Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
‘Gerrie’ Post And Wayne Charles Go To
Prosecutor-Predicted Four Week Trial
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
The fraud case of former Mount Vernon Planning, and Housing Commissioner, Constance Post, 59, better known to her friends and people around
City Hall as ‘Gerrie’, and her reputed lover, Wayne Charles, a small-time real estate speculator and developer, finally got underway last Tuesday afternoon following a weather cancellation on Monday, and the need for District Court Judge Kenneth M. Karas to deal with three of the 16
jurors who had been seated the previous Friday.
The thrust of the Government’s case against the pair involves the alleged steering of some $2.3 million in loans and city contracts by Post to Charles over several years, for which lead Prosecutor Cynthia Dunne told the jury, in her opening statement, “The evidence will show that while Charles was riding high, he gave post $30,000.”
Assistant United States Attorney Dunne, who readers will recall is also the lead prosecutor in the Paul Cote case, told the jurors, “This case is about fraud, theft, and corruption,” explaining that it was Post’s calculated intention to wrongfully enrich Wayne Charles, 56, and ultimately enter into business with him. Attempting to tie the Defendants tightly together in a common scheme, Dunne declared, “It’s about two people who lied and cheated to enrich themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Dunne said, “The most important Defendant is Constance Post. Post, and her very close friend, took advantage of funds available. Post made it
a priority to see that Mr. Charles got city contracts.”
Labeling it, “A brief overview,’ Dunne launched into the history of the company known as Micros Only, previously owned and operated by an associate of Charles, named Dante Brown. She explained how Charles, without Brown’s knowledge, set up checking accounts in the name of Micros Only Computer Concepts, Inc., thereby establishing a vehicle and depository into which funds from the City of Mount Vernon, in payment for computer technology services, ostensibly performed by Micros Only, could be deposited and disbursed under the control of Wayne Charles. Dunne explained that Charles involved his sister in the setting up and servicing of the bank accounts, thereby avoiding recognition and identification
with the flow of funds. Dunne explained that Post went far beyond steering computer technology business to Charles’ fraudulent business, declaring,
“Post took additional steps. She used HUD funds which were meant for housing and recreational uses.”
She explained further, to the jurors, “The City Council had placed specific caps on how much could be paid to Micros. When $80,000 was authorized, she [Post], in fact, released $335,000.”
Dunne indicated that in the following year Post moved more than $600,000 to Wayne Charles’ businesses, and, that when the City tightened the reins, she saw to it that her close friend obtained “A $500,000 loan by fraud as “Charles falsely swore he had no other relationship with the City.”
Dunne then pointed out to the jury that Mr. Charles had only repaid half of the loan, and that was several years later. Dunne went on to explain that there was a garage security contract for which Charles received $700,000, “even though he had no employees.” She pointed to the figure on a projection screen, to the jury, of $2,356,083.77 as the Government’s calculated “total of the funds that post arranged to be paid to Charles.”
Dunne assured the jurors that there would be abundant proof, “the testimony of many witnesses, lots of records and charts, the Defendant’s [Constance Post] very own words at public meetings.”
She concluded, telling the jury, “It’s about improper secret dealings, misuse of federal money, private benefits to the Defendants, and the abuse of trust to steer $2.3 million to Charles.”
Dunne then made the very high-minded statement, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants.” Her opening statement took 38 minutes.
Defense Attorney Andrew Rubin, representing Gerrie Post, opened his comments with, “You just heard a lot of awful bad things about Ms. Post. The Government doesn’t have any evidence of any crimes Ms. Post has committed, any crimes.”
To illustrate his point Rubin said, “Wick Security [a firm put together by Wayne Charles] was a closed bid and Ms. Post had nothing to do with it.”
Rubin went on, “The Government will not be able to prove that Gerrie Post defrauded the City of Mount Vernon out of property or out of her honest services.”
Having said that, he reminded the jury, “The standard is whether the Government proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no evidence of
a business relationship between Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles.”
He informed the jurors that Post had worked for Mount Vernon for 27 years, under Mayors Sharpe, Blackwood, and Davis. He did “admit”, however, that there had been some sloppy record keeping on his client’s watch. He then turned stern and declared, “The Government will not be able to prove that she knew of Wayne Charles’ ownership of Micros Only.”
Then turning to the $500,000 loan that Charles had received, Attorney Rubin said, “Thirty three building owners received grants. Eleven loans were given out, and four loans were lost. The City of Mount Vernon got the benefit of the bargain for what it paid.”
Attempting to put his client’s position in perspective, Rubin told the jurors, “She presented hundreds of proposals over a 15-year period. This case is based upon innuendo and speculation.” His remarks on behalf of Gerrie Post took all of 22 minutes.
Attorney Richard Levitt, speaking on behalf of Wayne Charles, immediately acknowledged that his client, “doesn’t dot every ‘i’ or cross every ‘t’.”
He quickly shifted his comments to his client’s project on Third Street, the building improvement for which he had reportedly borrowed the $500,000. He emphasized to the jurors, “The Third Street corridor was dirty and dangerous,” by way of putting his client into a favorable light for having attempted, and succeeded, in rehabilitating the small, multi-family dwelling at a rat-infested, filthy site.
Levitt told the jury of his client’s trips to China in 1997 and 1998, accompanied by Mayor Davis and Gerrie Post. He explained that it was during those trips that his client got to know Gerrie Post.
He attempted to clarify the charges against Charles: two frauds, the $500,000 loan, and the Micros Only contract, plus a charge of having made false statements to government agents when he was questioned.
Levitt concluded, telling the jurors, “This case is not about the Charles/Post relationship.” He assured them that his client “Didn’t intend to defraud, and did not conspire to deny Mount Vernon Ms. Post’s honest services.”
Analysis:
It would appear up-front that this case is going to be a typical Cynthia Dunne prosecution. By that I mean it is obvious, upon examining the three-count, 13-page indictment against Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles, given the Prosecution’s promise of 40 witnesses, that what will be brought
out will read like a badly redacted, cut-and-pasted soap opera, wherein a substantial cast of supporting actors will be covered up as the story line jumps from one scene to another, in a concerted effort to not reveal the actionable activities of co-conspirators-turned-Government-witnesses;
maybe even Ernie Davis, himself.
It is simply Attorney Dunne’s style to leave on the cutting room floor so much truth as is necessary to more convincingly project the confabulation she believes works best for her in terms of getting a conviction of those she chooses to destroy.
For example, in the Paul Cote case, the Prosecutor who just told this jury, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants,” chose to prosecute the man she knew damned well was not responsible for inmate Zorn Teodorovic’s ultimate death by using the man, John Mark Reimer, who was responsible, as her key witness. ‘Where is public servant Cynthia Dunne’s integrity?’
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
So much for the Prosecution’s case.
As for Defense strategy, it would appear that both Andy Rubin, for Post, and Richard Levitt, for Charles, hope to convince the jurors that what transpired between their clients, as well as between them and numerous so-called public servants in the City of Mount Vernon Municipal Administration for some eight years, until 2005, was so common around City Hall as to be hardly worthy of mention, much less federal
prosecution.
If, aside from a trash hauler with an established problem with the law, and a sanitation supervisor with whom he did business with the City, Gerrie Post and her boyfriend, Wayne Charles, are all that Michael Garcia & Co. could pull out of Mount Vernon after three-plus years of intensive investigation, with high public participation, then we have a sense something isn’t quite right about that investigation and the present prosecution.
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Jeffrey Deskovic.
Jeff Deskovic.
Georgetown University Law School Conference
Supports William Osbourne, Part 1
Last Monday, March 2, The Innocence Project argued the case of William Osbourne before the United States Supreme Court. The central issue
in the Osbourne case is whether or not defendants have a Constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing which can prove innocence.
In order to raise public awareness of the profound implications of this case, an event was held a few days earlier, on February 26, at Georgetown
University’s Law School. Shawn Amherst, the executive director of The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, was the Moderator. One of the goals of the project is to prevent and correct wrongful convictions in Maryland and the District of Columbia. She said that her organization was very excited to be there, co-sponsoring the event, along with the Georgetown Office of Public Service and Community Service as well as The Innocence Project.
Amherst stated that the case had broad implications, and that many people have an interest in its outcome. In the audience that day were people
who have had personal experiences with wrongful convictions: exonerees, a police officer who has experience with wrongful conviction cases, and a victim who misidentified her rapist and is now working to get him exonerated. Those people, she said, represented many more people across the country who could not be there that day.
To begin things, Amherst called up Professor David Rudovsky to offer background information on the Osbourne case. She stated that Rudovsky is a Senior Fellow at the University Of Pennsylvania’s School of Law, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on criminal law, Constitutional
Criminal Procedures and Evidence, and one of the leading minds on federal post-conviction remedies, which are the very issues raised by the Osbourne case.
Rudovsky started off by giving a factual background of the case. William Osbourne was convicted of rape in 1993 by the state of Alaska. As with
many wrongful conviction cases, it was a brutal crime. Two assailants attacked and raped the victim. One of the rapists, Dexter Jackson, was
apprehended. Jackson proceeded to implicate Osbourne. The identification that the victim gave did not really fit Osbourne and was tentative,
although at trial she identified him.
The rapist who penetrated the victim took off a blue condom that was recovered and had seminal fluid in it. In 1993 DQ-Alpha DNA was being utilized in Alaska, and with that type of testing the best that the state could determine was that Osbourne fit within 14 to 16% of the population who would have secreted as he did, which is no more accurate than blood type testing.
For eight years Osbourne has been seeking, unsuccessfully, more sophisticated DNA testing, which the district attorney in Alaska has been successfully blocking. He finally won the right to the testing at the United States Court Of Appeals, and now an Alaskan District Attorney’s Office has appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. After Osbourne won the right to the testing, the district attorney admitted, for the first time, that the DNA Test, if performed, would conclusively show guilt or innocence.
Despite this public acknowledgment, he nonetheless continues to fight the testing. The Innocence Project has stated publicly, a number of times,
that although they don’t know whether Osbourne is guilty or innocent, he has the right to the testing. While being mindful of Mr. Osbourne’s rights, they are also aware that much more than his rights are on the line. The Constitution requires, they argue, that all citizens have the right to such testing in order to be able to prove their innocence. The district attorney has put forth the argument that the request for testing is frivolous in light of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt”, in addition that it would open the floodgates of litigation, and, finally, the public has a legitimate right to finality. Commenting on these arguments, Rudovsky stated that in many other cases where there was said to be overwhelming evidence of guilt, DNA has proven people innocent. Furthermore, there would not be a flood of litigation if Osbourne won because it would establish as law across the land that states must grant testing.
An amicus brief is a brief filed by people who are not parties to the instant case but who believe that their rights will be affected by the decision
and therefore want to make their position known, while citing law in an effort to support their position. The amicus briefs filed on behalf of Osbourne include those from current and former prosecutors, crime victims and victims’ families, people exonerated with post conviction DNA
testing, civil liberties and legal rights organizations, people who received clemency through post-conviction DNA testing.
The amicus briefs filed in support of Alaska include: the City of New York, an amicus brief from 31 U.S. States, briefs from the city, state and county associations, an amicus from crime victims, and a brief from the United States of America. The various states who argued on behalf of Alaska do so by arguing, in a nutshell, states rights: that states should be able set their own rules to decide for themselves whether to grant testing.
In order to give readers an even greater sense of the issue involved in this case, I decided to include an excerpt of a press release by The Innocence
Project: “The issue in this case is whether a state can deny a prisoner access to DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial and has the potential to prove his innocence. In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to testing without a court order. Alaska is the exception. It is the only state in the nation with no known case of a prisoner receiving DNA testing, either through court order or a prosecutor’s consent.
‘This case involves a very important Constitutional protection – one that is the only option for William Osborne,’ said Peter Neufeld, Co- Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the state conceded for the first time that favorable DNA testing ‘would conclusively establish [Osborne’s] innocence’ – raising more questions about why the state will not simply consent to DNA testing.
The testing would come at no cost to the state, since the Innocence Project will pay for it, as the organization does in most of its cases. In its Supreme Court brief, the state makes procedural claims against Osborne’s lawsuit seeking DNA testing but never gives a rationale for denying him access to testing itself. In oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel repeatedly questioned the state’s attorneys about why they are denying Osborne access to DNA testing. The attorneys said they were not ‘willing or able’ to answer any of those questions ‘at this time.’
The case before the Supreme Court does not seek to overturn Osborne’s conviction or challenge any part of the process leading to his conviction
– instead, it challenges the government’s arbitrary refusal to permit him access to the evidence in his case so that it can be subjected to testing
that was not available at the time of his trial. ‘DNA technology is new, but the principles in this case have a long and rich tradition. For decades,
the Supreme Court has recognized that defendants need access to evidence and the People’s right to liberty must be protected even after they
are convicted. More recently, courts across the country have recognized the power of DNA testing to resolve claims of innocence,’ Neufeld said.
‘Most prosecutors, judges and states recognize that while DNA testing in these cases may not always protect a conviction, it protects our system of justice by revealing the truth.’” Wanting to get the perspectives of people who have been exonerated by DNA testing, Ms. Amherst then
called Marvin Anderson to speak. According to The Innocence Project’s website, the facts of his case are: “On December 14, 1982, then
eighteen years old, he was convicted by a jury of robbery, forcible sodomy, abduction, and two counts of rape. The court sentenced Anderson to a
total of two hundred and ten years imprisonment in the Virginia State Penitentiary. Anderson went to prison in 1983 and was released after fifteen
years, facing lifetime parole. After being paroled, Anderson continued his efforts to clear his name. A young white woman was brutally raped on
July 17, 1982, by a black man who was a total stranger. He approached her on a bicycle. The assailant beat her repeatedly, threatened her with
a gun, raped her, and sodomized her.
After she reported the crime, a police officer singled out Marvin Anderson as a suspect because the perpetrator had told the victim that he ‘had a
white girl,’ and Marvin Anderson was the only black man the officer knew who lived with a white woman. Because Anderson had no criminal
record, the officer went to Anderson’s employer and obtained a color employment photo identification card. The victim was shown the color identification card and a half dozen black and white mug shots and then asked to pick the perpetrator. The victim identified Anderson as her assailant. Within an hour of the photo spread, she was asked to identify her assailant from a lineup. Marvin Anderson was the only person in the lineup whose picture was in the original photo array shown to the victim. She identified him in the lineup as well.
At trial, the victim testified in detail regarding the assault. In addition to the rape, she testified that her assailant pried her mouth open and inserted his penis and that he forced her to consume fecal matter and urinated on her. She again identified Anderson as her assailant. The serology work completed by the Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science was uninformative. Anderson’s trial counsel offered an alibi defense which included Anderson’s white girlfriend.
From the very beginning of the case, people in the community became aware that the most likely suspect was another black man named John Otis
Lincoln. The bicycle that had been identified as being used by the assailant was identified by the owner, who said that Lincoln had stolen it from him approximately one half hour before the rape. Although Anderson requested that his attorney call both the owner of the bicycle and Lincoln as witnesses, his counsel declined. An all white jury convicted Anderson on all counts. Although it was his first conflict with the law, he received consecutive sentences totaling two hundred and ten years.
In 1988, John Otis Lincoln came forward and admitted his involvement in the crime in an effort to clear Anderson. At a state habeas hearing in
August 1988, Lincoln confessed and offered details of the crime under oath, in open court. Nevertheless, the same judge that presided over the original trial declared Lincoln a liar and refused to vacate the conviction. A coalition of civil rights groups, church leaders, and members of the state legislature petitioned then-Governor Wilder for clemency in 1993, which was denied.
In the years after his conviction, after DNA testing became widely available, Anderson sought to prove his innocence of the crime. He insisted that the spermatozoa and semen samples be subjected to DNA analysis. His lawyers were told by the police, prosecutor, and court that the rape kit and its contents had been destroyed. Anderson then contacted the Innocence Project and his case was accepted in 1994.
In 2001, Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, advised the Innocence Project that certain physical evidence from
the case - including sperm and semen samples recovered from the victim’s body - had been located in the laboratory notebook of the criminalist who performed conventional serology in 1982. Had that criminalist followed policy and returned the partially used swabs to the rape kit, all evidence in this case would have been forever lost.
The Innocence Project contacted the Commonwealth Attorney for Hanover County, who agreed that the Division of Forensic Science should
conduct DNA tests on the evidence. In April 2001, however, the Director of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services denied the request for testing, stating that because of ‘[t]he current number of cases pending in the Division and the potential for establishing an unwelcome precedent,’ and that Department would permit post-conviction scientific testing ‘only upon a defendant’s attorney showing ample cause for the court or the Governor’s Office to order such testing.’
In May 2001, Virginia adopted a new statute, VA Code Sec. 19.2-327.1, that permits individuals convicted of a felony to move the Circuit Court
that entered the original conviction to order new scientific analysis of previously untested scientific evidence. The Innocence Project, in conjunction with the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region at American University, filed under this new statute and won in the fall of 2001, initiating the process of getting the evidence in Anderson’s case tested.
Results on December 6, 2001, excluded Anderson as the perpetrator. Because the evidence was heavily degraded, the profile obtained was limited to four STR markers. When the profile was run against Virginia’s convicted offender DNA database, it matched two inmates. Although the identity of these two men has not been officially revealed, it appears that one of the inmates is John Otis Lincoln. Marvin Anderson spent fifteen years
in prison and four years on parole fighting to prove his innocence.
Following the recitation of his case, Johnson added that he never gave up. He stated that when a person is wrongfully convicted their lives stop, their families lives stop, and that even a person’s name stops. Now that he has been cleared, both his family and he are able to walk with their heads held high. He concluded by saying that he prays that the U.S. Supreme Court rules in behalf of Osbourne, allowing him to get the testing while also granting every citizen the right to the testing.
Dennis Fritz stated that he had spent 11 years in prison for a murder he was proven innocent of, and that his now deceased co-defendant, Ron
Williamson, had been sentenced to death. Fritz had been wrongfully convicted based upon a jailhouse informant claiming that Fritz had confessed.
This confession came one day before the prosecution would have been forced to drop its case against him. The main witness against the two was a man named Glen Gore, who DNA testing later proved was the actual perpetrator. Additionally, police had statements from Williamson regarding a
dream he had about the crime. Fritz stated that he remembered fighting for the DNA testing and thus he empathized with Osbourne.
Georgetown University Law School Conference
Supports William Osbourne, Part 1
Last Monday, March 2, The Innocence Project argued the case of William Osbourne before the United States Supreme Court. The central issue
in the Osbourne case is whether or not defendants have a Constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing which can prove innocence.
In order to raise public awareness of the profound implications of this case, an event was held a few days earlier, on February 26, at Georgetown
University’s Law School. Shawn Amherst, the executive director of The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, was the Moderator. One of the goals of the project is to prevent and correct wrongful convictions in Maryland and the District of Columbia. She said that her organization was very excited to be there, co-sponsoring the event, along with the Georgetown Office of Public Service and Community Service as well as The Innocence Project.
Amherst stated that the case had broad implications, and that many people have an interest in its outcome. In the audience that day were people
who have had personal experiences with wrongful convictions: exonerees, a police officer who has experience with wrongful conviction cases, and a victim who misidentified her rapist and is now working to get him exonerated. Those people, she said, represented many more people across the country who could not be there that day.
To begin things, Amherst called up Professor David Rudovsky to offer background information on the Osbourne case. She stated that Rudovsky is a Senior Fellow at the University Of Pennsylvania’s School of Law, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on criminal law, Constitutional
Criminal Procedures and Evidence, and one of the leading minds on federal post-conviction remedies, which are the very issues raised by the Osbourne case.
Rudovsky started off by giving a factual background of the case. William Osbourne was convicted of rape in 1993 by the state of Alaska. As with
many wrongful conviction cases, it was a brutal crime. Two assailants attacked and raped the victim. One of the rapists, Dexter Jackson, was
apprehended. Jackson proceeded to implicate Osbourne. The identification that the victim gave did not really fit Osbourne and was tentative,
although at trial she identified him.
The rapist who penetrated the victim took off a blue condom that was recovered and had seminal fluid in it. In 1993 DQ-Alpha DNA was being utilized in Alaska, and with that type of testing the best that the state could determine was that Osbourne fit within 14 to 16% of the population who would have secreted as he did, which is no more accurate than blood type testing.
For eight years Osbourne has been seeking, unsuccessfully, more sophisticated DNA testing, which the district attorney in Alaska has been successfully blocking. He finally won the right to the testing at the United States Court Of Appeals, and now an Alaskan District Attorney’s Office has appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. After Osbourne won the right to the testing, the district attorney admitted, for the first time, that the DNA Test, if performed, would conclusively show guilt or innocence.
Despite this public acknowledgment, he nonetheless continues to fight the testing. The Innocence Project has stated publicly, a number of times,
that although they don’t know whether Osbourne is guilty or innocent, he has the right to the testing. While being mindful of Mr. Osbourne’s rights, they are also aware that much more than his rights are on the line. The Constitution requires, they argue, that all citizens have the right to such testing in order to be able to prove their innocence. The district attorney has put forth the argument that the request for testing is frivolous in light of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt”, in addition that it would open the floodgates of litigation, and, finally, the public has a legitimate right to finality. Commenting on these arguments, Rudovsky stated that in many other cases where there was said to be overwhelming evidence of guilt, DNA has proven people innocent. Furthermore, there would not be a flood of litigation if Osbourne won because it would establish as law across the land that states must grant testing.
An amicus brief is a brief filed by people who are not parties to the instant case but who believe that their rights will be affected by the decision
and therefore want to make their position known, while citing law in an effort to support their position. The amicus briefs filed on behalf of Osbourne include those from current and former prosecutors, crime victims and victims’ families, people exonerated with post conviction DNA
testing, civil liberties and legal rights organizations, people who received clemency through post-conviction DNA testing.
The amicus briefs filed in support of Alaska include: the City of New York, an amicus brief from 31 U.S. States, briefs from the city, state and county associations, an amicus from crime victims, and a brief from the United States of America. The various states who argued on behalf of Alaska do so by arguing, in a nutshell, states rights: that states should be able set their own rules to decide for themselves whether to grant testing.
In order to give readers an even greater sense of the issue involved in this case, I decided to include an excerpt of a press release by The Innocence
Project: “The issue in this case is whether a state can deny a prisoner access to DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial and has the potential to prove his innocence. In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to testing without a court order. Alaska is the exception. It is the only state in the nation with no known case of a prisoner receiving DNA testing, either through court order or a prosecutor’s consent.
‘This case involves a very important Constitutional protection – one that is the only option for William Osborne,’ said Peter Neufeld, Co- Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the state conceded for the first time that favorable DNA testing ‘would conclusively establish [Osborne’s] innocence’ – raising more questions about why the state will not simply consent to DNA testing.
The testing would come at no cost to the state, since the Innocence Project will pay for it, as the organization does in most of its cases. In its Supreme Court brief, the state makes procedural claims against Osborne’s lawsuit seeking DNA testing but never gives a rationale for denying him access to testing itself. In oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel repeatedly questioned the state’s attorneys about why they are denying Osborne access to DNA testing. The attorneys said they were not ‘willing or able’ to answer any of those questions ‘at this time.’
The case before the Supreme Court does not seek to overturn Osborne’s conviction or challenge any part of the process leading to his conviction
– instead, it challenges the government’s arbitrary refusal to permit him access to the evidence in his case so that it can be subjected to testing
that was not available at the time of his trial. ‘DNA technology is new, but the principles in this case have a long and rich tradition. For decades,
the Supreme Court has recognized that defendants need access to evidence and the People’s right to liberty must be protected even after they
are convicted. More recently, courts across the country have recognized the power of DNA testing to resolve claims of innocence,’ Neufeld said.
‘Most prosecutors, judges and states recognize that while DNA testing in these cases may not always protect a conviction, it protects our system of justice by revealing the truth.’” Wanting to get the perspectives of people who have been exonerated by DNA testing, Ms. Amherst then
called Marvin Anderson to speak. According to The Innocence Project’s website, the facts of his case are: “On December 14, 1982, then
eighteen years old, he was convicted by a jury of robbery, forcible sodomy, abduction, and two counts of rape. The court sentenced Anderson to a
total of two hundred and ten years imprisonment in the Virginia State Penitentiary. Anderson went to prison in 1983 and was released after fifteen
years, facing lifetime parole. After being paroled, Anderson continued his efforts to clear his name. A young white woman was brutally raped on
July 17, 1982, by a black man who was a total stranger. He approached her on a bicycle. The assailant beat her repeatedly, threatened her with
a gun, raped her, and sodomized her.
After she reported the crime, a police officer singled out Marvin Anderson as a suspect because the perpetrator had told the victim that he ‘had a
white girl,’ and Marvin Anderson was the only black man the officer knew who lived with a white woman. Because Anderson had no criminal
record, the officer went to Anderson’s employer and obtained a color employment photo identification card. The victim was shown the color identification card and a half dozen black and white mug shots and then asked to pick the perpetrator. The victim identified Anderson as her assailant. Within an hour of the photo spread, she was asked to identify her assailant from a lineup. Marvin Anderson was the only person in the lineup whose picture was in the original photo array shown to the victim. She identified him in the lineup as well.
At trial, the victim testified in detail regarding the assault. In addition to the rape, she testified that her assailant pried her mouth open and inserted his penis and that he forced her to consume fecal matter and urinated on her. She again identified Anderson as her assailant. The serology work completed by the Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science was uninformative. Anderson’s trial counsel offered an alibi defense which included Anderson’s white girlfriend.
From the very beginning of the case, people in the community became aware that the most likely suspect was another black man named John Otis
Lincoln. The bicycle that had been identified as being used by the assailant was identified by the owner, who said that Lincoln had stolen it from him approximately one half hour before the rape. Although Anderson requested that his attorney call both the owner of the bicycle and Lincoln as witnesses, his counsel declined. An all white jury convicted Anderson on all counts. Although it was his first conflict with the law, he received consecutive sentences totaling two hundred and ten years.
In 1988, John Otis Lincoln came forward and admitted his involvement in the crime in an effort to clear Anderson. At a state habeas hearing in
August 1988, Lincoln confessed and offered details of the crime under oath, in open court. Nevertheless, the same judge that presided over the original trial declared Lincoln a liar and refused to vacate the conviction. A coalition of civil rights groups, church leaders, and members of the state legislature petitioned then-Governor Wilder for clemency in 1993, which was denied.
In the years after his conviction, after DNA testing became widely available, Anderson sought to prove his innocence of the crime. He insisted that the spermatozoa and semen samples be subjected to DNA analysis. His lawyers were told by the police, prosecutor, and court that the rape kit and its contents had been destroyed. Anderson then contacted the Innocence Project and his case was accepted in 1994.
In 2001, Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, advised the Innocence Project that certain physical evidence from
the case - including sperm and semen samples recovered from the victim’s body - had been located in the laboratory notebook of the criminalist who performed conventional serology in 1982. Had that criminalist followed policy and returned the partially used swabs to the rape kit, all evidence in this case would have been forever lost.
The Innocence Project contacted the Commonwealth Attorney for Hanover County, who agreed that the Division of Forensic Science should
conduct DNA tests on the evidence. In April 2001, however, the Director of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services denied the request for testing, stating that because of ‘[t]he current number of cases pending in the Division and the potential for establishing an unwelcome precedent,’ and that Department would permit post-conviction scientific testing ‘only upon a defendant’s attorney showing ample cause for the court or the Governor’s Office to order such testing.’
In May 2001, Virginia adopted a new statute, VA Code Sec. 19.2-327.1, that permits individuals convicted of a felony to move the Circuit Court
that entered the original conviction to order new scientific analysis of previously untested scientific evidence. The Innocence Project, in conjunction with the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region at American University, filed under this new statute and won in the fall of 2001, initiating the process of getting the evidence in Anderson’s case tested.
Results on December 6, 2001, excluded Anderson as the perpetrator. Because the evidence was heavily degraded, the profile obtained was limited to four STR markers. When the profile was run against Virginia’s convicted offender DNA database, it matched two inmates. Although the identity of these two men has not been officially revealed, it appears that one of the inmates is John Otis Lincoln. Marvin Anderson spent fifteen years
in prison and four years on parole fighting to prove his innocence.
Following the recitation of his case, Johnson added that he never gave up. He stated that when a person is wrongfully convicted their lives stop, their families lives stop, and that even a person’s name stops. Now that he has been cleared, both his family and he are able to walk with their heads held high. He concluded by saying that he prays that the U.S. Supreme Court rules in behalf of Osbourne, allowing him to get the testing while also granting every citizen the right to the testing.
Dennis Fritz stated that he had spent 11 years in prison for a murder he was proven innocent of, and that his now deceased co-defendant, Ron
Williamson, had been sentenced to death. Fritz had been wrongfully convicted based upon a jailhouse informant claiming that Fritz had confessed.
This confession came one day before the prosecution would have been forced to drop its case against him. The main witness against the two was a man named Glen Gore, who DNA testing later proved was the actual perpetrator. Additionally, police had statements from Williamson regarding a
dream he had about the crime. Fritz stated that he remembered fighting for the DNA testing and thus he empathized with Osbourne.
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Pride of New York
The New York State Department of Agriculture (NYSDA) has been ahead of the curve for 14 years in developing economic stimulus programs. Started in 1995, the NYSDA has been encouraging the use of New York State products in its “Pride of New York” program.
Originally developed to assist New York State farmers with their marketing efforts, the Pride of New York program has recently shifted
its focus to area restaurants and chefs and local consumers. Mr. Robert Lewis, the Special Assistant for Market Development for the NYSDA spoke to the Guardian about their stimulus programs already in place. “We are the marketing arm for local farmers,” Lewis noted.
“Our job is to encourage restaurants and consumers to buy local products.
With our ‘Pride of New York’ program we have a valuable franchise. We are encouraging local producers and restaurants to sign up and
display our logo in their windows so consumers can be assured they are helping the local economy”. A consumer seeing the green and
white logo in a supermarket or restaurant window can be assured that the establishment is serving New York products.
“This is not an ‘all or nothing’ venture” Lewis explained. “We know restaurants and supermarkets cannot just purchase only New York State products. But the restaurants who join our program, however, are saying to their customers that they are trying to buy as much as possible from local vendors and farmers. And we’ll stand behind their guarantees”.
On the NYSDA website, www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/PrideOfNY, a Westchester resident can search for local food producers, farmers’
markets, and restaurants dedicated to using New York State products. In addition to local supermarkets and farmers’ markets and distributors, several Westchester producers have already joined the Pride program:
Krasdale Foods, White Plains: Grocery Wholesaler
Artuso Pastry, Mt. Vernon:
Bakery Barrie House Coffee, Yonkers: Coffee Manufacturer
Bombay Emerald Chutney, Yorktown: Gourmet Chutneys
Captain Lawrence Brewing, Pleasantville: Microbrewery
Carrillo’s Salsa, Rye: Gourmet Salsa
Joes BQ, Purchase: Barbeque Sauce
Raw Indulgence, Ardsley:
Raw Foods
Soul Veggie Delicious, Mt. Vernon: Speciality Foods
To date there is only one Westchester restaurant signed up for the “Pride of New York” program – the Iron Horse Grill in Pleasantville.
In upstate New York, the pattern is much different. Scores of local restaurants and even college dining halls such as the University of Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology are all participants of the Pride program and strive to use New York State food products in their menus.
And they have a wealth of producers to choose from. According to the NYSDA, 25% of the State’s land is farmland; the State has over 26 million square feet of greenhouses, is the third largest producer of maple syrup and milk in the nation, has over 60 microbreweries, and is the largest grapejuice-producing state in the country.
At the International Restaurant and Wine Expo in the Javits Convention Center in New York City recently, the NYSDA set up an entire “Pride of New York” section dedicated to local wineries and food producers, many of whom were from the Hudson Valley area.
The Guardian spoke at length to several of the vendors displayed. The owner of “My Brother Bobby’s Salsa”, Robert Gropper, of Poughkeepsie proudly told us that his salsa was definitely a food product that New York could be proud of – it was voted best overall product in its first appearance at the Restaurant Show in 2000. Gropper’s pride in his products and upbeat attitude was infectious: “What recession?” he boomed. “I’ve had my best January ever”.
Gropper has noticed that the consumer end of his business is increasing: “Families are eating out less, but they want good food at home. I have to be aware of how the economy and the market shifts and respond to what my customers want”. Gropper not only responds to consumer changes, he backs his products with a 100% Guaranteed Sales Program to his customers taking full responsibility for the turnover
of fresh products. As a Pride of New York member, Gropper is aware of the impact of supporting neighbors and donates his time and products to local food banks in turn.
Gropper noted one of the advantages of Westchester residents buying local produce, “When you buy locally, you know exactly where the produce is coming from. And when you produce locally, you have the same advantage”.
Gropper recalled the tomato scare of last summer, “I know the farmers I buy my tomatoes from so I knew my products were safe. I buy my tomatoes, peppers, basil and cilantro in season from local farmers such as Wallkill View Farm in New Paltz, New York.”
As we interviewed Gropper at his display, several of his loyal customers/fans approached to share their stories of how much they loved his products. confirmation that consumers who buy locally literally do know exactly who they are buying from. In addition to knowing the
source, and helping the economy, freshness is a major benefit of buying locally. Jessica Chittenden, Director of Communications for the NYSDA noted that, “Food tastes better when it’s purchased locally. It hasn’t been sitting on a truck for two days or on a train for five days”.
Gabriel, at the Breezy Hill Farms booth, offered samples of locally produced fresh apple cider. One sip proved his claim that, “It was like drinking an apple. Our cider is fresh and there is no aftertaste,” he said. “When you start with a great product, you get a great taste,” he added.
Like most New York State food producers, Breezy Hill has expanded into other products. “We have 10,000 chickens on our farm,” Gabriel noted. “They eat corn and grass so their eggs are completely natural. We also make healthy cookies using no white sugar. And since everything is fresh, you taste it the way nature intended”.
In addition to the “Pride of New York” symbols, many local food producers also employ some “tried and true” methods to attract attention to their products. Stephanie, from Esposito’s Sausage, tempted the attendees at the Javits Center trade show with samples of locally-made gourmet sausages. “We sell in the New York area and our owner, David Samuels, is from Pleasantville,” Stephanie said.
Champlain Valley Specialty Foods in Keeseville play up their local benefits when negotiating food distribution contracts. The New York City school system will soon offer their individually packaged sliced apples in every school lunch. White Plains Linen, a catering and party supply service, also attended the Javits Center event and offered displays and instructions of napkin folding techniques to customers and consumers.
As their account representative, Wayne Wilson, noted, “Good food should be displayed well”. The NYSDA is increasing its efforts to encourage the use of local food products. At the Javits Center show, New York State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker encouraged New York restaurants to source more New York food and beverages for their menus. “More people are getting a true taste of the Empire State when dining out,” the Commissioner said, “because more restaurants are including New York grown and made products in their recipes and on their menus.
I applaud those establishments for ‘buying local’ and encourage more chefs to do the same. The Pride of New York program can help them by making connections to more than 2,000 New York farmers, wineries and food processors, offering a variety of delicious items, all made or
grown here in New York State.”
To further encourage the use of New York State products on area restaurant menus, the NYSDA offers cooperative advertising funding, up to $5,000 to promote the use of specialty crops, such as local fruits and vegetables, maple and honey products on their menus. Restaurant owners who are already participants in the “Pride of New York” program see the positive results first-hand from their customers.
As Philip McGrath, the owner of the Iron Horse Grill in Pleasantville, noted, “At the Iron Horse Grill more and more of our customers are genuinely interested in where their food is coming from. They are always excited to hear that we are using locally grown and sourced New York State products on our menus.
Whether it be oysters from Fishers Island, chevre from Bedford Hills, honey from Putnam County, wines from the North Fork and even beer brewed right here in Pleasantville, these items sell themselves. When we tell our diners that the salad they are about to eat or that the apples in their dessert came from the local farmers who bring their wares to our Saturday Greenmarket they are always impressed.”
Last week, “advisers” on the Oprah show encouraged her millions of listeners to stop going out to restaurants and cut back on their personal spending while this recession lasts. Unfortunately, this advice will only serve to worsen the current economic crisis. McGrath noted that while the Iron Horse is a small, intimate restaurant, “We still employ over 20 people. They are individuals with families or even local teenagers paying their bills. When a restaurant closes it affects more than just the owner”.
McGrath has seen four neighboring restaurants in Pleasantville close in the last few months, the latest, Jackson & Wheeler, just three weeks ago. If more local residents follow the advice of the “experts” and cut back on eating out in local restaurants, that will put even more owners out of business, possibly causing them to lose their homes.
Most business owners leverage their homes to finance their businesses, and will put both local neighbors supporting their own families and teenagers paying for college out of jobs. A better way for Westchester residents to survive the recession and stimulate the local economy
is to stop buying foreign-made products or even products from out of state.
Survivors of the Great Depression and the two World Wars are used to “looking for the union label” as a way to guarantee American made products. Westchester residents should now also look for the “Pride of New York” symbol in local supermarkets and restaurants to guarantee that the money they are spending is being used right here in our own backyards keeping our neighbors employed and in their homes.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Pride of New York
The New York State Department of Agriculture (NYSDA) has been ahead of the curve for 14 years in developing economic stimulus programs. Started in 1995, the NYSDA has been encouraging the use of New York State products in its “Pride of New York” program.
Originally developed to assist New York State farmers with their marketing efforts, the Pride of New York program has recently shifted
its focus to area restaurants and chefs and local consumers. Mr. Robert Lewis, the Special Assistant for Market Development for the NYSDA spoke to the Guardian about their stimulus programs already in place. “We are the marketing arm for local farmers,” Lewis noted.
“Our job is to encourage restaurants and consumers to buy local products.
With our ‘Pride of New York’ program we have a valuable franchise. We are encouraging local producers and restaurants to sign up and
display our logo in their windows so consumers can be assured they are helping the local economy”. A consumer seeing the green and
white logo in a supermarket or restaurant window can be assured that the establishment is serving New York products.
“This is not an ‘all or nothing’ venture” Lewis explained. “We know restaurants and supermarkets cannot just purchase only New York State products. But the restaurants who join our program, however, are saying to their customers that they are trying to buy as much as possible from local vendors and farmers. And we’ll stand behind their guarantees”.
On the NYSDA website, www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/PrideOfNY, a Westchester resident can search for local food producers, farmers’
markets, and restaurants dedicated to using New York State products. In addition to local supermarkets and farmers’ markets and distributors, several Westchester producers have already joined the Pride program:
Krasdale Foods, White Plains: Grocery Wholesaler
Artuso Pastry, Mt. Vernon:
Bakery Barrie House Coffee, Yonkers: Coffee Manufacturer
Bombay Emerald Chutney, Yorktown: Gourmet Chutneys
Captain Lawrence Brewing, Pleasantville: Microbrewery
Carrillo’s Salsa, Rye: Gourmet Salsa
Joes BQ, Purchase: Barbeque Sauce
Raw Indulgence, Ardsley:
Raw Foods
Soul Veggie Delicious, Mt. Vernon: Speciality Foods
To date there is only one Westchester restaurant signed up for the “Pride of New York” program – the Iron Horse Grill in Pleasantville.
In upstate New York, the pattern is much different. Scores of local restaurants and even college dining halls such as the University of Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology are all participants of the Pride program and strive to use New York State food products in their menus.
And they have a wealth of producers to choose from. According to the NYSDA, 25% of the State’s land is farmland; the State has over 26 million square feet of greenhouses, is the third largest producer of maple syrup and milk in the nation, has over 60 microbreweries, and is the largest grapejuice-producing state in the country.
At the International Restaurant and Wine Expo in the Javits Convention Center in New York City recently, the NYSDA set up an entire “Pride of New York” section dedicated to local wineries and food producers, many of whom were from the Hudson Valley area.
The Guardian spoke at length to several of the vendors displayed. The owner of “My Brother Bobby’s Salsa”, Robert Gropper, of Poughkeepsie proudly told us that his salsa was definitely a food product that New York could be proud of – it was voted best overall product in its first appearance at the Restaurant Show in 2000. Gropper’s pride in his products and upbeat attitude was infectious: “What recession?” he boomed. “I’ve had my best January ever”.
Gropper has noticed that the consumer end of his business is increasing: “Families are eating out less, but they want good food at home. I have to be aware of how the economy and the market shifts and respond to what my customers want”. Gropper not only responds to consumer changes, he backs his products with a 100% Guaranteed Sales Program to his customers taking full responsibility for the turnover
of fresh products. As a Pride of New York member, Gropper is aware of the impact of supporting neighbors and donates his time and products to local food banks in turn.
Gropper noted one of the advantages of Westchester residents buying local produce, “When you buy locally, you know exactly where the produce is coming from. And when you produce locally, you have the same advantage”.
Gropper recalled the tomato scare of last summer, “I know the farmers I buy my tomatoes from so I knew my products were safe. I buy my tomatoes, peppers, basil and cilantro in season from local farmers such as Wallkill View Farm in New Paltz, New York.”
As we interviewed Gropper at his display, several of his loyal customers/fans approached to share their stories of how much they loved his products. confirmation that consumers who buy locally literally do know exactly who they are buying from. In addition to knowing the
source, and helping the economy, freshness is a major benefit of buying locally. Jessica Chittenden, Director of Communications for the NYSDA noted that, “Food tastes better when it’s purchased locally. It hasn’t been sitting on a truck for two days or on a train for five days”.
Gabriel, at the Breezy Hill Farms booth, offered samples of locally produced fresh apple cider. One sip proved his claim that, “It was like drinking an apple. Our cider is fresh and there is no aftertaste,” he said. “When you start with a great product, you get a great taste,” he added.
Like most New York State food producers, Breezy Hill has expanded into other products. “We have 10,000 chickens on our farm,” Gabriel noted. “They eat corn and grass so their eggs are completely natural. We also make healthy cookies using no white sugar. And since everything is fresh, you taste it the way nature intended”.
In addition to the “Pride of New York” symbols, many local food producers also employ some “tried and true” methods to attract attention to their products. Stephanie, from Esposito’s Sausage, tempted the attendees at the Javits Center trade show with samples of locally-made gourmet sausages. “We sell in the New York area and our owner, David Samuels, is from Pleasantville,” Stephanie said.
Champlain Valley Specialty Foods in Keeseville play up their local benefits when negotiating food distribution contracts. The New York City school system will soon offer their individually packaged sliced apples in every school lunch. White Plains Linen, a catering and party supply service, also attended the Javits Center event and offered displays and instructions of napkin folding techniques to customers and consumers.
As their account representative, Wayne Wilson, noted, “Good food should be displayed well”. The NYSDA is increasing its efforts to encourage the use of local food products. At the Javits Center show, New York State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker encouraged New York restaurants to source more New York food and beverages for their menus. “More people are getting a true taste of the Empire State when dining out,” the Commissioner said, “because more restaurants are including New York grown and made products in their recipes and on their menus.
I applaud those establishments for ‘buying local’ and encourage more chefs to do the same. The Pride of New York program can help them by making connections to more than 2,000 New York farmers, wineries and food processors, offering a variety of delicious items, all made or
grown here in New York State.”
To further encourage the use of New York State products on area restaurant menus, the NYSDA offers cooperative advertising funding, up to $5,000 to promote the use of specialty crops, such as local fruits and vegetables, maple and honey products on their menus. Restaurant owners who are already participants in the “Pride of New York” program see the positive results first-hand from their customers.
As Philip McGrath, the owner of the Iron Horse Grill in Pleasantville, noted, “At the Iron Horse Grill more and more of our customers are genuinely interested in where their food is coming from. They are always excited to hear that we are using locally grown and sourced New York State products on our menus.
Whether it be oysters from Fishers Island, chevre from Bedford Hills, honey from Putnam County, wines from the North Fork and even beer brewed right here in Pleasantville, these items sell themselves. When we tell our diners that the salad they are about to eat or that the apples in their dessert came from the local farmers who bring their wares to our Saturday Greenmarket they are always impressed.”
Last week, “advisers” on the Oprah show encouraged her millions of listeners to stop going out to restaurants and cut back on their personal spending while this recession lasts. Unfortunately, this advice will only serve to worsen the current economic crisis. McGrath noted that while the Iron Horse is a small, intimate restaurant, “We still employ over 20 people. They are individuals with families or even local teenagers paying their bills. When a restaurant closes it affects more than just the owner”.
McGrath has seen four neighboring restaurants in Pleasantville close in the last few months, the latest, Jackson & Wheeler, just three weeks ago. If more local residents follow the advice of the “experts” and cut back on eating out in local restaurants, that will put even more owners out of business, possibly causing them to lose their homes.
Most business owners leverage their homes to finance their businesses, and will put both local neighbors supporting their own families and teenagers paying for college out of jobs. A better way for Westchester residents to survive the recession and stimulate the local economy
is to stop buying foreign-made products or even products from out of state.
Survivors of the Great Depression and the two World Wars are used to “looking for the union label” as a way to guarantee American made products. Westchester residents should now also look for the “Pride of New York” symbol in local supermarkets and restaurants to guarantee that the money they are spending is being used right here in our own backyards keeping our neighbors employed and in their homes.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Jeff Deskovic/Janet Difiore.
Jeff Deskovic
New York State Bar Holds Hearing
On Wrongful Convictions
Westchester DA Janet DiFiore Present As Panelist
In my last two columns I reviewed the Preliminary Report of the New York State Bar Association pertaining to wrongful convictions. On Feb. 13,
2009, a public hearing was held for the purpose of inviting public comment. This article will deal with that hearing.
There was a panel consisting of several members of the task force that had written the report. Each speaker was allowed five minutes to present,
followed by two or three minutes of questioning. Although the hearing was open to the public, testimony was limited to invitation only.
Upon arrival, I noticed some familiar faces; individuals engaged in dealing with the phenomenon of wrongful conviction, including Lonnie Soury, Eric Friedman, and Bruce Barket, who had helped clear Marty Tankleff. Barkett had done the legal work, Soury the public relations, and Friedman had designed and updated the website.
I was surprised to discover that Janet DiFiore was on the panel. Her presence would make my testimony somewhat awkward, because in arguing
the necessity for legislation criminalizing intentional prosecutorial misconduct, a reform that the report failed to include, I would be referencing several Westchester cases, some of which pre-dated her becoming District Attorney but which she, nevertheless, chose to defend, thus attempting to perpetuate several wrongful convictions, much the same way Jeanine Pirro had fought against all seven of my appeals though I had originally been prosecuted under her predecessor Carl Vergari.
Although DiFiore has given lip service to being a part of the anti-wrongful conviction movement and has hastened to add her name to any
number of reports advocating reforms intended to make the criminal justice system more accurate, all too often hers, and her Office’s, actions have run contrary to that position. In the below-mentioned cases, her office attempted to perpetuate wrongful convictions against defendants who had previously been wrongfully convicted under Jeanine Pirro, to say nothing of her own shameful prosecution of police brutality victim Irma Marquez, which resulted in an acquittal.
Furthermore, DiFiore has issued fraudulent statements about having a Second Look Program which supposedly pro-actively searches for wrongful
conviction cases, when in fact no such program exists. No information about such a program has been made available to the public and is unknown by assistant DAs in her Appeals Bureau, as well as by her chief of staff. From my standpoint, proof lies in the actual actions and conduct of her Office, and not in the words that she has uttered.
Upon spotting me, she greeted me cordially, and we exchanged pleasantries while my resolve to give the testimony I had come to present remained
unchanged. Interestingly, during the entire proceedings, Janet DiFiore asked no questions of any witness nor did she offer any comments. In fact,
she left the hearing about 90 minutes before it concluded.
Queens District Attorney Richard Brown stated that wrongful convictions were extremely rare on his watch. He stated that when his Office
is approached, pre-trial, with an actual claim of innocence, corroborated with credible evidence, they undertake an investigation. He went on to
claim that when a post-conviction claim of innocence is made, a senior prosecutor is assigned to look into it. He said that in light of guilty defendants bringing baseless allegations of innocence that there needed to be some limitation on the opportunity to endlessly reopen criminal cases.
Brown made a point of stating that prosecutors in his Office understand that it is their job to bring about justice, and that they are expected to
observe high ethical and professional standards. Furthering pursuing that theme, he declared that prosectors, “Must maintain a high state of alert to
any indication of corruption or misconduct and root it out immediately.”
He went on to enumerate many educational programs available to prosecutors. With all due respect, District Attorney Richard Brown is just another individual who says one thing while doing another. His Office’s record is one of the worst with respect to prosecutorial misconduct.
Furthermore, amongst all of the New York exonerations, a responsible position to take would have been that there needs to be more review of allegations of actual innocence whenever a colorable claim of innocence can be made, not fewer.
Staten Island District Attorney Donavan, also the President of the District Attorney’s Association Of New York State, stated that it is a prosecutor’s worst nightmare to convict an innocent person. He expressed concern about pre-trial detention of innocent defendants. He vocalized
support of pre-trial DNA testing, and he o ered to provide support to other district attorneys’ offices if requested in reinvestigating a case. He went on to say that while he was in favor of legislative changes, he did not want to place at risk the “extraordinary success” they have enjoyed in making New York the safest large state.
Asked the crucial question by a panel member, “Why won’t the District Attorneys Association support mandatory videotaping of interrogations?”
he took a dodge, citing costs. Objectively speaking, I would ask, “Who would consider 52 wrongful convictions ‘extraordinary success?’” One must consider, too, that those exonerations are but a tip of the iceberg and that New York State is third in the country with respect to the number of
DNA-proven wrongful convictions.
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, started out by stating that in jurisdictions where videotaping interrogations is performed, it
has not proven costly. He added that the risk of wrongful convictions by not doing so was very costly. Addressing the notion that some defendants
would not agree to talk if they knew they were being videotaped, Scheck stated that cameras could be hidden and simply turned on without permission.
Turning to misidentifications, Scheck then suggested “The Great Compromise”. He pointed out that live lineups cost more money than photo
arrays while offering no greater reliability, but that they are done anyway because police fear that if a photo array is not allowed into evidence they might be left with no case; whereas if they conduct a lineup, they would at least have that evidence.
The compromise Scheck suggested was that police might stop doing lineups to save money, and that even if a photo array does not meet the new
standards, they should be admitted into evidence anyway and considered by a jury, which also would be given an instruction by a judge as to the fact
that array was not conducted according to best practices.
Peter Neufeld spoke next, emphasizing the need for videotaping of interrogations. Neufeld was asked about when videotaping would begin, out
of concern about the circumstances which take place in a police car and at a precinct prior to the camera being turned on.
With all due respect to Barry Scheck, who has been in the front lines in the battle against wrongful convictions since 1993, I disagree with his position. Many defendants’ lives have been wrecked, as well as their families, as a result of misidentifications, that have caused many to spend decades in prison wrongfully.
It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Either police officers use the best practices when conducting lineups and photo arrays or else the evidence should not be admitted. As for those expressing concerns that the guilty might get away under such stringent conditions, my response is to put the onus back on the police to conduct such procedures in the most reliable way possible, as the cost of not doing so is far too great.
Ezekial Edwards works in the Policy Department of The Innocence Project, which is the section of the organization that has been focusing on bringing about legislative changes. Edwards told the panel that the reforms that The Innocence Project advocates are grounded in empirical data obtained through social science. He stated that misidentifications cause the police to focus on an innocent person, and away from the real
perpetrator. He stated that multiple identifications made using unreliable methods did not increase accuracy.
He pointed to Luis Diaz who served 25 years in Florida after being misidentified by eight people; Brandon Moon who served 17 years after being
misidentified by five people; Kirk Bloodsworth, who was sentenced to death after being misidentified by five people.
Edwards advocated for blind administration, where the officers doing the lineup or photo array don’t know who the suspect is. He further advocated for instructing the eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup or in the photo array, and that the investigation will continue if no one is picked. He advocated for proper composition of lineups, ensuring that fillers are picked based upon the description of the victim rather than people who look like a suspect, while not allowing a suspect to unduly stick out. Additionally, only one suspect at a time should be in a lineup.
Edwards also advocated the need to obtain confidence statements, asking victims and witnesses to state, on a scale of one to ten, how confident
they actually are of their selections. Finally, Edwards stressed the importance of documenting the lineup procedure by recording it, and the preservation of the photos that were used as well as sequential presentation; the showing to a victim of one person or one photo at a time, rather
than everybody at once. Edwards said “show ups” are inherently unreliable and far too suggestive to be continued.
Alan Newton, a well-known New York City exoneree, spoke of serving 21 years in prison based on a misidentification. He described how, for
13 of his 21 years, police authorities kept stating that they could not find the DNA evidence. He expressed his support for a standardized evidence
preservation system mentioned in the Report.
In offering my own testimony, as an exoneree who spent 16 years in prison for a capital crime that the police and district attorney’s office
clearly knew I was innocent of, I was respectful, but not deferential. I stated that I thought I could be most helpful by pointing out issues that the Report had omitted. I stated that it was a fallacy to believe, as had been suggested by the Report and the dialogue between the panel and prior witnesses, that all of the withholding of evidence of innocence and other prosecutorial misconduct were “good faith errors”, and that “nobody was ever doing anything intentional”. I pointed out that Queens DA Brown had successfully been sued by attorney Joel Ruden on behalf of Shih-Wei Su, who served 13 years in prison based upon prosecutorial misconduct. In that lawsuit, Attorney Ruden managed to uncover 80 cases of prosecutorial misconduct in Brown’s office, firmly establishing wrongful patterns and practices.
I then stated that it is essential to criminalize intentional prosecutorial misconduct; intentionally withholding evidence, suborning perjury, failing
to correcting witnesses who commit perjury, working with medical examiners and other expert witnesses in an effort to work backwards; “Tell
me what you want to prove and I will prove it.”
I referenced:
• The 52 boxes of evidence and 376 pages of exculpatory material withheld from Anthony DiSimone’s attorney, resulting in his incarcertion
for seven years prior to that conviction being overturned, and pointing to the guilt of a third party;
• Ex-police officer Richard DiGuglielmo’s conviction being overturned after 11 years, following a judge’s finding that information had been withheld from the defense that the only three eyewitnesses to the incident had been hauled into the police station four times each and treated as suspects in order to get them to change their accounts from a self defense killing to one that was racially motivated;
• Marci Stein, a former school teacher, who served three years of a 12-year sentence for allegedly sexually assaulting three high school boys. Assistant Westchester District Attorney, Laura Murphy, had lied to the jury claiming that two victim witnesses did not stand to receive financial rewards based upon their allegations, when, in fact, she was well aware that they had filed Notice of Claim in Federal Court with the school district.
Fortunately the Appellate Division reversed because of Murphy’s misconduct. But she remains employed under Janet DiFiore. In my own wrongful conviction, I am suing the former Medical Examiner, Louis Roh, for working backwards with the District Attorney’s Office. His conduct, in my case, as it turns out, was not isolated. Switching gears, I pointed out that while the report references that police interrogation tactics that are coercive, the report does not take the next logical step and recommend banning them. After all, we live in America and our Constitution contains the Fifth Amendment and therefore psychologically coercive tactics should not be allowed, such as prolonged interrogations, often lasting for many hours, because they wear suspects down. I cited the exoneration cases of John Kogut, who served 16 years, and was interrogated for 18 hours; Douglas Warney, who served nine years and was interrogated for 12 hours. On the day of my false confession the interrogation ran for 7 ½ hours, most of which I was plugged into a polygraph machine.
I spoke out against lying to suspects by police claiming to have evidence they do not because false confession experts have determined that such
tactics convey the message to suspects that, “No matter what, you are going to be charged, and it is only a matter of whether you’re were going to make things more difficult on yourself ”. I described how I was lied to regarding my polygraph test results, and that Marty Tankleff was lied to by the cops who claimed that his father had come to and identified him, thus causing him to momentarily doubt himself.
I explained the abuse of polygraph testing which is linked to many false confessions while having no scientific validity. I criticized the interrogation of the mentally ill or retarded suspects in the absence of an attorney because it is well known that such individuals frequently compensate for their weakness by being compliant to authority. I referenced the Warney case, because he had an I.Q. of 68 and a history of mental illness and only an 8th grade education.
I concluded my testimony stating that there needed to be a limit on the caseloads of public defenders, because it is not unusual in jurisdictions like
The Bronx for one public defender to simultaneously represent 120 clients. Scott Fappiano spoke of serving 21 years in New York for the rape of
a cop’s wife based upon a misidenti-fication before being exonerated by DNA.
Glenn Garber stated that he had been an attorney for over 20 years, and had founded the not-for-profit group Exoneration Intitiative, which focuses on clearing wrongfully convicted prisoners in non-DNA cases. He estimated that 2-1/2 to 5 percent of individuals are wrongfully convicted.
He stated that prosecutors need to be well-versed on the causes of wrongful convictions, and that when approached with an actual innocence
claim, they should focus on justice and not on exploiting legal impediments that can stand in the way of exoneration.
Bruce Barket spoke of all of the work that it took to clear Marty Tankleff after 18 years of wrongful incarceration, and the fact that it was five
years after they had unearthed the mountain of evidence which showed the guilt of another person before he was released. He reminded the athering that prosecutors had fought to the bitter end against appeals and pleas of innocence, and that courts had chillingly allowed finality to trump truth.
Finally, Scott Golan spoke of the importance of raising public awareness with respect to wrongful convictions. He mentioned a public awareness
event that he had helped to put together, entitled “The Art Of Innocence,” a program involving three exonerees telling their story. In the hallway
after his testimony, he confided to me that in all of the discussion about changes in the law, we were forgetting that it is the jurors who are voting
guilty. He said, speaking of jurors, “If they know more about wrongful convictions, they will be more careful in reaching verdicts.”
New York State Bar Holds Hearing
On Wrongful Convictions
Westchester DA Janet DiFiore Present As Panelist
In my last two columns I reviewed the Preliminary Report of the New York State Bar Association pertaining to wrongful convictions. On Feb. 13,
2009, a public hearing was held for the purpose of inviting public comment. This article will deal with that hearing.
There was a panel consisting of several members of the task force that had written the report. Each speaker was allowed five minutes to present,
followed by two or three minutes of questioning. Although the hearing was open to the public, testimony was limited to invitation only.
Upon arrival, I noticed some familiar faces; individuals engaged in dealing with the phenomenon of wrongful conviction, including Lonnie Soury, Eric Friedman, and Bruce Barket, who had helped clear Marty Tankleff. Barkett had done the legal work, Soury the public relations, and Friedman had designed and updated the website.
I was surprised to discover that Janet DiFiore was on the panel. Her presence would make my testimony somewhat awkward, because in arguing
the necessity for legislation criminalizing intentional prosecutorial misconduct, a reform that the report failed to include, I would be referencing several Westchester cases, some of which pre-dated her becoming District Attorney but which she, nevertheless, chose to defend, thus attempting to perpetuate several wrongful convictions, much the same way Jeanine Pirro had fought against all seven of my appeals though I had originally been prosecuted under her predecessor Carl Vergari.
Although DiFiore has given lip service to being a part of the anti-wrongful conviction movement and has hastened to add her name to any
number of reports advocating reforms intended to make the criminal justice system more accurate, all too often hers, and her Office’s, actions have run contrary to that position. In the below-mentioned cases, her office attempted to perpetuate wrongful convictions against defendants who had previously been wrongfully convicted under Jeanine Pirro, to say nothing of her own shameful prosecution of police brutality victim Irma Marquez, which resulted in an acquittal.
Furthermore, DiFiore has issued fraudulent statements about having a Second Look Program which supposedly pro-actively searches for wrongful
conviction cases, when in fact no such program exists. No information about such a program has been made available to the public and is unknown by assistant DAs in her Appeals Bureau, as well as by her chief of staff. From my standpoint, proof lies in the actual actions and conduct of her Office, and not in the words that she has uttered.
Upon spotting me, she greeted me cordially, and we exchanged pleasantries while my resolve to give the testimony I had come to present remained
unchanged. Interestingly, during the entire proceedings, Janet DiFiore asked no questions of any witness nor did she offer any comments. In fact,
she left the hearing about 90 minutes before it concluded.
Queens District Attorney Richard Brown stated that wrongful convictions were extremely rare on his watch. He stated that when his Office
is approached, pre-trial, with an actual claim of innocence, corroborated with credible evidence, they undertake an investigation. He went on to
claim that when a post-conviction claim of innocence is made, a senior prosecutor is assigned to look into it. He said that in light of guilty defendants bringing baseless allegations of innocence that there needed to be some limitation on the opportunity to endlessly reopen criminal cases.
Brown made a point of stating that prosecutors in his Office understand that it is their job to bring about justice, and that they are expected to
observe high ethical and professional standards. Furthering pursuing that theme, he declared that prosectors, “Must maintain a high state of alert to
any indication of corruption or misconduct and root it out immediately.”
He went on to enumerate many educational programs available to prosecutors. With all due respect, District Attorney Richard Brown is just another individual who says one thing while doing another. His Office’s record is one of the worst with respect to prosecutorial misconduct.
Furthermore, amongst all of the New York exonerations, a responsible position to take would have been that there needs to be more review of allegations of actual innocence whenever a colorable claim of innocence can be made, not fewer.
Staten Island District Attorney Donavan, also the President of the District Attorney’s Association Of New York State, stated that it is a prosecutor’s worst nightmare to convict an innocent person. He expressed concern about pre-trial detention of innocent defendants. He vocalized
support of pre-trial DNA testing, and he o ered to provide support to other district attorneys’ offices if requested in reinvestigating a case. He went on to say that while he was in favor of legislative changes, he did not want to place at risk the “extraordinary success” they have enjoyed in making New York the safest large state.
Asked the crucial question by a panel member, “Why won’t the District Attorneys Association support mandatory videotaping of interrogations?”
he took a dodge, citing costs. Objectively speaking, I would ask, “Who would consider 52 wrongful convictions ‘extraordinary success?’” One must consider, too, that those exonerations are but a tip of the iceberg and that New York State is third in the country with respect to the number of
DNA-proven wrongful convictions.
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, started out by stating that in jurisdictions where videotaping interrogations is performed, it
has not proven costly. He added that the risk of wrongful convictions by not doing so was very costly. Addressing the notion that some defendants
would not agree to talk if they knew they were being videotaped, Scheck stated that cameras could be hidden and simply turned on without permission.
Turning to misidentifications, Scheck then suggested “The Great Compromise”. He pointed out that live lineups cost more money than photo
arrays while offering no greater reliability, but that they are done anyway because police fear that if a photo array is not allowed into evidence they might be left with no case; whereas if they conduct a lineup, they would at least have that evidence.
The compromise Scheck suggested was that police might stop doing lineups to save money, and that even if a photo array does not meet the new
standards, they should be admitted into evidence anyway and considered by a jury, which also would be given an instruction by a judge as to the fact
that array was not conducted according to best practices.
Peter Neufeld spoke next, emphasizing the need for videotaping of interrogations. Neufeld was asked about when videotaping would begin, out
of concern about the circumstances which take place in a police car and at a precinct prior to the camera being turned on.
With all due respect to Barry Scheck, who has been in the front lines in the battle against wrongful convictions since 1993, I disagree with his position. Many defendants’ lives have been wrecked, as well as their families, as a result of misidentifications, that have caused many to spend decades in prison wrongfully.
It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Either police officers use the best practices when conducting lineups and photo arrays or else the evidence should not be admitted. As for those expressing concerns that the guilty might get away under such stringent conditions, my response is to put the onus back on the police to conduct such procedures in the most reliable way possible, as the cost of not doing so is far too great.
Ezekial Edwards works in the Policy Department of The Innocence Project, which is the section of the organization that has been focusing on bringing about legislative changes. Edwards told the panel that the reforms that The Innocence Project advocates are grounded in empirical data obtained through social science. He stated that misidentifications cause the police to focus on an innocent person, and away from the real
perpetrator. He stated that multiple identifications made using unreliable methods did not increase accuracy.
He pointed to Luis Diaz who served 25 years in Florida after being misidentified by eight people; Brandon Moon who served 17 years after being
misidentified by five people; Kirk Bloodsworth, who was sentenced to death after being misidentified by five people.
Edwards advocated for blind administration, where the officers doing the lineup or photo array don’t know who the suspect is. He further advocated for instructing the eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup or in the photo array, and that the investigation will continue if no one is picked. He advocated for proper composition of lineups, ensuring that fillers are picked based upon the description of the victim rather than people who look like a suspect, while not allowing a suspect to unduly stick out. Additionally, only one suspect at a time should be in a lineup.
Edwards also advocated the need to obtain confidence statements, asking victims and witnesses to state, on a scale of one to ten, how confident
they actually are of their selections. Finally, Edwards stressed the importance of documenting the lineup procedure by recording it, and the preservation of the photos that were used as well as sequential presentation; the showing to a victim of one person or one photo at a time, rather
than everybody at once. Edwards said “show ups” are inherently unreliable and far too suggestive to be continued.
Alan Newton, a well-known New York City exoneree, spoke of serving 21 years in prison based on a misidentification. He described how, for
13 of his 21 years, police authorities kept stating that they could not find the DNA evidence. He expressed his support for a standardized evidence
preservation system mentioned in the Report.
In offering my own testimony, as an exoneree who spent 16 years in prison for a capital crime that the police and district attorney’s office
clearly knew I was innocent of, I was respectful, but not deferential. I stated that I thought I could be most helpful by pointing out issues that the Report had omitted. I stated that it was a fallacy to believe, as had been suggested by the Report and the dialogue between the panel and prior witnesses, that all of the withholding of evidence of innocence and other prosecutorial misconduct were “good faith errors”, and that “nobody was ever doing anything intentional”. I pointed out that Queens DA Brown had successfully been sued by attorney Joel Ruden on behalf of Shih-Wei Su, who served 13 years in prison based upon prosecutorial misconduct. In that lawsuit, Attorney Ruden managed to uncover 80 cases of prosecutorial misconduct in Brown’s office, firmly establishing wrongful patterns and practices.
I then stated that it is essential to criminalize intentional prosecutorial misconduct; intentionally withholding evidence, suborning perjury, failing
to correcting witnesses who commit perjury, working with medical examiners and other expert witnesses in an effort to work backwards; “Tell
me what you want to prove and I will prove it.”
I referenced:
• The 52 boxes of evidence and 376 pages of exculpatory material withheld from Anthony DiSimone’s attorney, resulting in his incarcertion
for seven years prior to that conviction being overturned, and pointing to the guilt of a third party;
• Ex-police officer Richard DiGuglielmo’s conviction being overturned after 11 years, following a judge’s finding that information had been withheld from the defense that the only three eyewitnesses to the incident had been hauled into the police station four times each and treated as suspects in order to get them to change their accounts from a self defense killing to one that was racially motivated;
• Marci Stein, a former school teacher, who served three years of a 12-year sentence for allegedly sexually assaulting three high school boys. Assistant Westchester District Attorney, Laura Murphy, had lied to the jury claiming that two victim witnesses did not stand to receive financial rewards based upon their allegations, when, in fact, she was well aware that they had filed Notice of Claim in Federal Court with the school district.
Fortunately the Appellate Division reversed because of Murphy’s misconduct. But she remains employed under Janet DiFiore. In my own wrongful conviction, I am suing the former Medical Examiner, Louis Roh, for working backwards with the District Attorney’s Office. His conduct, in my case, as it turns out, was not isolated. Switching gears, I pointed out that while the report references that police interrogation tactics that are coercive, the report does not take the next logical step and recommend banning them. After all, we live in America and our Constitution contains the Fifth Amendment and therefore psychologically coercive tactics should not be allowed, such as prolonged interrogations, often lasting for many hours, because they wear suspects down. I cited the exoneration cases of John Kogut, who served 16 years, and was interrogated for 18 hours; Douglas Warney, who served nine years and was interrogated for 12 hours. On the day of my false confession the interrogation ran for 7 ½ hours, most of which I was plugged into a polygraph machine.
I spoke out against lying to suspects by police claiming to have evidence they do not because false confession experts have determined that such
tactics convey the message to suspects that, “No matter what, you are going to be charged, and it is only a matter of whether you’re were going to make things more difficult on yourself ”. I described how I was lied to regarding my polygraph test results, and that Marty Tankleff was lied to by the cops who claimed that his father had come to and identified him, thus causing him to momentarily doubt himself.
I explained the abuse of polygraph testing which is linked to many false confessions while having no scientific validity. I criticized the interrogation of the mentally ill or retarded suspects in the absence of an attorney because it is well known that such individuals frequently compensate for their weakness by being compliant to authority. I referenced the Warney case, because he had an I.Q. of 68 and a history of mental illness and only an 8th grade education.
I concluded my testimony stating that there needed to be a limit on the caseloads of public defenders, because it is not unusual in jurisdictions like
The Bronx for one public defender to simultaneously represent 120 clients. Scott Fappiano spoke of serving 21 years in New York for the rape of
a cop’s wife based upon a misidenti-fication before being exonerated by DNA.
Glenn Garber stated that he had been an attorney for over 20 years, and had founded the not-for-profit group Exoneration Intitiative, which focuses on clearing wrongfully convicted prisoners in non-DNA cases. He estimated that 2-1/2 to 5 percent of individuals are wrongfully convicted.
He stated that prosecutors need to be well-versed on the causes of wrongful convictions, and that when approached with an actual innocence
claim, they should focus on justice and not on exploiting legal impediments that can stand in the way of exoneration.
Bruce Barket spoke of all of the work that it took to clear Marty Tankleff after 18 years of wrongful incarceration, and the fact that it was five
years after they had unearthed the mountain of evidence which showed the guilt of another person before he was released. He reminded the athering that prosecutors had fought to the bitter end against appeals and pleas of innocence, and that courts had chillingly allowed finality to trump truth.
Finally, Scott Golan spoke of the importance of raising public awareness with respect to wrongful convictions. He mentioned a public awareness
event that he had helped to put together, entitled “The Art Of Innocence,” a program involving three exonerees telling their story. In the hallway
after his testimony, he confided to me that in all of the discussion about changes in the law, we were forgetting that it is the jurors who are voting
guilty. He said, speaking of jurors, “If they know more about wrongful convictions, they will be more careful in reaching verdicts.”
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Scrutinizing 2009/2010 Town Budgets
Local towns are currently working on their budgets for the upcoming 2009/2010 fiscal year. Most of the pending budgets that the Guardian reviewed reflect the impact of the recession on the local economy. Most towns are holding their total budgets to their current 2008/2009 levels, offsetting increases in salaries and benefits in current employee contracts by reducing staffs in other areas and decreasing or defraying
equipment purchases.
The Town of Yorktown posts their budget on the town Comptroller’s website: www.yorktownny.org. The town’s total salaries and benefits for 2009 are expected to be $17,730,762, a slight decrease from their 2008 levels of $17,859,287. At first blush, this would appear to be a good thing for local taxpayers, but the total decrease disguises several significant increases in the budget, compensated for by major cutbacks
in several areas.
Most town departments in Yorktown have minor or no changes in salaries planned for 2009, among them, the town’s Legislative Board, the Tax Collector, the Town Clerk, Public Safety, and the Parks Department. However, some departments are anticipating increases in salaries that exceed the standard 3% - 4% increases in pre-recession government contracts. The Town Hall staff costs are projected to increase from $47,129 to $63,766, a 35% increase; the Police Department will increase from $6,830,005 to $7,147,001, 4.6%; the Skate Park staff costs
will increase from $16,000 to $21,000, 31%; and Section 8 staff will increase from $82,488 to $95,171, 15%. The town did not explain the reasons for these increases in costs. Are they stemming from necessary additional staff or are the current staff receiving extraordinary raises in these difficult times at local taxpayer expense? Yorktown’s budget does not provide a headcount by department so that the town residents cannot even determine how many individuals are on their tax rolls.
In order to keep total town costs down, Yorktown has decreased costs on other departments to compensate for the increases above. The Assessment staff costs will decrease from $560,448 to $358,418; the Legal department staff costs will drop from $356,125 to $179,644; the
Engineer’s department will drop from $490,449 to $396,118; Elections staff will drop from $15,080 to $8,000; the Building Department
staff costs will decrease from $784,648 to $741,140; Civil Defense is eliminated; Recreation, Parks, Camp, Youth Programs, Conservation Board, Open Space Committee, and the Beach & Pool staff all anticipate decreases.
The town does not explain if these decreases are possible due to improvements in efficiencies or computerization of old manual systems, or if they are the result of program and service cutbacks. The town also does not explain what alternatives they researched to avoid service and program cutbacks. Were contract salary increases renegotiated with the union employees and employee benefits revised to reflect current
economic conditions? Employee benefits make up an extraordinary part of Yorktown’s total staffing budget, $3,205,000 out of the $17,730,762 total, or 17% of the total staff expense.
That trend is also evident in the town’s Highway department budget. The $27,000 increase in this department’s staff cost over 2008 levels is almost completely due to increases in benefits; salary costs are offset by reductions in snow removal expenses. But while the Highway department’s benefit costs are consistent with the town’s benefits costs for police and town staff, both at 17%, the library staff functions with benefits that amount to 15% of their salary levels. Why is Yorktown treating their staff differently? If Yorktown can manage to offer acceptable benefits to their library staff that cost 15% of their salaries, why can’t they offer the same level of benefits to the town, highway, and police departments to lower costs and taxes for local struggling residents?
Offering consistent benefit packages to all town employees would decrease Yorktown’s costs by $967,000, enough to restore the staff lost due to any dropped services and programs. Like most towns, Yorktown splits their annual costs into multiple budgets but adds all of these
budgets together into a top, summary budget. However, a local taxpayer looking at only the top summary budget without delving into the details on the individual budgets would miss the line item on Yorktown’s 2009 Sewer department budget of $238,000 in extraordinary benefit costs. That cost is in addition to $338,981 of normal benefits, a combined total of $576,981 planned for 2009, compared to $214,500 in benefit costs in 2008, an increase of $362,481 or 69% over the prior year. Yet the budget provides no explanation for this extraordinary increase. While Yorktown’s summary budget provides all of the costs involved, the town provides no written explanations of these costs to their residents.
Yorktown does provide their anticipated equipment expenditures by department for 2009 compared to 2008 spending, but does not provide a listing of their existing and proposed equipment. Therefore, local taxpayers cannot determine if the reductions in spending in the 2009 equipment budget is due to cutbacks, or if there is already sufficient equipment in the town’s departments.
A listing of existing equipment, including their dates of service, would allow residents to determine the age of the equipment and if the current replacement schedule and maintenance programs are reasonable. Most governments establish a capital plan, usually for five years, and an analysis of equipment replacement and maintenance needs. The Yorktown budget does not provide copies of either of these plans. One major area of each town budget that will become more critical in future years is the debt portion of the budget. This is the amount of interest each town must pay each year on the funds borrowed for capital programs and equipment budgets. Major programs, such as the building of a new school or the repair of a road or town building, are too expensive to be passed through to taxpayers in one year so local towns borrow funds for these projects and spread their costs over multiple years.
The current national economic stimulus program will incur major interest expense costs on the funds borrowed, due to the enormous size of the $790 billion package and the $2+ trillion bailout packages, the interest costs on these packages are anticipated to affect several generations
of U.S. taxpayers. Many local governments, including Westchester County, are also currently borrowing against future generations to cover today’s expenditures. A local resident, reviewing their town’s budget, must ask if the money borrowed justifies the years of interest that will be due and the programs and services that will need to be cut in future years to pay this interest.
Yorktown’s debt service costs for 2009 are $3,562,992, their fourth highest cost in their total budget for 7% of their costs overall. Most governments set a policy that their total debt cannot exceed a certain percentage of the value of the local taxable property. Yorktown’s debt service schedules do not provide a copy of the town’s policy or a comparison of the total debt costs to the value of the local taxable assets.
Mt. Kisco is currently starting their budget for their 2009/2010 fiscal year which runs from June 1 2009, through May 31, 2010. And although their budget is not yet available, Mt. Kisco residents, in comparison to Yorktown, can readily review the basis for the budget and the schedule online.
The Mt. Kisco Finance department provides all background information as to how the town invests local funds, its debt management policies, how it schedules purchases, and develops its budget in its Financial Goals and Policies available in full at: www.mountkisco.org.
Mt. Kisco’s budget commenced on February 20 when the Village Manager was required to submit a capital improvement proposal to the Board of Trustees. The schedule for the entire Mt. Kisco budget is: February 8: Village Manager shall notify in writing the department heads of the necessity for and form of estimates of revenues and expenses for the ensuing fiscal year; March 1: Department heads shall submit budget estimates to the Village Manager; March 20: Village Manager shall file the tentative budget with the Village Clerk; March 31: Review and amendments to tentative budget shall be made by Village Board; April 15: Notice of public hearing on tentative budget shall be published at least five days prior to public hearing; April 20: Public hearing; May 1: Adoption of budget.
Any Mt. Kisco resident interested in becoming involved in the local budget has a wealth of material available to them on the town’s website. The Finance Department provides detailed budgets for the two prior fiscal years as well as copies of the Town’s annual audits. Included in the Town’s budgets are comparisons going back to 2006, written explanations, and line-by-line cost details. An interested resident can
see how much each Town department is spending on telephone costs or what the Police Department charged for overtime or attending events.
Not all of Westchester’s towns operate on the same budget schedules. North Castle (Armonk) adopted their town budget for 2009 in December, 2008. Any North Castle residents who are anxious to lower the town’s spending, and the taxes needed for that spending, will have
to wait almost another year for changes to be made unless they can convince the Town to adopt a revised interim budget for the remainder of 2009.
Likewise, Ossining has already approved its budget for 2009. Unlike other are towns, however, Ossining is projecting increases in both
spending and taxes for their residents. Ossining provides an overview of the major changes in the current year’s budget on its website,
www.townofossining.com. Some of the major changes for Ossining are:
• 23.5% reduction in Mortgage Tax revenue; $1,050,000 in 2008 to $850,000 for 2009;
• -0.42% reduction in Interest & Earnings; $225,000 in 2008 to $130,000 in 2009;
• 25% increase in police overtime;
• Increase in Appraisals, Litigation and refunds for Certioraris;
• 23% increase in salt expenses for roadways during inclement weather;
• Increase in Electric costs from $164,000 in 2008 to $221,000 in 2009;
• 6.6% increase in Health Insurance premiums.
While the town budgets have an impact on the amount of local taxes paid by Westchester residents, the school budgets have an even greater impact. Local residents seeking to lower their tax bills to compensate for lost jobs, lower income, and drops in retirement savings, should participate in the hearings for their school budgets to possibly reduce district spending.
All local schools operate on the same fiscal year, July 1 to June 30. The budgets must be voted on in May, so local residents have the months of March and April to make their opinions heard. The school districts are already facing pressure from their employees to cover the shortfalls in the retirement funds due to the declines in the stock market. However, many local taxpayers have added at least a decade to their own work years to compensate for recent losses of 33% and more to their 401K’s and will be unwilling to continue to fund retirement contracts that allow school staff to retire at age 55 with minimal, or no contributions from those staff members to their retirement accounts.
Indeed, many local residents now want a reduction in their school taxes to compensate for the additional contributions they now have to
make to their own retirement needs. Local residents should obtain a copy of previous years’ budgets from their school districts along
with a copy of the budget proposals for 2009 and the teacher and staff contracts with full benefit and retirement provisions, in order to
determine what costs the local taxpayers should be asked to bear. All of this information is already on hand at each school district, or on
the district website, and should be available to local residents without the need for submitting a Freedom of Information Act request.
The Guardian will analyze the school budgets and the district contracts for our readers throughout March and April as they become
available.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Scrutinizing 2009/2010 Town Budgets
Local towns are currently working on their budgets for the upcoming 2009/2010 fiscal year. Most of the pending budgets that the Guardian reviewed reflect the impact of the recession on the local economy. Most towns are holding their total budgets to their current 2008/2009 levels, offsetting increases in salaries and benefits in current employee contracts by reducing staffs in other areas and decreasing or defraying
equipment purchases.
The Town of Yorktown posts their budget on the town Comptroller’s website: www.yorktownny.org. The town’s total salaries and benefits for 2009 are expected to be $17,730,762, a slight decrease from their 2008 levels of $17,859,287. At first blush, this would appear to be a good thing for local taxpayers, but the total decrease disguises several significant increases in the budget, compensated for by major cutbacks
in several areas.
Most town departments in Yorktown have minor or no changes in salaries planned for 2009, among them, the town’s Legislative Board, the Tax Collector, the Town Clerk, Public Safety, and the Parks Department. However, some departments are anticipating increases in salaries that exceed the standard 3% - 4% increases in pre-recession government contracts. The Town Hall staff costs are projected to increase from $47,129 to $63,766, a 35% increase; the Police Department will increase from $6,830,005 to $7,147,001, 4.6%; the Skate Park staff costs
will increase from $16,000 to $21,000, 31%; and Section 8 staff will increase from $82,488 to $95,171, 15%. The town did not explain the reasons for these increases in costs. Are they stemming from necessary additional staff or are the current staff receiving extraordinary raises in these difficult times at local taxpayer expense? Yorktown’s budget does not provide a headcount by department so that the town residents cannot even determine how many individuals are on their tax rolls.
In order to keep total town costs down, Yorktown has decreased costs on other departments to compensate for the increases above. The Assessment staff costs will decrease from $560,448 to $358,418; the Legal department staff costs will drop from $356,125 to $179,644; the
Engineer’s department will drop from $490,449 to $396,118; Elections staff will drop from $15,080 to $8,000; the Building Department
staff costs will decrease from $784,648 to $741,140; Civil Defense is eliminated; Recreation, Parks, Camp, Youth Programs, Conservation Board, Open Space Committee, and the Beach & Pool staff all anticipate decreases.
The town does not explain if these decreases are possible due to improvements in efficiencies or computerization of old manual systems, or if they are the result of program and service cutbacks. The town also does not explain what alternatives they researched to avoid service and program cutbacks. Were contract salary increases renegotiated with the union employees and employee benefits revised to reflect current
economic conditions? Employee benefits make up an extraordinary part of Yorktown’s total staffing budget, $3,205,000 out of the $17,730,762 total, or 17% of the total staff expense.
That trend is also evident in the town’s Highway department budget. The $27,000 increase in this department’s staff cost over 2008 levels is almost completely due to increases in benefits; salary costs are offset by reductions in snow removal expenses. But while the Highway department’s benefit costs are consistent with the town’s benefits costs for police and town staff, both at 17%, the library staff functions with benefits that amount to 15% of their salary levels. Why is Yorktown treating their staff differently? If Yorktown can manage to offer acceptable benefits to their library staff that cost 15% of their salaries, why can’t they offer the same level of benefits to the town, highway, and police departments to lower costs and taxes for local struggling residents?
Offering consistent benefit packages to all town employees would decrease Yorktown’s costs by $967,000, enough to restore the staff lost due to any dropped services and programs. Like most towns, Yorktown splits their annual costs into multiple budgets but adds all of these
budgets together into a top, summary budget. However, a local taxpayer looking at only the top summary budget without delving into the details on the individual budgets would miss the line item on Yorktown’s 2009 Sewer department budget of $238,000 in extraordinary benefit costs. That cost is in addition to $338,981 of normal benefits, a combined total of $576,981 planned for 2009, compared to $214,500 in benefit costs in 2008, an increase of $362,481 or 69% over the prior year. Yet the budget provides no explanation for this extraordinary increase. While Yorktown’s summary budget provides all of the costs involved, the town provides no written explanations of these costs to their residents.
Yorktown does provide their anticipated equipment expenditures by department for 2009 compared to 2008 spending, but does not provide a listing of their existing and proposed equipment. Therefore, local taxpayers cannot determine if the reductions in spending in the 2009 equipment budget is due to cutbacks, or if there is already sufficient equipment in the town’s departments.
A listing of existing equipment, including their dates of service, would allow residents to determine the age of the equipment and if the current replacement schedule and maintenance programs are reasonable. Most governments establish a capital plan, usually for five years, and an analysis of equipment replacement and maintenance needs. The Yorktown budget does not provide copies of either of these plans. One major area of each town budget that will become more critical in future years is the debt portion of the budget. This is the amount of interest each town must pay each year on the funds borrowed for capital programs and equipment budgets. Major programs, such as the building of a new school or the repair of a road or town building, are too expensive to be passed through to taxpayers in one year so local towns borrow funds for these projects and spread their costs over multiple years.
The current national economic stimulus program will incur major interest expense costs on the funds borrowed, due to the enormous size of the $790 billion package and the $2+ trillion bailout packages, the interest costs on these packages are anticipated to affect several generations
of U.S. taxpayers. Many local governments, including Westchester County, are also currently borrowing against future generations to cover today’s expenditures. A local resident, reviewing their town’s budget, must ask if the money borrowed justifies the years of interest that will be due and the programs and services that will need to be cut in future years to pay this interest.
Yorktown’s debt service costs for 2009 are $3,562,992, their fourth highest cost in their total budget for 7% of their costs overall. Most governments set a policy that their total debt cannot exceed a certain percentage of the value of the local taxable property. Yorktown’s debt service schedules do not provide a copy of the town’s policy or a comparison of the total debt costs to the value of the local taxable assets.
Mt. Kisco is currently starting their budget for their 2009/2010 fiscal year which runs from June 1 2009, through May 31, 2010. And although their budget is not yet available, Mt. Kisco residents, in comparison to Yorktown, can readily review the basis for the budget and the schedule online.
The Mt. Kisco Finance department provides all background information as to how the town invests local funds, its debt management policies, how it schedules purchases, and develops its budget in its Financial Goals and Policies available in full at: www.mountkisco.org.
Mt. Kisco’s budget commenced on February 20 when the Village Manager was required to submit a capital improvement proposal to the Board of Trustees. The schedule for the entire Mt. Kisco budget is: February 8: Village Manager shall notify in writing the department heads of the necessity for and form of estimates of revenues and expenses for the ensuing fiscal year; March 1: Department heads shall submit budget estimates to the Village Manager; March 20: Village Manager shall file the tentative budget with the Village Clerk; March 31: Review and amendments to tentative budget shall be made by Village Board; April 15: Notice of public hearing on tentative budget shall be published at least five days prior to public hearing; April 20: Public hearing; May 1: Adoption of budget.
Any Mt. Kisco resident interested in becoming involved in the local budget has a wealth of material available to them on the town’s website. The Finance Department provides detailed budgets for the two prior fiscal years as well as copies of the Town’s annual audits. Included in the Town’s budgets are comparisons going back to 2006, written explanations, and line-by-line cost details. An interested resident can
see how much each Town department is spending on telephone costs or what the Police Department charged for overtime or attending events.
Not all of Westchester’s towns operate on the same budget schedules. North Castle (Armonk) adopted their town budget for 2009 in December, 2008. Any North Castle residents who are anxious to lower the town’s spending, and the taxes needed for that spending, will have
to wait almost another year for changes to be made unless they can convince the Town to adopt a revised interim budget for the remainder of 2009.
Likewise, Ossining has already approved its budget for 2009. Unlike other are towns, however, Ossining is projecting increases in both
spending and taxes for their residents. Ossining provides an overview of the major changes in the current year’s budget on its website,
www.townofossining.com. Some of the major changes for Ossining are:
• 23.5% reduction in Mortgage Tax revenue; $1,050,000 in 2008 to $850,000 for 2009;
• -0.42% reduction in Interest & Earnings; $225,000 in 2008 to $130,000 in 2009;
• 25% increase in police overtime;
• Increase in Appraisals, Litigation and refunds for Certioraris;
• 23% increase in salt expenses for roadways during inclement weather;
• Increase in Electric costs from $164,000 in 2008 to $221,000 in 2009;
• 6.6% increase in Health Insurance premiums.
While the town budgets have an impact on the amount of local taxes paid by Westchester residents, the school budgets have an even greater impact. Local residents seeking to lower their tax bills to compensate for lost jobs, lower income, and drops in retirement savings, should participate in the hearings for their school budgets to possibly reduce district spending.
All local schools operate on the same fiscal year, July 1 to June 30. The budgets must be voted on in May, so local residents have the months of March and April to make their opinions heard. The school districts are already facing pressure from their employees to cover the shortfalls in the retirement funds due to the declines in the stock market. However, many local taxpayers have added at least a decade to their own work years to compensate for recent losses of 33% and more to their 401K’s and will be unwilling to continue to fund retirement contracts that allow school staff to retire at age 55 with minimal, or no contributions from those staff members to their retirement accounts.
Indeed, many local residents now want a reduction in their school taxes to compensate for the additional contributions they now have to
make to their own retirement needs. Local residents should obtain a copy of previous years’ budgets from their school districts along
with a copy of the budget proposals for 2009 and the teacher and staff contracts with full benefit and retirement provisions, in order to
determine what costs the local taxpayers should be asked to bear. All of this information is already on hand at each school district, or on
the district website, and should be available to local residents without the need for submitting a Freedom of Information Act request.
The Guardian will analyze the school budgets and the district contracts for our readers throughout March and April as they become
available.
Westchester Guardian/The Adovcate/Janet Difiore/Samuel Rivers.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blaasberg
The Real Significance Of John Boykin’s
Threatening Phone Call To Sam Rivers
Recent Shocking Events In Mount Vernon Continue To Expose Pressure
Being Applied By Corrupt, Incompetent District Attorney
Just when we think we have seen the worst possible conduct from public officials that could come out of the City of Mount Vernon, someone steps forward to prove us wrong and, that’s no simple feat when you’re trying to top a Mayor’s Chief of Staff with a misguided loyalty to a bad District Attorney and a racially-motivated vulgar mouth; not to mention a Police Commissioner willing to abuse the powers of his office just to kiss the same dreadful DA where the sun doesn’t shine.
The Advocate
Richard Blaasberg
The Real Significance Of John Boykin’s
Threatening Phone Call To Sam Rivers
Recent Shocking Events In Mount Vernon Continue To Expose Pressure
Being Applied By Corrupt, Incompetent District Attorney
Just when we think we have seen the worst possible conduct from public officials that could come out of the City of Mount Vernon, someone steps forward to prove us wrong and, that’s no simple feat when you’re trying to top a Mayor’s Chief of Staff with a misguided loyalty to a bad District Attorney and a racially-motivated vulgar mouth; not to mention a Police Commissioner willing to abuse the powers of his office just to kiss the same dreadful DA where the sun doesn’t shine.
Nevertheless, John Boykin, Special Assistant to beleaguered Mayor Clinton Young has managed to momentarily steal the spotlight from Yolanda Robinson and David Chong. Boykin was apparently on a mission to redeem himself in the eyes of Janet DiFiore’s henchmen, having previously honestly disclosed the unlawful motives and actions of Robinson and Chong, acting under orders from DiFiore, to retaliate against Westchester Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka.
Boykin would attempt to “put the fear” into Samuel Rivers; would talk the talk to his contemporary; would make him understand that a man who would go against DA Janet DiFiore and her Mob could get hurt, even killed, like former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and nobody would even investigate.
Yes, Boykin would keep Sam Rivers, a likeable young real estate agent and Mount Vernon Democratic Committeeperson, on the phone for more than an hour, trying to get him to mend his ways, to fall in line if he knows what’s good for him and his business. He went so far as to remind him that the Mount Vernon City Building Department, and other City agencies, could delay any real estate project Rivers might bring before them, by weeks, or longer, if they were ordered to.
All because Rivers had expressed support for Tony Castro and had hosted a get-together with members of the City’s Democratic Party for Castro, who is expected to announce his candidacy for district attorney. John Boykin, in truth, is merely a foot soldier in a corrupt organization. What is truly tragic is his resignation, his surrender, to a life of sleaze and deceit at the tender age of 26. How very pathetic his willingness to do the dirty work of Mayor Clinton Young and Mount Vernon Democratic Committee Chairman Devereau Cannick by attempting to intimidate and chill Sam Rivers with the following:
• “If something happens to you, you’re just going to go away. No one will investigate”,
• “When your Range Rover was burned up [an act of arson], there was no investigation. No one is being investigated”,
• “Ron Brown was killed by the Democratic Party. His plane went down. No one was investigated. Do you understand what I mean?”
• “You have been marked with a ‘red dot’, (a reference to an aiming device on a laser-equipped firearm),
• “You have earned a ‘red bulls eye’, (a reference to Plaintiff’s status as a target of anticipated retaliation),
• “You’re f--king with people”,
• “You’re causing a lot of s--t”,
• “Be careful who you choose as your friend”, (a reference to Sam Zherka, who Boykin had previously cautioned Plaintiff to stay away from because Zherka is “controversial”) “and you [Plaintiff] do not want to be controversial”,
• “Be careful, the cost is greater than you expect it to be”,
• “You’re making a lot of enemies”,
• “You don’t make waves against those who appointed you”, (a reference to Devereau’s appointment of Plaintiff as a District Leader),
• “You need to resign as District Leader”,
• “The stuff you want to do [reporting City corruption in a column in the Westchester Guardian] has not come out yet”,
• “In the jungle there are lions. Even lions stay in packs. Even rogue lions die. You will die if you roll alone”,
• “ The people who are rolling with you [including Sam Zherka] are not your friends. If you are being financed by Ni--ers, what are
they saying behind your back?”,
• “Lay low and learn the ways of the Godfather”,
• “You are threatening people’s money, the power structure”,
• “You are about to do some s--t [writing for the Westchester Guardian] that will have you in the s--tter”,
• “S--t will get worse for you if you try to effect change”,
• “You must abide by the rules when in politics”,
• “Your name is in a lot of places it shouldn’t be”,
• “Your name is in [District Attorney Janet] DiFiore’s mouth”,
• “When Ni--ers start losing their livelihood they will lash out”,
• “Tread lightly”,
• “There is a price to pay for some glory”,
• “Ruffling feathers is not good”,
• “You’re dealing with lions. Lions are after your a-- right now”,
• “This is not about palm cards. It’s about money”,
• “You can’t f--k with people’s money”,
• “You put a person in a corner and he becomes a lion, a beast”,
• “No judge, no one will hear your case. It will not be heard. No one will hear your case”, (a reference to any possible litigation that Plaintiff might commence by reason of Boykin’s threats),
• “You are disturbing the force, I have received calls”,
• “You are a major disturbance in the force, your interrupting the bigger picture”,
• “Mount Vernon is a crucial place - - 25,000 votes. The Governor comes here. The Majority Leader [Malcolm Smith] hangs here. Things are connected. They fit together like a puzzle”,
• “I don’t know how it’s going to happen. They’re gonna plan it. No one is beyond being touched”,
• “The Governor needs something done. The Governor wants something. It’s not free. The governor needs us. I got seven or eight Ni--ers in the Governor’s office”,
• “There are seven Ni--ers meeting in a restaurant, or a basement or in City Hall; they’re going to get you f--kin’ ruffled. That’s how they handle a gangster”.
• “There’s a difference between you and Sam Zherka. Do you need this kind of exposure to get what you need to get?”
• “If you [in connection with Plaintiff’s real estate business] go to the Building Department, they will add a week or two to your wait”,
• “We are the f--king government. You are going against the f--kin’ system”,
• “Abe Lincoln did a lot of controversial s--t and got killed for that s--t”.
What we have, in John Boykins’ tape-recorded telephone threats, while important for the explicit content of the message, an act that clearly will not be investigated or punished by a district attorney who is the central figure, the tyrannical force instilling fear enough to compel obedience, is something even more significant for the vivisection of the corrupt creature that is Westchester Politics. It lays bare the arteries through which
the money must be kept flowing; and with it the power and influence to control City, County and State Government; the power to grant contracts and employment, to control the lives and loyalties of families as much as any Organized Crime enterprise imaginable.
At his press conference, Rivers told reporters that Boykin warned him, “You’d better be careful driving. Your name was in Janet DiFiore’s mouth. If you get pulled over they will plant drugs on you, and that’ll be the end of you.”At 26 years of age, Boykin, who just a few weeks earlier had stood up to racism and tyranny, speaking openly with publisher Zherka and revealing the truth about the premeditated plot hatched by Robinson and Chong, under orders from Janet DiFiore, had now been brought into the fold, made to comply with dictates from the “Queen Bee” herself. He would make his “friend” and contemporary, Sam Rivers, realize that he could not be bringing Tony Castro, the man who ran against her, around, to meet with and speak with concerned citizens.
Boykin alludes, in his conversation, to the supposed twenty-five thousand votes in Mount Vernon. History, particularly the history of elections in Westchester over the last 15 years or more, reminds us that the kind of “insiders” Boykin was warning about, would, in fact, stop at nothing, employing any and every form of election fraud, to hold onto power.
Everyone knows by now that Andrea Stewart-Cousins had to win twice, once in 2004 by 355 votes and again in 2006 by more than 1800 in order to take her seat in the New York State Senate. It took the United States Justice Department, with monitors and marshals, to bring about an honest
result.
Boykin knows about the role Reggie LaFayette, so-called part-time Election Commissioner, at $155,000 a year, (not to mention what he grabs from the Chairman’s Fund) plays in carrying out whatever scheme it will take to keep a lying, incumbent DA such as Janet DiFiore, in power.
Janet, show us the tapes, the unredacted tapes of the Ridley murder!
Soon, every conscientious, self-respecting resident of Mount Vernon will be demanding, “Show us the tapes!” Somebody needs to remind the newly-minted Democrat of what the first Republican president said about not being able to “Fool all of the people all of the time.”
Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
In Our Opinion...
“The Brothers Alessandro”: Was It Merely A Bloodletting?
It came as no shock when the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, last Monday, February 23, made public their decision to strip both Judge Joseph S. Alessandro, 63, sitting on the State Supreme Court in Orange County, and his older brother, Francis M. Alessandro, 70, a Civil Court Judge in The Bronx, from their positions. Readers may remember Joe as a County Court Judge in Westchester who ran in 2003, though he actually resided in the Morris Park section of The Bronx.
His overabundance of campaign signs, at the time, laughably proclaimed, “Experience Counts,” though he had never been elected a judge before, and never even attended law school. It was obvious from the start that he was buying his way onto the County Court and, furthermore, that he wasn’t from Westchester. Not immediately known, however, was that he was doing it with a quarter of a million of his campaign treasurer’s
dollars. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t be long before she was hauling him into State Court, charging him with fraud and failure to repay his debt. That was back in 2004.
As it turned out, Joe and his brother managed to get around Barbara Battista’s lien against their mother’s house in Valhalla which had been put up as collateral, and then refinanced. The Commission, in their investigation, discovered, additionally, that both brothers had, in August 2003, signed a promissory note to Battista that specified repayment in 30 days, but that there was a verbal understanding that Joe could take until July of 2004 to repay the loan. However, the Commission also discovered that in November of 2003, just prior to his election, Joe rewrote the mortgage note, giving himself 15 years to repay the then-71-year-old Battista.
It would be classic British understatement to say that Joe was an undistinguished County Judge, lacking both judicial temperament and fundamental knowledge of criminal law. His lifelong area of “practice” had been real estate, and he wasn’t especially handy with on-the-job training. He clearly demonstrated his incompetence in his handling of one particular 440.10 Motion that involved a wrongfully charged and convicted individual who
had been indicted both for Intentional, and Depraved Indifference Murder, and acquitted of Intentional, but convicted of Depraved after having fired “three rounds to center mass” at close range into the chest of a batwielding assailant who was beating an unarmed civilian. After filing his denial of the motion, Joe came to a reporter and said, “It was Intentional,” as if to justify his blunder.
Both Francis and Joe were found to have knowingly filed incomplete financial disclosure statements, and to have made not-credible statements before the Commission. However, despite Joe Alessandro’s sleight-of-hand tactics with Barbara Battista in 2003, and his obvious incompetence
on the bench, to the shame of the entire State Judiciary, and the 9th Judicial District, in particular, a blatant and basically fraudulent scheme to install Jonathan Lippman on the State Supreme Court, was finagled between Republicans and Democrats. Under Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai, an old hand at rigged elections, Joseph Alessandro, of all possible horrific judges, was chosen to cross-endorse Lippman for State Supreme Court. And, following a series of hops, skips, and jumps, Lippman, obligated and committed to the worst of the worst, the likes of Nick Spano and Larry Schwartz, is now Chief Judge of New York State.
In the final analysis, while the investigation and recommendations of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, with respect to Judges Joseph and Francis Alessandro, was certainly appropriate, the issue of broader concern for the People of New York State, is the pervasiveness of misconduct throughout the Unified Court System and, the culpability that reaches to the very top. Viewed from that truthful perspective, the stripping of the Alessandro Brothers from the bench is but a mere bloodletting.
After all, the Alessandro/Battista Affair was certainly known as far back as 2004 as high up as in the chambers of then-Chief Judge Judith Kaye, but was not acted upon for nearly five years. How can the People of New York expect that this long-overdue, statutorily-mandated action by the Commission represents a more broadly-based decision to clean up the State Courts when the man who has now been maneuvered to the position of Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, got there by cross-endorsing Joseph Alessandro, someone who had been deemed “unfit” by the Bar Association, and who had engaged in fraudulent practices, to begin with, as Judith Kaye was very well aware. How can a judge such as Lippman preside over the cleanup of our State Courts?
Jonathan Lippman would have us believe that he is “Kosher for Passover”. We think not!
Our Reader's Respond...
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I write to you today with regard to the case of Paul Cote. Paul and his partner were involved in an unfortunate incident at the County Jail in their positions as correction officers. The inmate involved eventually passed away. His partner made the initial contact with the inmate and Paul went to assist him. Paul, and only Paul, was charged and sentenced. He served time for this incident. Now he has lost his freedom again for the same incident, but this time in federal court! How can this be?
Paul has already served his time. This tragic incident must be put in the past. Paul and his family deserve the right to move forward with their lives.
They deserve true justice. Nothing more is asked.
Dorothy MacMoran, White Plains
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I’ve been following your articles on the former Westchester Correction Offi-cer Paul Cote. I almost cannot believe the events surrounding this story; so much so that it belongs on TV.
There are so many conflicting thoughts, and many eye-raising questions. I am completely puzzled as to how immunity was granted to the officer who was first involved in the altercation with the inmate, and Cote brought to trial. Is it any wonder that folks like me get turned off with local politicians and public officials? Are they really looking out for the little guy? Something just doesn’t add up in this story. From all that I have
read, it seems crystal clear that, for some reason, the cards were stacked against Cote right from the start. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe Cote wasn’t with the “in-crowd”; on the team at the Department of Corruption.
Thanks for allowing me to vent my two cents, and thanks for the great coverage. I really like the paper.
Brunetta Lee Brown, Yonkers
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I’m writing this letter in support of, in my opinion, the wrongly imprisoned correction officer, Paul Cote. It has been eight years of hell since this travesty of justice was imposed upon this man and his family. Paul was stripped of his livelihood and future, while another individual, who was more involved with the altercation, was granted immunity for testifying against his fellow officer. Is this how the Justice System works?
Paul is obviously the sacrificial lamb of the Correction Department and prosecutor’s office. I hope and pray that justice will prevail.
Joseph Mastroianni, Airmont
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
A few weeks ago I visited my sister in Mount Vernon, and she gave me the edition of your newspaper to read. When I saw Paul Cote shown
on your front page, it was the most surreal reaction I could’ve had! This is someone I knew as a young boy who grew up to be the man he is today. This is a wonderful husband, father and son anyone could ever wish for.
What happened to Paul is what he’s always done; coming to the assistance of someone who is in need of help, something Paul has done throughout his life. To be penalized for doing what he’s supposed to be doing is totally unjust! With all the dishonest injustices that Paul has endured, I’m hoping that true facts and honesty can be applied in giving Paul the justice he deserves, and allowing him to be with his family where he belongs.
There just aren’t enough words.
Claire Channon,
Long Beach, New York
A Reader Voices Opposition To Legal Abortion
Dear Editor:
In July 1862 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves in the Confederate states, and in December 1865
the 13th Amendment, which forbade slavery, was ratified by the states. Now it is time for Governor David Paterson to issue an Emancipation Proclamation to guarantee that all pre-born babies in this great, progressive state are persons from the moment of conception, and entitled
to the human rights of life and liberty.
The New York State Constitution’s preamble states, “We the People of the State of New York, grateful to the Almighty God for our Freedom,
in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” The “Almighty God”, not the state or the courts, sanctifies life and gives each
pre-born infant these rights, which are being taken away from them by pro-abortion politicians, judges, doctors, Planned Parenthood and other non-profits. The state not only allows the atrocious killing of pre-born infants up to the ninth month but abortions are done using taxpayer dollars in spite of citizen’s moral and religious opposition.
In order to assure that an amendment to the State Constitution is passed by the Legislature and approved by the voters, pro-life priests, ministers, rabbis, and leaders of other faiths must use all the methods of communication available to them, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines,
and the internet to send the message of life and liberty for the pre-born. The next Cardinal for the New York archdiocese must be an outspoken advocate for the pro-life crusade, and not be ambiguous in the media or with politicians.
He should start by boycotting the Al Smith Dinner where all the pro-abortion politicians congregated for the blessings from the politically-correct
Cardinals of the past. When it comes to the killing of pre-born babies, “Silence is not golden.” The amendment should also protect the right of medical personnel not to participate in any way with the taking of innocent, pre-born life, including the dispensing of drugs. Public school education should include the reading of the Preamble to the State Constitution, and then discussing its implications regarding pre-born babies,
objective morality, free will, and the dignity and respect due sacred, human life from conception to natural death. The amendment should also state that pre-born infants’ lives cannot be taken away by the state or the courts, and that taxpayer money cannot be used in any way to support abortions by surgery or by drugs.
Pro-life candidates must be proactive and aggressive in their campaigns by participating in debates conducted by the League of Women Voters or any other organization, answering the League’s questionnaire, participating in media interviews, setting up an interactive website, shaking hands while handing out “palm cards” at train and bus stations, walking the neighborhoods, and writing a blog and letters/commentaries to daily and weekly newspapers. Candidates should also discuss the pro-life amendment during each media event, in questionnaires, in debates, and on the website. Pro-life citizens should write letters or e-mails to Governor Paterson, their state senators and assembly members, their religious leaders,
and newspapers to express their support for a pro-life amendment which will emancipate pre-born infants and declare them to be “persons” as conception, entitled to life and liberty as citizens of the State of New York.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
Senior Taxpayer Sounds Still Another Charge Against Over-Taxation
Dear Editor:
I represent a group of property owners who call ourselves the Passive Property Owners of New York State, or PPONYS. Our concerns are with the manner in which our properties are assessed. At the heart of this problem is the practice of assessing real property on the basis of purchases of so-called “comparables” which purchases are, as we have lately learned, to our sorrow, contracted using minimal cash investment and enormous mortgage debt. This assessment forms the basis for the taxes imposed on our properties though they bear no relation to the frenzied “MARKET” of recent memory which has been exposed for the scam that it was. The utilization of the obsolete of assessing property on this basis has its roots in the 19th century when property was conveyed once or possibly twice in a lifetime; it has no place in the 21st century where the average tenancy is said to be seven years.
The indifference of the taxing authorities toward the pain inflicted upon those property owners, many of whom have ancestral ties and deep roots in Westchester County rivals the misdeeds of the infamous “Bernie Madoff” as we confront the ever-present spectre of foreclosure for taxes which we simply cannot pay. The matter demands redress in the courts, if it is not addressed in the legislatures.
Perhaps The Guardian can be effective in restoring proper sovereignty over our property to its titled owners.
Marguerite E. Nichols, Pelham
In Our Opinion...
“The Brothers Alessandro”: Was It Merely A Bloodletting?
It came as no shock when the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, last Monday, February 23, made public their decision to strip both Judge Joseph S. Alessandro, 63, sitting on the State Supreme Court in Orange County, and his older brother, Francis M. Alessandro, 70, a Civil Court Judge in The Bronx, from their positions. Readers may remember Joe as a County Court Judge in Westchester who ran in 2003, though he actually resided in the Morris Park section of The Bronx.
His overabundance of campaign signs, at the time, laughably proclaimed, “Experience Counts,” though he had never been elected a judge before, and never even attended law school. It was obvious from the start that he was buying his way onto the County Court and, furthermore, that he wasn’t from Westchester. Not immediately known, however, was that he was doing it with a quarter of a million of his campaign treasurer’s
dollars. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t be long before she was hauling him into State Court, charging him with fraud and failure to repay his debt. That was back in 2004.
As it turned out, Joe and his brother managed to get around Barbara Battista’s lien against their mother’s house in Valhalla which had been put up as collateral, and then refinanced. The Commission, in their investigation, discovered, additionally, that both brothers had, in August 2003, signed a promissory note to Battista that specified repayment in 30 days, but that there was a verbal understanding that Joe could take until July of 2004 to repay the loan. However, the Commission also discovered that in November of 2003, just prior to his election, Joe rewrote the mortgage note, giving himself 15 years to repay the then-71-year-old Battista.
It would be classic British understatement to say that Joe was an undistinguished County Judge, lacking both judicial temperament and fundamental knowledge of criminal law. His lifelong area of “practice” had been real estate, and he wasn’t especially handy with on-the-job training. He clearly demonstrated his incompetence in his handling of one particular 440.10 Motion that involved a wrongfully charged and convicted individual who
had been indicted both for Intentional, and Depraved Indifference Murder, and acquitted of Intentional, but convicted of Depraved after having fired “three rounds to center mass” at close range into the chest of a batwielding assailant who was beating an unarmed civilian. After filing his denial of the motion, Joe came to a reporter and said, “It was Intentional,” as if to justify his blunder.
Both Francis and Joe were found to have knowingly filed incomplete financial disclosure statements, and to have made not-credible statements before the Commission. However, despite Joe Alessandro’s sleight-of-hand tactics with Barbara Battista in 2003, and his obvious incompetence
on the bench, to the shame of the entire State Judiciary, and the 9th Judicial District, in particular, a blatant and basically fraudulent scheme to install Jonathan Lippman on the State Supreme Court, was finagled between Republicans and Democrats. Under Administrative Judge Francis Nicolai, an old hand at rigged elections, Joseph Alessandro, of all possible horrific judges, was chosen to cross-endorse Lippman for State Supreme Court. And, following a series of hops, skips, and jumps, Lippman, obligated and committed to the worst of the worst, the likes of Nick Spano and Larry Schwartz, is now Chief Judge of New York State.
In the final analysis, while the investigation and recommendations of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, with respect to Judges Joseph and Francis Alessandro, was certainly appropriate, the issue of broader concern for the People of New York State, is the pervasiveness of misconduct throughout the Unified Court System and, the culpability that reaches to the very top. Viewed from that truthful perspective, the stripping of the Alessandro Brothers from the bench is but a mere bloodletting.
After all, the Alessandro/Battista Affair was certainly known as far back as 2004 as high up as in the chambers of then-Chief Judge Judith Kaye, but was not acted upon for nearly five years. How can the People of New York expect that this long-overdue, statutorily-mandated action by the Commission represents a more broadly-based decision to clean up the State Courts when the man who has now been maneuvered to the position of Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, got there by cross-endorsing Joseph Alessandro, someone who had been deemed “unfit” by the Bar Association, and who had engaged in fraudulent practices, to begin with, as Judith Kaye was very well aware. How can a judge such as Lippman preside over the cleanup of our State Courts?
Jonathan Lippman would have us believe that he is “Kosher for Passover”. We think not!
Our Reader's Respond...
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I write to you today with regard to the case of Paul Cote. Paul and his partner were involved in an unfortunate incident at the County Jail in their positions as correction officers. The inmate involved eventually passed away. His partner made the initial contact with the inmate and Paul went to assist him. Paul, and only Paul, was charged and sentenced. He served time for this incident. Now he has lost his freedom again for the same incident, but this time in federal court! How can this be?
Paul has already served his time. This tragic incident must be put in the past. Paul and his family deserve the right to move forward with their lives.
They deserve true justice. Nothing more is asked.
Dorothy MacMoran, White Plains
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I’ve been following your articles on the former Westchester Correction Offi-cer Paul Cote. I almost cannot believe the events surrounding this story; so much so that it belongs on TV.
There are so many conflicting thoughts, and many eye-raising questions. I am completely puzzled as to how immunity was granted to the officer who was first involved in the altercation with the inmate, and Cote brought to trial. Is it any wonder that folks like me get turned off with local politicians and public officials? Are they really looking out for the little guy? Something just doesn’t add up in this story. From all that I have
read, it seems crystal clear that, for some reason, the cards were stacked against Cote right from the start. I’m beginning to wonder if maybe Cote wasn’t with the “in-crowd”; on the team at the Department of Corruption.
Thanks for allowing me to vent my two cents, and thanks for the great coverage. I really like the paper.
Brunetta Lee Brown, Yonkers
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I’m writing this letter in support of, in my opinion, the wrongly imprisoned correction officer, Paul Cote. It has been eight years of hell since this travesty of justice was imposed upon this man and his family. Paul was stripped of his livelihood and future, while another individual, who was more involved with the altercation, was granted immunity for testifying against his fellow officer. Is this how the Justice System works?
Paul is obviously the sacrificial lamb of the Correction Department and prosecutor’s office. I hope and pray that justice will prevail.
Joseph Mastroianni, Airmont
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
A few weeks ago I visited my sister in Mount Vernon, and she gave me the edition of your newspaper to read. When I saw Paul Cote shown
on your front page, it was the most surreal reaction I could’ve had! This is someone I knew as a young boy who grew up to be the man he is today. This is a wonderful husband, father and son anyone could ever wish for.
What happened to Paul is what he’s always done; coming to the assistance of someone who is in need of help, something Paul has done throughout his life. To be penalized for doing what he’s supposed to be doing is totally unjust! With all the dishonest injustices that Paul has endured, I’m hoping that true facts and honesty can be applied in giving Paul the justice he deserves, and allowing him to be with his family where he belongs.
There just aren’t enough words.
Claire Channon,
Long Beach, New York
A Reader Voices Opposition To Legal Abortion
Dear Editor:
In July 1862 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves in the Confederate states, and in December 1865
the 13th Amendment, which forbade slavery, was ratified by the states. Now it is time for Governor David Paterson to issue an Emancipation Proclamation to guarantee that all pre-born babies in this great, progressive state are persons from the moment of conception, and entitled
to the human rights of life and liberty.
The New York State Constitution’s preamble states, “We the People of the State of New York, grateful to the Almighty God for our Freedom,
in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” The “Almighty God”, not the state or the courts, sanctifies life and gives each
pre-born infant these rights, which are being taken away from them by pro-abortion politicians, judges, doctors, Planned Parenthood and other non-profits. The state not only allows the atrocious killing of pre-born infants up to the ninth month but abortions are done using taxpayer dollars in spite of citizen’s moral and religious opposition.
In order to assure that an amendment to the State Constitution is passed by the Legislature and approved by the voters, pro-life priests, ministers, rabbis, and leaders of other faiths must use all the methods of communication available to them, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines,
and the internet to send the message of life and liberty for the pre-born. The next Cardinal for the New York archdiocese must be an outspoken advocate for the pro-life crusade, and not be ambiguous in the media or with politicians.
He should start by boycotting the Al Smith Dinner where all the pro-abortion politicians congregated for the blessings from the politically-correct
Cardinals of the past. When it comes to the killing of pre-born babies, “Silence is not golden.” The amendment should also protect the right of medical personnel not to participate in any way with the taking of innocent, pre-born life, including the dispensing of drugs. Public school education should include the reading of the Preamble to the State Constitution, and then discussing its implications regarding pre-born babies,
objective morality, free will, and the dignity and respect due sacred, human life from conception to natural death. The amendment should also state that pre-born infants’ lives cannot be taken away by the state or the courts, and that taxpayer money cannot be used in any way to support abortions by surgery or by drugs.
Pro-life candidates must be proactive and aggressive in their campaigns by participating in debates conducted by the League of Women Voters or any other organization, answering the League’s questionnaire, participating in media interviews, setting up an interactive website, shaking hands while handing out “palm cards” at train and bus stations, walking the neighborhoods, and writing a blog and letters/commentaries to daily and weekly newspapers. Candidates should also discuss the pro-life amendment during each media event, in questionnaires, in debates, and on the website. Pro-life citizens should write letters or e-mails to Governor Paterson, their state senators and assembly members, their religious leaders,
and newspapers to express their support for a pro-life amendment which will emancipate pre-born infants and declare them to be “persons” as conception, entitled to life and liberty as citizens of the State of New York.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
Senior Taxpayer Sounds Still Another Charge Against Over-Taxation
Dear Editor:
I represent a group of property owners who call ourselves the Passive Property Owners of New York State, or PPONYS. Our concerns are with the manner in which our properties are assessed. At the heart of this problem is the practice of assessing real property on the basis of purchases of so-called “comparables” which purchases are, as we have lately learned, to our sorrow, contracted using minimal cash investment and enormous mortgage debt. This assessment forms the basis for the taxes imposed on our properties though they bear no relation to the frenzied “MARKET” of recent memory which has been exposed for the scam that it was. The utilization of the obsolete of assessing property on this basis has its roots in the 19th century when property was conveyed once or possibly twice in a lifetime; it has no place in the 21st century where the average tenancy is said to be seven years.
The indifference of the taxing authorities toward the pain inflicted upon those property owners, many of whom have ancestral ties and deep roots in Westchester County rivals the misdeeds of the infamous “Bernie Madoff” as we confront the ever-present spectre of foreclosure for taxes which we simply cannot pay. The matter demands redress in the courts, if it is not addressed in the legislatures.
Perhaps The Guardian can be effective in restoring proper sovereignty over our property to its titled owners.
Marguerite E. Nichols, Pelham
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Town of Harrison.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Town Board Sitting As Police
Commissioners Suspend 3 Police Officers
As Rightly Recommended By Chief Hall
Town Code Enforcer Also Suspended After Second Executive Session
Last Thursday evening, the Harrison Town Board, meeting as Town Police Commissioners, went quickly into executive session accompanied
by Police Chief David Hall to discuss and deliberate a personnel matter involving three veteran Harrison Police Officers ranging in service
with the Department from seven to seventeen years; Detectives Richard Light and Frank Massaro, and Police Officer Mike DiLauria, all accused of inappropriate conduct involving use of the Internet.
It had been brought to the attention of Supervisor Joan Walsh, 74, that she had become the object of inappropriate and insubordinate sexual and personal observations, dialogue and ridicule, on the pages of Facebook.com. At the same site, President Barack Obama was ridiculed
with racist humor. It should be noted Detective Light is also a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed nine months ago by a Harrison teen who accused him of sexually abusing her.
After more than an hour submerged in executive session, during which time some 40 residents and spectators, including a dozen or so past
and present Harrison police officers, had joined the crowd together with reporters from local, as well as most major New York television stations, the police commissioners emerged and announced the outcome of their deliberations.
Supervisor Walsh declared, “The Police Chief has recommended that we suspend three police officers, effective immediately. He will
be conducting an investigation and reporting to the Board.”
Supervisor Walsh, attempting to avoid a dialogue with reporters concerning a personnel matter, nonetheless acknowledged that she was
upset with having been targeted on the Internet.
Following the announcement of the officers’ suspensions, Chief Hall left the courtroom and took questions from reporters in the lobby of Town Hall. Hall declared, “I expect my of-ficers to act the way I act. I don’t use that kind of language. It’s intolerable.”
He then proceeded to answer several questions. When asked by this reporter, “Chief, might it be in the best interest of the Department if you bring in an independent investigator,” Hall, who appeared disappointed and disgusted with the actions of the accused officers, responded, “That might be necessary.”
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Town Board Sitting As Police
Commissioners Suspend 3 Police Officers
As Rightly Recommended By Chief Hall
Town Code Enforcer Also Suspended After Second Executive Session
Last Thursday evening, the Harrison Town Board, meeting as Town Police Commissioners, went quickly into executive session accompanied
by Police Chief David Hall to discuss and deliberate a personnel matter involving three veteran Harrison Police Officers ranging in service
with the Department from seven to seventeen years; Detectives Richard Light and Frank Massaro, and Police Officer Mike DiLauria, all accused of inappropriate conduct involving use of the Internet.
It had been brought to the attention of Supervisor Joan Walsh, 74, that she had become the object of inappropriate and insubordinate sexual and personal observations, dialogue and ridicule, on the pages of Facebook.com. At the same site, President Barack Obama was ridiculed
with racist humor. It should be noted Detective Light is also a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed nine months ago by a Harrison teen who accused him of sexually abusing her.
After more than an hour submerged in executive session, during which time some 40 residents and spectators, including a dozen or so past
and present Harrison police officers, had joined the crowd together with reporters from local, as well as most major New York television stations, the police commissioners emerged and announced the outcome of their deliberations.
Supervisor Walsh declared, “The Police Chief has recommended that we suspend three police officers, effective immediately. He will
be conducting an investigation and reporting to the Board.”
Supervisor Walsh, attempting to avoid a dialogue with reporters concerning a personnel matter, nonetheless acknowledged that she was
upset with having been targeted on the Internet.
Following the announcement of the officers’ suspensions, Chief Hall left the courtroom and took questions from reporters in the lobby of Town Hall. Hall declared, “I expect my of-ficers to act the way I act. I don’t use that kind of language. It’s intolerable.”
He then proceeded to answer several questions. When asked by this reporter, “Chief, might it be in the best interest of the Department if you bring in an independent investigator,” Hall, who appeared disappointed and disgusted with the actions of the accused officers, responded, “That might be necessary.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
