In any event, here's two recent NYT articles relating to Scumcella:
Notes
Found in Review of Police Work Could Exonerate 2 Convicted in Killing
“Scarcella framed me;
that I knew already. But that they had the name of another person as the actual
murderer? That had me in shock.” — Alvena Jennette
DAMON WINTER / THE
NEW YORK TIMES
By FRANCES ROBLES
April
8, 2014
A
review of homicide convictions stemming from the work of Louis Scarcella, a
Brooklyn detective accused of framing suspects, has turned up a stash of old
handwritten police notes that could exonerate two men convicted of a murder in
1985. One of the men served 21 years in prison; the other died behind bars.
The
notes were in a file tucked away at Police Headquarters and were written by the
first detective assigned to the case. They show that two previously undisclosed
eyewitnesses saw the September 1985 killing of a man named Ronnie Durant, but
they named killers different from the two men who were convicted. The notebook
could have affected the verdict; not turning it over to defense lawyers decades
ago is a serious violation of the rules of criminal procedure, experts said.
It
was the first significant revelation disclosed by the Brooklyn district
attorney’s office in the 11 months since it began a wide-ranging investigation into the work
of Mr. Scarcella, who worked the streets of Brooklyn in the 1980s and 1990s and
is now retired. One of the most successful detectives in New York City history,
he has been accused of a variety of infractions, including roughing up
suspects, inventing confessions and even pulling informers out of prison to
smoke crack and visit prostitutes or girlfriends.
Questions
about Mr. Scarcella prompted the previous district attorney, Charles J. Hynes,
to review all the murder cases in which Mr. Scarcella’s work resulted in a
conviction. But the revelations were so damaging that they contributed to Mr.
Hynes’s surprise defeat in both the primary and general election last year. He
was beaten both times — once running as a Democrat and once as a Republican —
by Kenneth P. Thompson.
“Our
prompt disclosure in this case to the defense counsel and to the court reflects
our determination to review these cases thoroughly and with integrity,” Mr.
Thompson, who took office on Jan. 1, said in a statement.
Mr.
Thompson’s office disclosed the evidence in a letter to Brooklyn’s chief
administrative judge, Matthew J. D’Emic. The letter, signed by Assistant
District Attorney Jessica Wilson of the Conviction Review Unit, said the matter
was under investigation and did not say what action prosecutors would take.
Mr.
Durant, who was known as Pepper, was killed around 12:45 a.m. on Sept. 10,
1985. Witnesses said two men chased him from a spot known for drug dealing on
Park Place in Crown Heights, shot him and stole the money from his pockets. He
was 34.
The
first witness to talk to the police was the victim’s nephew, who blamed two
brothers, Alvena Jennette and Darryl Austin — known as Uni — and another man
who was not charged. The case was dormant for two years because the district
attorney had doubts about the nephew’s character, records show.
The notes show that the first detective assigned to the
case, Bobby Jones, interviewed a witness who said that the brothers helped rob
Mr. Durant but that another man shot him. Another witness interviewed seven
months after the killing said Mr. Jennette and Mr. Austin were standing on a
nearby stoop during the shooting but had nothing to do with it, the notes
revealed.
The
witness implicated another person and even gave Detective Jones the name and
whereabouts of the person who had the gun.
“Uni
was there, but he did not do anything,” Detective Jones wrote after showing a
group of photos to the witness.
“Alvina Jannette standing on stoop. Did not do
anything.”
Mr.
Scarcella, who in interviews has denied any wrongdoing, inherited the Durant
case two years after the murder because it had gone cold. He solved it by
producing testimony from Teresa Gomez, whom he had used in several prior cases.
She identified the two brothers as the killers. With her testimony
corroborating that of the victim’s nephew, and no mention of other witnesses,
charges were filed. Both men were convicted and sentenced to 18 years to life
in prison.
Mr.
Jennette, 50, served almost 21 years in prison for the robbery and murder of
Mr. Durant before he was released on parole in 2007. His co-defendant and
brother died in prison at age 37.
Their
case was reopened last year after The New York Times revealed that the two men
were convicted largely on the word of Ms. Gomez, who had
become a witness for Mr. Scarcella in as many as six murder cases.
“Scarcella
framed me; that I knew already,” Mr. Jennette said. “But that they had the name
of another person as the actual murderer? That had me in shock.”
Detective
Jones, who could not be located for comment, testified at the trial and never
mentioned these witnesses, Mr. Jennette said in a recent interview.
According
to two sources familiar with the investigation, the Brooklyn district attorney’s
office file did not contain the notebook belonging to Mr. Jones. It was not
immediately clear who failed to turn it over to the district attorney’s office,
or whether the prosecutor ever knew about it.
Lawyers
for Mr. Scarcella, Alan M. Abramson and Joel S. Cohen, said there was no
evidence that Mr. Scarcella ever had the notebook, and accused The Times of
engaging in sensational coverage.
“Responsibility
for turning potentially exculpatory material to the defense rests solely with
the district attorney’s office and not with the case detective,” the lawyers
said. “The coverage of Detective Scarcella has been fraught with factual
errors, innuendo and misrepresentations.”
Since
the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors have been obligated
to share exculpatory information with defense lawyers. Violations of this rule
can cause convictions to be overturned.
Although
prosecutors deemed responsible can be disciplined for such violations, it
almost never occurs.
The
assistant district attorney in the case, Eric Bjorneby, is now a judge in
Nassau County. New York State judicial conduct rules say Mr. Bjorneby can still
be disciplined.
Mr.
Bjorneby was on vacation overseas and could not be reached for comment, a court
spokesman said.
The
responsibility to turn the information over fell squarely on the prosecutor,
even if the information was at Police Headquarters, legal experts said.
“You
can’t just stick your head in the sand and say if you don’t know it, you don’t
have any obligation,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York
University School of Law.
Mr.
Jennette’s lawyer, Pierre Sussman, called the failure to disclose the evidence
“reprehensible.”
Mr.
Sussman represents another man, David Ranta, who in February received a $6.4
million settlement from the city after he served 23 years in prison in a murder case lawyers say Mr. Scarcella
largely manufactured. The case was considered so egregious that the city
comptroller settled it before a lawsuit was filed and without consulting the
city attorney.
On
Monday, the Brooklyn district attorney announced that a Harvard Law School
professor, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., had been hired to head the new Conviction
Review Unit.
“They
have information that could exonerate people, but they don’t give it to you,”
Mr. Jennette said. “There are probably thousands of cases like mine.”
Prisoner
to Face Parole Board as Questions Grow About His Conviction
By: Francis Robles
April 13, 2014
Robert
Hill, a former Crown Heights drug dealer, was convicted of murder in 1988 on
the word of a serial eyewitness hooked on crack.
Three
other witnesses who insist Mr. Hill is innocent recently resurfaced, and
defense lawyers have raised new challenges to the credibility of another
witness who testified at the trial.
With
questions about his conviction growing and with 28 of his 53 years spent behind
bars, Mr. Hill is now among a growing number of convicts who hope the New York
State Board of Parole will review their cases with a measure of skepticism and
show mercy.
On
Tuesday, the board will hear a petition from Mr. Hill. For the hearing, Mr.
Hill’s lawyers presented an application explaining that Mr. Hill’s case is one
of about 50 reopened last year by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office
after allegations of misconduct against a police detective,
Louis Scarcella, cast a shadow over convictions in many of Mr. Scarcella’s
cases.
The
petition and others like it have thrust the board into what some experts say is
an awkward and perhaps inappropriate role. As more convictions come under
scrutiny for police and prosecutorial misconduct, commissioners are being asked
to revisit factual questions that are typically beyond the scope of their
mandate.
With
no action yet by the district attorney in the case of Mr. Hill, he and his
lawyers are hoping the Parole Board will act.
“I
am very frustrated,” Mr. Hill said in a telephone interview from Fishkill
Correctional Facility. “After all this came out, I thought that I would be
declared innocent from the court soon. I haven’t heard nothing. I’m stressed
out.”
Although
the parole strategy could work — one inmate in a Scarcella case was recently
released after a petition similar to Mr. Hill’s — Parole Board members have
voiced resistance.
In
January, two parole commissioners balked when the state attorney general’s Conviction
Review Bureau urged the board to release a Nassau County man, Ronald Bower, who
had been convicted of sex offenses. One commissioner asked why prosecutors did
not have the “fortitude” to exonerate the man and instead decided to saddle the
Parole Board with making the tough call.
“It
does put the Parole Board in a very bad position,” one of the parole
commissioners, Lisa Beth Elovich, said in January, according to minutes of the
hearing published by The Long Island Press.
The
parole was granted, and Mr. Bower was released after 21 years in prison.
Although
the parole board historically required inmates to express remorse for their
crimes, an increasing awareness of wrongful convictions has opened the door for
inmates to assert their innocence.
At
his hearing, Mr. Hill will have to explain why he expressed remorse at two
prior parole hearings. A lawyer for Mr. Hill said he did so because he believed
that was a requirement for release. “It is unfortunate that our system of
justice at times leads people to believe they have no choice but to admit to
things they have not done,” said the lawyer, Sharon Katz, who is working free
on Mr. Hill’s case.
The
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision does not
track the number of inmates who claim innocence at their hearings. A spokesman
for the agency declined to comment.
In
January 1987, when Mr. Hill was a drug dealer known as Bobby Love, a man named
Donald Manboardes turned up at Kings County Hospital with gunshot wounds. All
the police knew was that someone had flagged a taxi in Crown Heights, put the
wounded Mr. Manboardes in the car, and sent him on his own to get medical
assistance. Mr. Manboardes died.
Mr.
Hill was arrested a few months later and charged in the killing, after an
unhappy customer of Mr. Hill’s told Detective Scarcella that she saw Mr. Hill
shoot the victim on a Rogers Avenue corner and put him into a taxi with the
help of a woman and two men.
The
witness, Teresa Gomez, got the color of the cab and a few other important
details wrong. When she took the stand in court, she was belligerent and
answered basic biographical questions about herself incorrectly, the trial
transcript shows.
Even
the prosecutor once described her as a woman ravaged from head to toe by crack
whom no one would ever find credible.
The
jury did not know that Ms. Gomez had already testified as an eyewitness against
Mr. Hill in a previous murder trial, in which he was acquitted.
She later testified against Mr. Hill’s two brothers,
and was known to have offered information on countless neighborhood crimes in
exchange for cash, according to former police supervisors in Brooklyn. In all,
prosecutors say, she provided crucial testimony in at least six homicide cases,
all of which were assigned to Detective Scarcella.
The
doubts about Mr. Scarcella’s reliance on the same witness prompted Legal Aid
Society lawyers to look further into the background of another woman who was a
witness at Mr. Hill’s trial and who testified she overheard him boast that he
had killed once before and could kill again.
The
Legal Aid lawyers discovered that the woman testified in another trial less
than a year after Mr. Hill’s conviction and that, in testimony very similar to
what she gave against Mr. Hill, she told jurors that the defendant had said he
had killed before and would kill again.
Both
that witness and Ms. Gomez are now dead.
Mr.
Hill admits that he put the dying man in a cab, but denies that he murdered
him.
“I
never killed nobody,” said Mr. Hill, who expressed regret for his past
lifestyle.
Mr.
Hill’s case was reopened last May as The New York Times was investigating the
case and others in which Mr. Scarcella was accused of misconduct.
By
then Mr. Scarcella had been accused by the Brooklyn district attorney of
manufacturing a case against David Ranta,
a man who spent 23 years in prison for a murder he almost certainly did not
commit. Court records show Mr. Scarcella has been accused of making up
confessions, roughing up suspects and taking informers out of jail and letting
them smoke crack.
Mr.
Scarcella has denied wrongdoing. His lawyers say that it is the detective who
has been falsely accused.
“Despite
New York Times stories to the contrary, no defendant investigated, interviewed
or questioned by Mr. Scarcella, including David Ranta, has been exonerated or
proven to be innocent,” his lawyers, Alan M. Abramson and Joel S. Cohen, said
in a statement.
A
spokeswoman for the Brooklyn district attorney, Kenneth P. Thompson, declined
to say whether the office had taken a position on Mr. Hill’s parole.
Mr.
Hill should be released because of his improving prison record and his deteriorating
health, Ms. Katz said. Mr. Hill has multiple sclerosis.
Robert
Dennison, a former Parole Board chairman who now works as an inmate advocate,
said the previous admissions of guilt could be a tough hurdle for Mr. Hill.
However, he noted that Sundhe Moses,
another inmate convicted in a case investigated by Mr.
Scarcella, was released after pleading innocence and documenting discrepancies
in his case.
“The
Parole Board is supposed to measure remorse, which is something that is very
difficult to do when someone comes in and says, ‘Look, I’m not guilty, even
though society found me guilty,’ ” said Mr. Dennison, who wrote a letter to the
Parole Board on Mr. Hill’s behalf. “It puts him in a difficult, but not
insurmountable, position.”
Correction: April 17, 2014
An
article in some editions on Monday about the coming parole hearing for Robert
Hill, whose conviction in the killing of Donald Manboardes is one of the cases
reopened after allegations of misconduct against the detective Louis Scarcella,
misstated the month and the year that Mr. Manboardes was fatally shot. It was
January 1987, not December 1986.
No comments:
Post a Comment