testify. She said detectives mentioned they knew her father was in prison, telling her that not cooperating was “going to make it hard on him and my family.” She had hoped to work for the United States Marshals and attend law school, and investigators told her to “think about my future,” she said.

Ms. Nicolazzi said Ms. Calciano’s testimony was enough to convict Mr. Giuca. But toward the end of the trial, she introduced yet another theory: A jailhouse informant, John Avitto, testified he had overheard Mr. Giuca admit to having the gun when his father asked him about it during a visit. He said Mr. Giuca had confessed to pistol-whipping and punching Mr. Fisher after Mr. Fisher withdrew only $20 from an A.T.M. near Mr. Giuca’s home; then “another guy” took the gun and shot Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Avitto, too, has recanted, saying he approached prosecutors in hopes of cutting a deal and fabricated his testimony based on newspaper stories. Though facing more prison time after leaving a court-ordered drug treatment program, he said Ms. Nicolazzi personally came to his court hearing, after which he was released again.

“My hope was that the D.A. believed I was useful to them and that in return the D.A. would help me with my case,” Mr. Avitto said in his affidavit.

Compounding Mr. Avitto’s false testimony, Mr. Bederow wrote, was prosecutors’ failure to disclose most of it to Mr. Giuca’s defense lawyer, leaving him little time to prepare — one of several prosecutorial violations Mr. Bederow cites that could undermine the conviction. Yet even when inconsistencies were apparent in other witness statements, Mr. Giuca’s lawyer, Samuel Gregory, did not point them out; he also failed to investigate other leads, Mr. Bederow wrote.

A third witness, Anthony Beharry, testified that he had disposed of a gun from Mr. Giuca’s house after the murder, but has recanted. He said he testified only after prosecutors promised him immunity, threatened to charge him with perjury and implied he would not be able to see his daughter, who was the subject of a custody battle, unless he cooperated.

As for a fourth key witness, Albert Cleary, Mr. Bederow noted what he said were multiple instances in which Mr. Cleary contradicted his own earlier statements, records or others’ testimony.

Mr. Bederow also revived an argument that made headlines in 2008, when Mr. Giuca’s mother revealed she had disguised herself and used a fake identity to seduce one of Mr. Giuca’s jurors. She recorded him admitting he should not have been picked for the jury because he had read news coverage of the case and knew some of the witnesses.

You can't discuss the Charles Hynes railroad without mentioning John Giuca...

There's been a lot of talk recently about John Giuca. I have been following this case for quite some time and I am so glad it looks like this case is finally turning around.

If you haven't been keeping up with your reading, here's the gist of the first article. I'll post about the second one later tonight or tomorrow.

First, the New York Times wrote that John Giuca's attorney, Mark Bederow, was planning to ask the new DA to overturn the conviction citing "serious flaws in the trial and misconduct by prosecutors." (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/nyregion/citing-misconduct-lawyer-seeks-review-of-conviction-in-03-brooklyn-killing.html)


Since the team of prosecutors was lead by Mr. Mike" Misconduct" Vecchione, no surprise there.

Mr. Bederow also points to a conflict of interest involving former DA Hynes and and Susan Cleary, whose son, Albert Cleary, was at one point a suspect in the case himself, and who became the key witness against Mr. Giuca. His involvement in this case has been the subject of some intense scrutiny over the past few years (if anyone watched the Paula Zahn episode about the case- which is now on youtube, you know what I mean. If you haven't watched it, I encourage you to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlhSQ8rqcA).

According to the New York Times:

"Mr. Cleary, ....was on probation in 2003 after assaulting a man and.... had waived the customary immunity that witnesses receive before testifying before the grand jury in the Fisher case, leaving himself open to prosecution.

Facing a challenging Democratic primary in 2005, Mr. Hynes received help in the form of an endorsement from the Brooklyn Republican Party’s executive committee, of which Mr. Cleary’s mother, Susan Cleary, was a member, allowing him to run as a Republican in the general election if he lost the primary. His statement at the time thanked Ms. Cleary for her support."

The article also points out that "Mr. Giuca’s conviction was considered a victory for Mr. Hynes, who was in a tough re-election fight at the time." 

Given this previous election, I think this is a point well proven. 

Before moving on, the article also says this about Mr. Cleary:

"After investigators intensified pressure on witnesses under Mr. Vecchione, two agreed to testify: Albert Cleary, one of the young men’s Brooklyn friends and who lived near Mr. Giuca, and Angel DiPietro, a classmate of Mr. Fisher who went to Mr. Giuca’s house with them. They said that they had been asleep in Mr. Cleary’s house, near where Mr. Fisher’s body was found, but that they had heard no gunshots."

The interesting thing about Angel Dipietro is, if you recall, she was actually hired by the DA's office as an ADA. The village voice's Graham Rayman wrote about this back in June (http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-06-12/news/charles-hynes-murder-witness/). 

The times wrote that: 

"Even after the arrests, Mr. Fisher’s parents said publicly that they believed others in the group of young people partying at Mr. Giuca’s house were involved in the murder. They later sued Ms. DiPietro, saying she had failed to keep Mr. Fisher safe. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2007.

In 2012, Mr. Hynes hired Ms. DiPietro as an assistant district attorney. Her father, James DiPietro, a prominent defense lawyer, has donated to Mr. Hynes several times, including $3,000 in 2012. When political opponents criticized Mr. Hynes for Ms. DiPietro’s hiring last year, he said through a spokesman that it was unrelated to the Fisher case."

 The article goes on: 

“We have thoroughly reinvestigated the case for several months, and none of the incriminating evidence that was presented to the jury was credible,” said Mr. Bederow, who also cast doubt on prosecutors’ theory of the case, saying prosecutors had presented five different chains of events at Mr. Giuca’s trial. “We believe that the entire foundation of the case against him has crumbled.

Mr. Bederow said Mr. Giuca’s prosecution was riddled with police and prosecutorial misconduct, though he declined to describe specific problems. The district attorney’s team in the case included Mr. Hynes’s longtime deputy Michael F. Vecchione, who has been accused of intimidating and coercing witnesses in other cases.

Mr. Vecchione began supervising the Fisher case after investigators spent months trying to persuade several key witnesses in the case to cooperate, to little avail. Some were friends and classmates of Mr. Fisher, a sophomore at Fairfield University, who joined him at an Upper East Side bar that night. Others were people he met that night, including Mr. Giuca, who invited Mr. Fisher and other young people to his home in Prospect Park South for the night."

Prosecutors, apparently, offered an abundance of theories. Per the article: "In one version of events, Mr. Giuca gave Mr. Russo the gun and told him to shoot Mr. Fisher after Mr. Fisher angered Mr. Giuca by sitting on a table; in another, Mr. Giuca and Mr. Russo both shot him." This doesn't really surprise me because, as I recall, the media at the time did say this was first a robbery, then over disrespect, etc. etc.

More to come on this story I am sure. I will post the rest of the articles later.

Let's start on a positive note...

Unfortunately, most of the cases I will repost are people are who currently still in prison (hopefully not for long). But let's start off with two men who were recently released.

This article is from the NY Post. Written by Josh Saul, which I find interesting as he seemed to have been quite the Hynes guy prior to and during the election.

Also interesting to note that Phil Smallman really seems to have a knack for keeping people out of prison...just saying. (http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/01/brooklyn-gop-wilson-pakula-to-hynes-in.html)

DNA clears men after 21 years in prison for family’s murder

Two Brooklyn men locked up for 21 years for a gruesome triple murder walked out of court free on Thursday after new DNA evidence led prosecutors to drop all charges against them.
“It feels amazing, it feels amazing!” Anthony Yarbough, 39, cried out as he strode out into the cold winter air for the first time since he and pal Sharrif Wilson, 37, were convicted of killing his mother, 12-year-old sister and the sister’s friend in 1992.
“This smells a lot better than Attica’s mess hall,” Yarbough said an hour later as he sat with a dozen family members at Junior’s on Atlantic Avenue.

Anthony Yarbough enjoys his BLT

Yarbough stared hungrily at a BLT when a waiter set it before him, but politely waited until his aunt was served her dinner.
Wilson’s release was delayed because of paperwork, but when he finally walked out of court he said, “I’m so happy I can’t even speak.”
But he did say his first meal would be pizza and added, “I want to go get a new iPhone 5, catch up on the times a little bit.”
The two men were convicted even though Yarbough called 911 once he discovered the stabbed bodies and even though both men were hanging out in the West Village at the time the medical examiner believed the murders took place, court papers state.
Last year, DNA evidence taken from under the fingernails of Yarbough’s slain mom was matched to DNA found on a woman raped and killed in 1999 — while Yarbough and Wilson were behind bars.
“In light of the newly discovered evidence, the people move to dismiss the indictments,” Brooklyn prosecutor Mark Hale said to huge cheers from the men’s family.

Sharrif Wilson was freed after 21 years behind bars.

“Your honor, I ask that my client be uncuffed,” said Yarbough defense attorney Philip Smallman.
“Your client will be uncuffed,” said Supreme Court Judge Raymond Guzman. “The judgments of conviction are vacated.”
Riding the elevator from the 19th-floor courtroom down to the lobby, Yarbough was handed three $100 bills by a woman in his family.
“This is $300. Are you tripping?” Yarbough said.
“Tony, take that and put it in your pocket,” she said. “You need a whole new wardrobe, but that’ll get you an outfit at least.”