Justice Denied

REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997.

White America breathed a collective sigh of relief after a jury of twelve unanimously concluded that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. A murderer, who was unanimously acquitted by a mostly black jury (some would say incompetent jury) in a criminal trial, was judged responsible for the deaths of two individuals in a civil trial – a less punitive forum. The verdict restored the concept of justice.

Simpson is guilty. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime proves it. Forensic science can’t be wrong because science is neutral. The facts are irrefutable. Justice was restored.

Experts said throughout both Simpson trials that individuals in countless other cases were convicted and executed with less evidence. Bear in mind, there was a mountain of evidence proving Simpson was the murderer.

The murder scene pointed to Simpson. Christopher Darden described the night in his book In Contempt. Her killer stalked Nicole that night. The murderer wore a black ski cap, black clothes, gloves, and those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli rubber soled shoes. He stood outside her home, glared at her through a window as she lit some candles, and was incensed that she was getting ready for a romantic evening.

The stalker rang the bell, and waited for Nicole to come outside. He knew she had to come out because the killer knew the intercom was broken. Nicole looked out the window first. The killer saw her with a kitchen knife in hand. A small dog, an Akita, “came over and sniffed” the stalker. It had to be Simpson because the dog recognized him. A stranger would have caused a different reaction from the Akita.

Nicole answered “the door barefooted, in the skimpy black dress she’d worn to the recital.” The revealing dress was enough to set off a jealous maniac like Simpson.

The stalker punched Nicole in the face, then struck the back of her head with the knife handle. He held “her by the arm and drove the knife deep into her neck four times.”

Suddenly, someone opened the gate. The stalker turned around, and saw a shocked Ron Goldman standing at the gate. The murderer ran to him, “pulled him inside the gate, and lifted him to the left, where he was cornered by the fence and by the shrubs.” Ron put up a valiant struggle, but he was no match for a jealous maniac like Simpson.

After the stalker finished off Ron Goldman, he directed his attention back to Nicole. She was on the ground helpless. Her black dress was pulled up to her thighs. He “grabbed her by the hair, pulled her head back, put the knife to her throat, and drew it back with even more force, cutting all the way to her spine, damned near cutting her head off.”

Only a jealous ex-husband could have committed this crime. It was too obvious. Any reasonable person must conclude Simpson was the murderer.

Granted, the police had a mountain of evidence against Simpson, but this murder case was far from an airtight case. The police never found the murder weapon, the bloody clothes worn by the killer, or those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes that left a trail of footprints at the murder scene. As Jaye Davidson said in the movie The Crying Game, “Details, baby, details.”

Who cares if Mark Fuhrman bragged about planting evidence on suspects in other cases? Who cares that he a history of framing minorities? Fuhrman said he didn’t plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate, therefore he didn’t do it. Regardless, there was enough evidence for a conviction.

White America is confident forensic science can determine the identity of a killer, and the exact manner a person was killed. That confidence is reserved for extraordinary cases only.

Presently, murderers are roaming free and unpunished because evidence is ignored. Perhaps it is because society has accepted these murderers as a necessary evil needed to maintain order in our lives. Maybe it is because the dead are unworthy of justice.

Anibal Carrasquillo died of a gunshot fired by a police officer on January 22, 1992. The Police Department “initially stated that Carrasquillo was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a gun stance.” But the New York City Medical Examiner contradicted the NYPD’s statement. Carrasquillo was shot in the back. Amazingly, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s failed to indict the police officer. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to charge the police officer with perjury.

On January 11, 1994, Shu’aib Abdul Latif died of gun shot wounds fired by police officers. Police raided an apartment building searching for illegal drugs. Latif, a seventeen-year-old black male, was hiding in the basement. He came out of hiding when he heard the voice of a neighbor. A police officer, who noticed Latif rising from a stooped position, shouted, “There he goes.” After the smoke cleared, five shots were fired. Latif was hit twice, and a police officer was hit once.

A grand jury was convened. On March 1995, the grand jury “concluded that no criminal charges should be brought against any officers involved in the incident.” Subsequently, the Brooklyn District Attorney defended the grand jury by arguing it had reached the conclusion “after a full review of all the evidence and careful deliberations.”

Furthermore, the Brooklyn District Attorney “gave a brief summary of the facts and circumstances of the shooting. Latif was shot after rising up suddenly and grabbing [a police officer’s] arm, that [the officer’s] gun went off accidentally as they fell during the struggle.” Afterwards, two more shots were fired; Latif got up, and tried to run away, but was shot twice. This became the official story.

However, some information was missing. The Medical Examiner’s report did not mention whether gunshot residue was found on Latif’s clothes - a critical forensic detail needed to verify the police department’s claim of a struggle. Also, the police failed to “test-fire the weapons to see at what range the gunshot residue would have disappeared” because the Medical Examiner’s report concluded the clothes had no residue.

It is interesting to note that Latif was struck with nyclad bullets. These bullets are encased with a “protective plastic coating to prevent lead contamination.” Latif was killed with an untraceable bullet. It was impossible to identify which officer killed the young man.

On March 24, 1995, Yong Xin Huang died of a gunshot wound fired by a police officer. The officer was answering a 911 call. A year later, a grand jury did not indict the police officer in the death of Huang, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy. “The Brooklyn District Attorney issued a public statement immediately afterwards summarizing the facts of the case. The statement repeated the officer’s account of the incident which, the DA said, was consistent with the forensic evidence on both sides.”

The official story is that a police officer answered a 911 call describing “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that looked like a gun. Huang died after he struggled with the officer. Unfortunately, the nine-millimeter Glock semi automatic weapon went off accidentally.

Huang’s autopsy report contradicts the official story. He died of a gunshot wound at close range behind his left ear. In other words, the entrance wound was located in the back of his head. The gun was pointed behind his left ear. In addition, Huang was beaten on the top of his head, face and forehead. Eyewitnesses claim the police officer slammed “Huang’s face into a glass door at the side of the house.” Conceivably, he was beaten before the cop shot him. Otherwise, beating a dead boy was a case of overkill on the part of the officer.

Police officers are allowed to use a “minimum amount of force” to “effect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense.” Force is used when all other options are exhausted such as “verbal persuasion.” Police officers are allowed to use “unarmed physical force” to apprehend a suspect; “force using non-lethal weapons” such as pepper spray and mace; “force using impact weapons” such as police batons; and “deadly force only when an officer or another person’s life is in direct danger.”

Police officers are not allowed to use flashlights, radios, and handguns as impact weapons. If a police officer arrives on the scene, and other officers are using excessive force, then the arriving officer is supposed to intervene on behalf of the suspect. Failure to do so is against the law.

In addition, police officers are not allowed to use deadly force “to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person.” Cops are not allowed to fire warning shoots, use a gun in defense of property, to fire a moving vehicle “unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself,” that a “verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged,” and that police officers are not allowed to hold a weapon “with the trigger raised in readiness for firing under any circumstances.” Keep in mind that “the primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life.”

People have died in police custody, yet no one is punished. Perhaps it is because prosecutors are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are countless cases of individuals injured or killed in police custody, but there is only one case since 1977 of a police officer convicted in the death of a citizen. The NYPD has a history of settling cases out of civil court where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead relies on a preponderance of guilt. Settling cases in civil court avoids scrutiny. Moreover, civil penalties do not include jail time.

Cops involved in the deaths of individuals are usually charged with criminally negligent homicide. Usually, it is a hard charge to prove because the district attorney must prove recklessness on the part of the officer. The police officer understood his actions were negligent, and that it could cause death, however continued to act in that manner with disregard for the safety of an individual. A prosecutor has to convince a judge that the officer knew he was acting with negligence, but didn’t care.

Judges acquit police officers because district attorneys can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cops don’t have to face a jury trial. It is their privilege to allow a judge to render a decision on their case presumably because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is lesser with a judge than a jury.

A deep voice introduces each episode of the police drama “Law and Order” asserting that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.” Judges are not included in the equation, but they are equally important and significant component of the criminal justice system.

Prosecutors are either incompetent, or unwilling to indict and convict police officers. It’s been said that a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. The failure to indict, or convict police officers in these deaths are not due to incompetence.

Judges are reluctant to convict police officers. As in the case of Anthony Baez, evidence and eyewitness testimony is ignored. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acknowledged police officer Francis Livotti was a bad cop, and Livotti’s actions may have led to the death of Baez. However, the judge ignored the testimony of one police officer, and the medical evidence when he acquitted Livotti of criminally negligent homicide.

District attorneys, municipal judges and the police department are involved in an ugly partnership.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” To collude is to conspire, to plot.

Furthermore, a conflict of interest is “a real or seeming incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.”
Prosecutors are partners with the police department in the criminal justice system. They depend on each other to maintain law and order; therefore any potential criminal matter involving a police office is a conflict of interest.

Police officers have a powerful role. They are the foundation of the criminal justice system. A criminal case against a suspect falls apart if the police work is weak. Prosecutors cannot indict suspects with weak evidence. Judges will not be able to sentence criminals to prison terms.

The NYPD is a brotherhood. Police officers are reluctant to testify against their fellow officers, and have a history of not cooperating with investigators involving criminal matters. The presence of peer pressure from within the police department cannot be ignored. Prosecutors and judges are extended members of this brotherhood.

In New York City, politics interferes with the judicial process. District attorneys and judges are elected officials therefore it is conceivable that unpopular decisions against the police department could impact future elections. This three-headed entity is incapable of policing itself.

The New York Police Department, the District Attorney’s of the five boroughs of New York City, and judges acted in concert after the fact in the deaths of Anibal Carrasquillo, Shu’aib Abdul Latif, Yong Xin Huang, et al.

The NYPD, the District Attorney’s office and municipal judges are in collusion. Prosecutors are implicated because they purposely ignored evidence during grand jury proceedings, and deliberately failed to convict police officers of criminally negligent homicide. Judges are involved because they ignore evidence, and acquit police officers of criminally negligent homicide. The NYPD deliberately obstructs investigations of criminal activity from within. The police department is incapable of investigating itself.

Victims of deadly police force are denied justice. Furthermore, their families do not have a forum to seek the truth.

To ensure justice, a new impartial system must be created. If an individual dies in police custody, then it becomes a federal matter. The Justice Department investigates the case; an attorney from the Justice Department argues the case in front of a grand jury; litigates the case, and a Federal Judge presides over the case. Politic, friendship, peer pressure and local loyalties are removed from the equation.

Otherwise, a second option is available. Eliminate the pretense. Have someone with authority come out and say that any death in police custody will not result in punishment. If you are apprehended by the police, and at some point die between arrest and arraignment, then the death will not be investigated. The police commissioner will just shrug in front of the cameras. “It was just one of those things,” he will remark, “like being struck by lightning.” The families of the deceased will have closure knowing there will not be a cover-up.

Death in police custody will be considered an inevitably like death and taxes. The Surgeon General’s office can create a warning label to be placed in plain view, on the bumper of every police car in the country affirming that, “entering this vehicle will be hazardous to your health, and may result in death. People of color will be more susceptible to death.”

Police department’s can create a new automated warning for fleeing suspects: “We are the police. Drop your weapons, and raise your hands. We have examined your intentions and have determined you will not get away with it. We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished. Your fingerprints and likeness will be added to our vast database. Resistance is futile.”

In the absence of justice, the people will have to settle for resignation. People will continue to die in police custody. There will be no answers, no explanation, no justice.

Reprinted from April, 1997