I told you it wasn't me.

Here we go again, the criminal justice system and the NYPD gets it wrong. How many innocent people will have to spend years and decades in jail before something is done? This is not the first and will not be the last time that this type of injustice will be perpetuated against United States citizens. So what I am talking about? In 1991, a Hispanic man was charged with murder based on the eyewitness testimony of a convicted felon. No, there was no DNA evidence, no corroborating evidence; just a flawed criminal justice system. I am not saying that the defendant, Mr. Fernandez Bermudez, was a good guy. He was convicted of a drug felony and has not served his felony time, but after what he has gone through, I think the criminal injustice system should give him a pass on this one. What do you think? Read the article for your own edification.

NEW YORK — A judge Thursday threw out a murder case against a man imprisoned for nearly two decades and declared he was innocent, saying a key witness lied and others influenced one other into identifying him as the shooter.

Fernando Bermudez cried and hugged one of his lawyers as the judge took the unusual step of not only overturning his 1992 conviction but dismissing the charges, rather than calling for a retrial.

Bermudez "has demonstrated his actual innocence," state Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo said. "This court wishes to express its profound regret over the past 18 years. I hope for you a better future."

With his parents, wife and other relatives sobbing and applauding in the courtroom, Bermudez was led away after the ruling. The 40-year-old remains behind bars for now because of an unrelated federal drug-sale conviction that carried a 27-month sentence. His lawyers plan to ask federal authorities to credit him for the time he has served and release him.

"This is too long, but justice is ours today," his tearful wife, Crystal, said outside court. "He's a good man. He didn't deserve to have this happen to him."

The ruling bars a retrial, and the Manhattan District Attorney's office had said it wouldn't pursue one because eyewitnesses have recanted and would no longer testify. But prosecutors said they still believe Bermudez is guilty and were examining their options, including a potential appeal.

"We strongly disagree with the judge's decision," Chief Assistant District Attorney Mark Dwyer said. "We don't think the defense has shown that there was anything wrong with the verdict."

The Aug. 4, 1991, shooting killed 16-year-old Raymond Blount. He was gunned down as he left a nightspot near Manhattan's Union Square after getting into a fight with another teen inside the club.

The other teen identified Bermudez as the gunman, and four bystander eyewitnesses identified him from police photograph files and then a lineup.

Four of Bermudez' friends testified that he was with them, miles away, at the time of the crime; friends of Blount's also said Bermudez wasn't the shooter, according to the judge's ruling. No forensic evidence linked him to the crime.

Bermudez' lawyers presented evidence that the eyewitnesses had improperly consulted among themselves before picking him from police photos, instead of identifying him separately. They have subsequently recanted.

Prosecutors say Bermudez' defense team threatened or induced them to change their stories, but the judge found "no improper conduct."

The teen involved in the fight – who testified against Bermudez under an agreement sparing him criminal charges – delivered "a total fabrication" on the witness stand, Cataldo wrote. He said a roster of evidence actually pointed to one of the teen's friends, who has denied involvement.

"You combine the cooperating witness who lied with the eyewitnesses who conferred with one another, and you have an innocent man in jail for 18 years," said one of Bermudez' lawyers, Barry J. Pollack.

While serving a sentence of 23 years to life, Bermudez has completed most of a college degree, his family said. He and his wife have three children.

Your request is being processed...

What did we do wrong?

Judge upholds disciplinary charges against N.J. troopers in sex scandal
By Chris Megerian/Statehouse Bureau
November 17, 2009, 7:40PM


TRENTON -- A state administrative law judge has refused to throw out disciplinary charges against seven troopers involved in a sex scandal.

Lawyers for the troopers asked for the case to be dismissed earlier this month, saying the Attorney General’s Office withheld evidence damaging to the state’s case.

The Trenton TimesThe exterior KatManDu nightclub in Trenton, where the woman alleges she met the New Jersey State Police troopers in 2007.

The troopers were accused of sexually assaulting a Rider University student two years ago, although they maintain the sex was consensual. Although the troopers were never charged, they were suspended without pay last month after an internal investigation determined they acted improperly.

The troopers’ lawyers said a DNA test shows the student had sex with a different man after the troopers, then lied about it to investigators. They said this evidence should have been revealed earlier, but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin said that wasn’t sufficient reason to throw out the case.

"The respondents’ receipt of the FBI lab report was clearly delayed from when they should have received it," Masin wrote Monday. "But ... the existence of ‘bad faith’ or ‘connivance’ is missing."

Representatives for the troopers said they’re reviewing Masin’s ruling.

"I’m very disappointed," said Patricia Prezioso, a lawyer for one of the troopers. "We’re considering appealing it."

State Troopers Fraternal Association president David Jones said the Attorney General’s Office committed "egregious" violations in pursuing the case.

A separate federal case also is under way, with a hearing scheduled for Dec. 3. Lawyers for the troopers say their clients’ constitutional rights have been violated because they were disciplined for having consensual sex. State officials said conduct that disgraces the State Police should be punishable.

According to disciplinary charges, the seven troopers used their badges to avoid an $8 cover charge at KatManDu, a nightclub on the Trenton waterfront, on Dec. 6, 2007.

They met the student, who is now 27, at the bar and then went to the Ewing home of one of the troopers. The next day, the woman reported she had been sexually assaulted, state officials said.

After the criminal investigation was dropped without being brought before a grand jury, the State Police began an internal affairs investigation into the troopers’ conduct.

We dodged a bullet on this one.

D.C. court backs police barricades

By: BILL MYERS
Examiner Staff Writer
October 31, 2008

Mayor Adrian Fenty’s controversial neighborhood barricades cleared a major hurdle Thursday when a federal judge ruled that the public has “an overwhelming need” to be protected from violence.

“Suffice it to say that the public’s interest in deterring violent crime of this type through a checkpoint program this carefully crafted is overwhelming,” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote, in denying a legal petition that sought to prevent the city from using the checkpoints until a lawsuit challenging their constitutionality could be heard.

“Simply put, to take this arrow out of [D.C. police’s] quiver on such a weak showing as to its unconstitutionality would be injurious not only to [D.C.’s] ability to protect our citizens, but to the public’s overwhelming need to be protected from these mobile merchants of violence.”

Leon’s opinion, made public Thursday, is a resounding, if preliminary, victory for Fenty and his police chief, Cathy Lanier, who claimed that the quarantines were the only way to end an orgy of summer violence in the Trinidad neighborhood.

“For the communities involved, it’s a huge victory,” said interim Attorney General Peter Nickles. “To me this is a real vindication of Chief Lanier and the mayor.”

The barricades required police officers to stop cars trying to enter the neighborhood, and demand identification and the purpose of visits from passengers. Anyone without “a legitimate purpose” in the neighborhood would be ordered to turn around or face arrest.

Four people who had to run the cops’ gantlet sued and asked the Bush-appointed Leon to order the city to end the program. Leon ruled Thursday that the plaintiffs hadn’t met the “extraordinary burden” to justify an immediate injunction.

Critics around the world took turns blasting the barricades. One online wag referred to D.C. as “Baghdad on the Potomac.” Many critics Thursday remained undeterred by Leon’s decision.

“It’s not definitive,” Councilwoman and constitutional law professor Mary Cheh, D-Ward 3, told The Examiner. “I think the judge has failed to separate policy from constitutional law.”

Cheh has been a consistent critic of the checkpoints. She said that the Fenty team continues to offer “shifting rationales” for the program.

Police union Chairman Kris Baumann said that the big questions about the quarantines were still open.

“Can this survive scrutiny in a criminal arrest?” Baumann said. “And I still don’t think we have an answer to that question.”

Lawyers at the Partnership for Civil Justice, the nonprofit group that brought the lawsuit, promised Thursday to appeal Leon’s ruling.

Mental illness or acceptable behavior

The law enforcement professions attracts some unique individuals. Some come to the job with a willingness to help people and make society a better place for all. Then there are those who have ulterior motives, which leads to highly publicized cases of police brutality and killings. There have been many scholarly articles written regarding the latter. Dr. Joy Leary has her own take on it. View the video and make your own decision about why police officers want to "serve and protect."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhsDUjktW0

Good police work or over reaction?

The fact that you are a gun owner, and an upstanding citizens, does not mean that you will not be mistaken as a criminal by the police. The following is an unfortunate incident, and the man should be happy to be alive. The conclusion of the investigation is controversial, but then again this is law enforcement. Please read the article and view the video and chime in with your thoughts.

PHOENIX (CN) - A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.

In their complaint in Maricopa County Court, Anthony and Lesley Arambula say an armed intruder "crashed through the front window" of their home on Sept. 17, 2008 and ran into one of their son's bedrooms.

Anthony, worried about his son who was still in his bedroom, says he "held the intruder calmly at gunpoint" and called 911.

Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers.
Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground.

The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there."

The complaint states that Officer Lilly "admitted that it was only after Tony was laying, bullet-ridden, on the ground that he assessed the situation. The 911 tape continued to record what happened even after Officer Lilly unloaded his weapon into Tony, including Officer Lilly's post-shooting, one-word 'assessment': '****.'

"Tony believed he was going to die; the 911 tape records his plaintive goodbye to his family: '... I love you ... I love you.' Then Tony made what he believed was a dying request to the officers; he did not want his young family to see him shot and bloodied. Officers callously ignored his request and painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary."

The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and "drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writing in pain."

According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We ****ed up." Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint.

The complaint states: "Sgt. Coutts knew that officers has just shot up and likely killed an innocent homeowner and the husband of Lesley, with whom he had spoken before entering the home, instead of the armed intruder. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'"

Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun.

The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'"

After the shooting, the Arambulas say, the Phoenix Police Department treated them "like suspects in a drug bust," denying Lesley, Michael and Zachary information about Anthony's condition and denying friends and family members access to him at the hospital.

Anthony Arambula survived, but continues to suffer pain, which he expects will last for the rest of his life.The City of Phoenix and Officer Dzenan Ahmetovic also are named as defendants. The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress. They are represented by Michael Manning with son Morrison Hecker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwxyAfHvxtg&feature=related

What the hell is he doing?

I understand getting publicity to showcase something good about either yourself or something that you're representing. However, the recent television and Youtube appearance by Mayor Cory Booker is truly sad and disturbing. He is making a joke of what is going on and Conan O'Brien is using Newark as satirical fodder. Mayor Booker can better utilize his time by staying off the air, getting back to work, and try to stop the increasing violence in the City of Newark. However, if he were to do that then he would not be doing what he got into politics for and that is to make a joke of Newark and a name for himself. How about this Mr. Mayor, instead of banning Conan O'Brien from Newark, why don't you bar criminals and murders from the city, who wreak havoc on the good taxpaying citizens. Wake up Newark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZSSBUWJm0o

Police abuse or justified behavior?

The camera never lies. The Passaic Police Department has to eventually address the behavior of its officers when they encounter individuals with mental health problems. Never one to Monday morning quarterback, but this particular incident is very disturbing. Today, the officer involved in the attached video was indicted and will face a jury of his peers, if he does not reach a settlement. If you look at the video, pay particular attention to this officer's partner. What responsibility does she bear in this incident. I have my thoughts, so please share yours.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLemcvH6vx4