GUILTY NY - Karina Vetrano, 30, jogger found murdered, Queens, 2 Aug 2016 #5 *First trial MISTRIAL*

Discussion in 'Trials' started by tlcya, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Allow me to explain why I feel the way that I do when it comes to these type of investigations.

    On February 7, 1988 a 13 year old girl woke up before 7AM, on the coldest day of the year to buy a newspaper she believed would have a story about her favorite entertainer Wayne Newton. She walked for almost a ¼ of a mile to a newsstand located at Jamaica Avenue and Lefferts Blvd. She bought the paper and never made it home. Her body was later found mid-way between her house and the newsstand alongside the siding of the LIRR. Her pants were pulled down and her shirt was pulled up. There were no signs of rape or sexual abuse.

    This case received even more attention than the Vetrano case. All sources were mobilized to investigate this case.

    The case was officially assigned to a detective in the 102 Detective Squad named Jimmy A. Jimmy was a very decent guy with no hard lines about him to do things honest detectives wouldn’t do. An obnoxious know it all detective got his boss to take the lead in the case while Jimmy was stuck with the paperwork.

    One week later at 7AM a team of detectives went to the newsstand hoping to find anyone that may have been there one week earlier that might remember something about the young girl or anyone lurking about.

    At that time an area resident appeared and asked the news dealer if there was anything in the paper about the young girl. Detective Obnoxious went to that citizen and asked him: “What do you want to know that for!” His life turned into a nightmare. He would now be Detective O’s prime suspect. His life for two weeks became a living hell. Both he and his wife were polygraphed at least 2x. His clothing was seized along with his work clothes and gloves at this place of employment. The clothes were examined by the NYPD lab for trace fiber evidence that was on the victim.

    For all intents and purposes the investigation came to a halt because this rogue detective wanted it his way and no other scenarios were welcome.

    On February 28, P.O. Ed Byrne was murdered and the participators in this case from Homicide were shifted to the Byrne investigation.

    After two weeks since the malicious investigation started on the neighbor whose only crime was to ask if there was anything in the paper about the young girl. The captain that was in charge of the case said ENOUGH! And the neighbor’s torment ended.

    The case went cold and is still unsolved to this day.


    Six months or so later I was charged by my bosses to take another look at the case. The Det/Sgt from the 102 squad was assigned with me to take that new look on the case. But this time we had a criminal profile by a NYPD expert to give us a starting point to jump off from.

    We went to the crime lab to review the case. As luck would have it the detective that did the evidence analysis was there. We announced our reasons to be there, i.e., to review the evidence and that detective blew up in our case. He started screaming at us and told us that if we want him to do what Detective O wanted him to do we could get out of there now. Detective O wanted him to come to a finding that the fiber on the body and that of the neighbor was sufficient to match each other. I guess he realized that his implications might give cause to have another detective charged with altering an investigation. He started to back off from his strong assertions because not only was he speaking to me but to a superior officer. We made no mention of this encounter in our investigative reports because that is the way that it is: Don’t embarrass the Department with charges of misconduct.
     
    SeesSeas likes this.
  2. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As our investigation continued we discovered far more information that stuns to me this day. It was information that Detective O missed in the initial investigation. The results were stunning. We brought a suspect in that was polygraphed by two seasoned detectives that do such thing and concluded the suspect lied. He begged us to do it again. The experts told us there was no need to do so. But they agreed and the next morning we went to the suspects house to grant him his plea t0 d0 it again. I had to call ESU to break down the door because I thought he killed himself. He was not and found he ran off t0 PA to study up 0n h9w to beat lie detect0rs;
     
    SeesSeas likes this.
  3. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Now try and follow this as it gets more bizarre in each passing sentence. The guy we do the poly with is living upstairs from the victim with what he believed were his mother and father. He lived in relative squalor to the kid downstairs. The kids mother was the daughter of the two seniors upstairs. For the time being the young man that lived upstairs was the victim's uncle.

    When we visited the people upstairs in the summer of that year we found what was once live Christmas tree in the living room, lights and all. Cat hair balls littered the floor. There came a time when the young gal was only 7 and a 'special' relationship began with was then believed to be he uncle or was then about 10 years older. That 'special' relationship last to about when the girl was murdered. Our information was the kid wanted to end that relationship and her uncle wasn't happy.

    Somewhere in between all this the then suspect finds out the woman living downstairs was actually his mother. For now the suspect was her brother.

    We have a family sit-down and put the case out there. The other guy that what once the suspect's brother tells us we should drop the investigation so as not to open up old wounds. I can't believe what I am hearing. I ignore his remarks.

    The suspect has hands that are disfigured and twisted. I suspect it is due to a genetic condition that may come from an incestous affair.

    I now suspect the brother turned uncle is actually the suspects father and that has been hidden over the years. And this is why the brother/uncle doesn't want this case investigated. BTW the brother/uncle/father was old enough to be the father. That little tidbit was dropped because at that time it wasn't relevant to the investigation. I mean how much more can a guy take before his mind explodes and look to take his anger out on somebody, anybody?

    Which brings us back to Detective Obnoxious who now knows this very important part of the case was overlooked by him. Remember, it was the neighbor that he tried to frame and now is piss poor investigation was exposed for what it was - horse manure.

    And if you think these are the only cases I saw go haywire with lies then you better think again.
     
  4. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The case is still open and during the years some very good detectives worked on it. The detective that now has the case appears to be an excellent detective that is committed to solving this case. Whether or not he agrees with my assessments or if mine are correct I have no way of knowing
     
  5. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Queens Jogger Case Raises Concerns About Links Between Prosecutors and Judges | WNYC | New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News
    Apr 16, 2019
    The man convicted of murdering Queens jogger Karina Vetrano is scheduled to be sentenced this week after he was found guilty for the 2016 killing. But throughout the case, defense attorneys and court watchers have raised concerns about the judge presiding over the case, and his impartiality.

    Justice Michael Aloise presided over both of Chanel Lewis' trials, and made several controversial decisions during each case. He quickly called a mistrial on the first case after the jury deliberated for just over a day; he declined to pause the second trial when the defense received an anonymous letter claiming that police had wrongly targeted Lewis in a DNA dragnet that only tested black men; and at least one juror in the second trial told reporters that the jury felt pressured by Aloise to return a guilty verdict on the day of closing arguments. And topping it all off, Aloise on multiple occasions wore a purple tie in the courtroom—a sign that many observers took as supporting the Vetrano family.

    While this may seem like an extreme case, court watchers say that's not out of the ordinary in the Queens County Courthouse.
    [...]
     
    Rocky1 likes this.
  6. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The man convicted of murdering Karina Vetrano faces sentencing as questions linger
    April 16, 2019
    The 22-year-old man convicted of killing Howard Beach resident Karina Vetrano faces sentencing Wednesday, more than two and a half years after Vetrano’s body was found bruised and beaten in the weeds near her home in August 2016. The high-profile case has prompted questions about police practices and courtroom procedures, which have only intensified in the wake of the verdict.

    A Queens jury found Chanel Lewis guilty of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder and sexual abuse — on which the first-degree murder charge was predicated — after about five hours of deliberations on April 1, the same night that deliberations began. Vetrano’s family, friends and supporters celebrated the guilty verdict with raucous cheers.
    [...]
    The retrial verdict came more than four months after Lewis’ first trial ended in a hung jury and closes one chapter in the case. But the next chapter is likely just beginning, as Lewis’ Legal Aid defense team, activists and legal analysts question the initial murder investigation and possible irregularities with the jury’s deliberations, setting the stage for an appeal.

    When Justice Michael Aloise delivers the sentence, the Queens Supreme Courtroom will be filled with relieved Vetrano family supporters as well as angry community members who contend that the murder investigation was marred by racial bias and that the Queens District Attorney’s office violated discovery law by not turning over several pieces of information to the defense team. A letter by an anonymous person claiming to be an NYPD officer familiar with the early days of the case revealed new information related to the investigation

    In particular, attorneys and court observers question what first motivated the NYPD to search for suspects described as “two jacked up white guys from Howard Beach” — a description of the initial suspects targeted in the investigation, according to the anonymous letter and independently verified by The New York Times. Lewis is black.

    “He was railroaded the whole time,” said Crisis Action Center Director Rev. Kevin McCall, referring to Lewis. “We're calling for justice for him. He wasn’t given a fair trial.”

    McCall has organized a demonstration outside the courthouse for the morning of the sentencing.

    “We’re protesting the injustice in the system,” he said. “It was an injustice all the way from the beginning to the end.”
    [...]
     
    Rocky1 likes this.
  7. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anonymous letters are not admissible evidence in court because they lack foundation. The writer of such a letter can not be cross examined. The defense knows this and imo it was a desperate attempt to stall the trial at the 11th hour.

    Once again. It's one thing for a juror to be "pressured". It happens every day. It's another thing to be "cocerced."

    As far as the purple tie goes, I don't get it. Purple is symbolic with wealth.

    I hope if the defense plans on appealing, they have grounds for an appeal, which is based on law, and not facts.
    So far, I haven't seen anything the judge did to violate law.
     
  8. epiphany

    epiphany Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,900
    Likes Received:
    2,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rocky1 likes this.
  9. epiphany

    epiphany Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,900
    Likes Received:
    2,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rocky1 likes this.
  10. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rocky1 likes this.
  11. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/4-jurors-committed-misconduct-in-karina-vetrano-trial-defense/
    4 jurors committed misconduct in Karina Vetrano trial: defense
    April 18, 2019 | 7:29pm
    Lawyers for Karina Vetrano’s convicted killer claim that at least four jurors on the panel that found him guilty in the jogger’s 2016 slaying committed misconduct, new court documents show.

    The motions by Chanel Lewis’ defense team allege two jurors talked about the case before deliberations kicked off — despite warnings from the judge not to do so.

    One of those jurors is also accused by the defense of ripping up someone’s request to hear evidence because the panelist didn’t want to stay late.

    Yet another female juror told a male panelist to shut up after he questioned whether Lewis had raped Vetrano because there was no vaginal DNA evidence. The female juror said she herself was a rape victim and knew more about sexual assault than he did.

    Finally, another panelist tried to draw comparisons between this case and a rape trial she’d sat on in The Bronx, defense attorneys said.
    [...]

    Court documents detail juror’s claims of misconduct during trial, deliberations in contentious Karina Vetrano murder case
    APR 18, 2019 | 6:42 PM
    Nearly three weeks after reaching a unanimous guilty verdict, there’s a lone griper among jurors in the Howard Beach jogger murder trial.

    In court papers filed by defense lawyers for convicted murder Chanel Lewis, a man identified as “Juror A” alleges behind-the-scenes misbehavior by three of his fellow panelists — one during the trial and deliberations, the other two during the five-hour discussions preceding their unified guilty verdicts.

    “Well, I have my mind made up and I hope you do too,” the jury foreman reportedly declared to Juror A on day two of the trial, after the parents of victim Karina Vetrano testified. The same juror later tore up a note from the jury to the judge about the length of their April 1 deliberations, according to Juror A’s affidavit.

    The defense, at a Monday hearing in Queens, hopes to convince Supreme Court Judge Michael Aloise that the jurors’ behavior is enough to set aside the guilty verdicts against their 22-year-old client. The first prosecution ended with a mistrial last November.
    [...]
     
    Elisaa444 likes this.
  12. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    NY DAILY NEWS article today has the jury foreman denying he said: my mind has been made up. He said he never said it. But that didn't stop him from appearing on TV telling reporters this was a 'slam dunk case'. What do you think that suggested?

    Another issue with the article is the idea a juror was a rape victim. Article suggests that juror and other jurors couldn't use their experiences, e.g. prior jury duty to guide them in the current case. BUT isn't that what a judge instructs the jury to do: Use your common sense and life experience to put the case before you together.
     
  13. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    3 jurors on the Karina Vetrano murder and sex abuse trial allegedly committed misconduct
    Apr 18, 2019 12:46 PM
    In the sworn affidavit cited in the motion, "Juror A" claims that "Juror B" began to discuss "Juror B's" conclusions about the case from the start of the trial and continued to do so throughout.

    "Specifically, JUROR B stated to JUROR A, 'well, I have my mind made up, and I hope you do too' after the victim's parents testified on the second day of the trial," according to the motion.

    Brown wrote that comments by “Juror B” — who is identified in their motion as the foreperson — “did not reveal a pre-existing bias, and the comment represented nothing more than one juror’s immediate reaction to graphic testimony regarding the condition of the murder victim’s body.”

    Criminal juries are instructed by trial judges not to discuss the case amongst themselves until both sides have rested their cases and the deliberative process formally begins. During deliberations, jurors are required to limit their focus to only evidence presented at trial.

    The affidavit goes on to assert that other jurors introduced information into deliberations -- some of it allegedly inaccurate -- that came from outside the scope of the evidence.
    [...]
    “Juror B” said in a sworn affidavit attached to the prosecutor’s response that he had “no recollection” of conversations with “Juror A” about his thoughts on the case and has “no recollection of writing or ripping up said jury note.”

    In an exclusive interview with ABC's New York station WABC, the foreman Brian Morrissey said the evidence made "a slam dunk case." In a separate interview with another juror, who spoke to reporters after the verdict under the condition of anonymity, said he felt pressured by the other jurors to convict.

     
  14. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snipped:
    DAILY NEWS article today has the jury foreman denying he said: my mind has been made up. He said he never said it. But that didn't stop him from appearing on TV telling reporters this was a 'slam dunk case'. What do you think that suggested?

    Seeing as the jury deliberated for less than 5 hours, I'd have to agree with the foreman. It was a slam dunk case.
    Seeing as the foreman appeared on TV after the trial was over, claiming it was a "slam dunk case," that would suggest to me that 11 others thought it was a slam dunk case too.
    Seeing as the foreman made his comments after the trial was over, that suggests to me that he waited till the trial was over before making a decision, based on all the facts presented.

    Snipped:
    Another issue with the article is the idea a juror was a rape victim. Article suggests that juror and other jurors couldn't use their experiences, e.g. prior jury duty to guide them in the current case. BUT isn't that what a judge instructs the jury to do: Use your common sense and life experience to put the case before you together.

    That "idea" was just that, an idea. If you read the article, you'll see that 3 of the juror affidavits claims she never said she was raped, including the juror that was claimed to have said it.
    Court documents detail juror’s claims of misconduct during trial, deliberations in contentious Karina Vetrano murder case
    Snipped:
    All three jurors provided prosecution affidavits refuting the Juror A allegations, with the alleged sex crime victim declaring “I have never been raped and have never claimed to anyone to have been raped.”

    Let's pretend she did say that for a minute.
    That shows me that the defense should ask a few more questions while picking a jury next time. Who would pick a juror that's been raped to participate in a sexual abuse trial?
     
    QPRfan and mocity like this.
  15. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not enough there for a defendant favoring judge to reverse the verdict.
     
  16. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In the famous Marty Tankleff case a juror continued to tell fellow jurors Tankleff was guilty. He went so far as to say he knows Tankleff's half sister has also said Marty was guilty.

    Two jurors were sworn in to tell Judge Tisch what they heard. It was ignored by the DIS Honorable Judge Tisch.

    That same juror would join the prosecution team for a round of golf and celebratory drinks afterward.

    Only a few years ago this same juror would be arrested for mortgage fraud and managed to walk free with no bail, no attorney, he just went free. He plead to the mortgage fraud and never spent a minute in jail for his crime.

    You see Juror Spindel had the goods on them that could have sent these bastards to jail. And that couldn't happen. The jerks arrested a guy they should have never arrested and were made to realize that once he was arrested.
     
  17. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Food for thought . . .
    In Douglas County, Nebraska, sheriff’s crime-scene investigator David Kofoed went to prison after he was caught manipulating DNA evidence in a series of murder cases. In one, Kofoed planted traces of blood that tied two suspects to a 2008 murder scene and led to their convictions. One of the suspects, a mentally disabled man, was also forced by other officers to giving a false confession.

    A Leading Cause for Wrongful Convictions: Experts Overstating Forensic Results
    April 20, 2019
    These three men spent decades in prison as a result of statistical exaggerations. They were among 150 men and women released from prison after their wrongful convictions were overturned in 2018.

    The Fallibility of Forensic Science: Crime-Solving Tool Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions—and Belated Exonerations | Criminal Legal News

    DEC. 14, 2018
    [...]
    Misapplied Science
    The “misapplication” of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, according to a study by the Innocence Project, which has helped free 362 unjustly imprisoned men and women since 1989. The study found that faulty crime science was behind almost half — 45 percent — of the convictions that relied on the police and prosecutor’s DNA evidence.
    [...]
    Moved By Unjustness
    We may be learning, and even caring, more. Americans, who typically have little empathy for the country’s incarcerated, seem moved by unjust convictions, perhaps realizing that can happen to anyone. As reporters and TV producers have come to learn, readers and viewers react sympathetically to stories of the imprisoned who are factually innocent.
    [...]
    Still, that’s evidence that can be openly debated in court, where jurors, assuming they’re not swayed by the forensic miracles on TV, can judge for themselves. More dangerous, as in the Law & Order episode, is the rogue examiner or lab tech whose tampering may not surface until years later, if at all. Listverse.com compiled some examples of this, calling its 2016 report “10 Heinous Cases of Misconduct by Crime Investigators.”

    They include Fred Zain, a police chemist in West Virginia and chief of physical evidence in Bexar County, Texas, who spent much of his forensics career habitually faking lab results and lying under oath to help prosecutors obtain convictions. For 13 years, Listverse reported, “prosecutors in two states sought out Zain’s ostensibly expert opinions, never questioning the fact that he managed to produce evidence with a certainty that other lab technicians couldn’t approach. This faith in Zain’s abilities sent untold numbers of innocent men behind bars, primarily for rape and murder charges. While some of those men were exonerated, the exact number of cases influenced by Zain is unknowable. And, from what is known, it’s clear that Zain’s dissembling reach was tremendous.”

    In West Virginia alone, Zain may have lied during as many as 182 different investigations.

    In addition to his work in a Texas crime lab, Zain served as a forensics consultant to 20 other states, raising the possibility that he lied at thousands of primarily rape and murder trials. It was costly for defendants and taxpayers. West Virginia alone paid $6.5 million to compensate innocent defendants convicted by Zain’s deception. “For Zain’s many victims,” Listverse observed, “exoneration and compensation are the only justice possible.
    [...]
    In Douglas County, Nebraska, sheriff’s crime-scene investigator David Kofoed went to prison after he was caught manipulating DNA evidence in a series of murder cases. In one, Kofoed planted traces of blood that tied two suspects to a 2008 murder scene and led to their convictions. One of the suspects, a mentally disabled man, was also forced by other officers to giving a false confession. Fortunately, additional evidence later led to the actual killers and exposed Kofoed’s deception. He served two years and was successfully sued by the two wrongly accused suspects for $6.5 million, Listverse writer A.C. Grimes reported. In other cases, Kofoed was suspected of planting blood and submitting fake-DNA evidence.
    [...]
    In Texas, America’s death penalty capital, Friedersdorf wrote, “forensic analysts weighing in on cases of rape and murder literally tip the scales in favor of life or death for a defendant. It’s a grim burden that grows ever heavier in light of the fact that, for decades, the Houston Police Department crime lab has relied on faulty DNA analyses and bogus courtroom testimony that, according to a lab director, have tainted at least 5,000 to 10,000 cases.
    [...]
    Mistakes. Like everyone, forensic practitioners can make mistakes, including mixing up samples or contaminating specimens. These can occur in any type of science or laboratory testing, even in well-developed and well-validated fields.

    Misconduct. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results, hidden exculpatory evidence, or reported results when testing had not been conducted.
    [...]
     
  18. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Like I told you in a previous post that I was involved in a much publicized case when it went stale and we were asked to take another look at it. That brought us to the police lab and the Tech that originally examined the evidence went nuts when we asked him about the case. He screamed at us and told us he wasn't going to do what the other detective wanted him to do: LIE by making up evidence. That case in its time was even bigger than the Vetrano jogger case.
     
  19. SeesSeas

    SeesSeas FLORIDIAN

    Messages:
    5,556
    Likes Received:
    10,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This article outlines the twelve hours that Chanel Lewis was in police custody before he started to confess. The time span includes seven hours (10:54 p.m. to 5:50 a.m.) out of the interrogation room, and away from the cameras.
    He Confessed to Karina Vetrano’s Murder. But Did He Do It?

    Chanel Lewis’ DNA matched what was found at the scene of the crime. He told detectives he did it. So why is he pleading not guilty?
    11.29.17
    [...]
    According to documents prepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and turned over to Lewis’ defense team by the Queens district attorney, another set of DNA was found on an Arizona fruit punch bottle at the crime scene that matched a separate individual.

    While the medical examiner declared that Lewis’ DNA matched what was found on Vetrano’s cellphone and on her back, they do not state they found a match under Vetrano’s fingernails, contrary to statements made by the NYPD.

    Instead, the medical examiner suggests that Lewis’ DNA may be present under Vetrano’s fingernails based on the Forensic Statistical Tool analysis, a controversial testing method used when a mixture of DNA samples are present. Forensic experts have criticized the method, and it was discontinued by the medical examiner’s office this year.

    After police matched the DNA Lewis had volunteered, Det. Barry Brown, a 24-year veteran of the NYPD, went to Lewis’ mother’s house at 6 p.m. on Feb. 4 and asked Lewis to go with him to the 75th Precinct in East New York, purportedly for another DNA test.

    Lewis agreed, and Brown then cuffed Lewis—though the detective said in court that he did not arrest him—and drove him for a half-hour to the 107th Precinct, in Flushing. He took Lewis first to a holding cell inside the Detective Squad on the second floor and then to the interrogation room, where the cuffs were removed. The room held three chairs and was completely soundproof and outfitted with a two-way mirror and video equipment.

    At 6:45 p.m., Brown, joined by Det. Christian Quezada, who stayed silent, asked Lewis: “Do you want to answer questions about the murder?”

    “No,” replied Lewis, according to camera footage shown at his pre-trial hearing.

    The detectives then left the room, while Lewis remained there alone for two hours. The camera shows him fidgeting, but remaining quiet.

    At 8:49 p.m., the detectives returned, and Brown asked again: “Do you want to answer questions about the murder?”

    “I don’t know nothing about that,” replied Lewis.

    Brown and Quezada left the room again.

    At 9:53 p.m., Lewis got up and went to the door to get the attention of the detectives.

    “I want to call my parents. I want to go home,” he told them.

    Brown said: “You’re under arrest for murder, do you understand what that is?”

    “I didn’t do anything,” replied Lewis.

    Brown walked away again, and Lewis sat by himself for another hour.

    At 10:54 p.m., Lewis got up again and told the detectives he was hungry. Brown then took Lewis out of the interrogation room, and away from the cameras, into the cell inside the Detective Squad where Lewis says he stayed awake, unable to sleep, for the next seven hours, talking to numerous detectives and asking to watch cartoons on the television there.

    At 5:50 a.m., Lewis returned to the interrogation room with Brown and Quezada. The camera was recording again, and Lewis—yet to speak to his parents, let alone a lawyer—began to confess.
    [...]
    The Lewis case came four years after the state’s highest court found that the office of Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, who has held that position since 1991, had been wrongfully formalizing the practice of denying arrestees their right to an attorney during questioning and confessions.
    [...]
    In April, the state Legislature finally passed a law mandating that all interrogations by police be videotaped, beginning in April 2018, too late for Lewis. (And even then, his formal interrogation and confession began after he’d been alone in the precinct with the detectives for hours.)
    [...]
     
  20. hawkshaw

    hawkshaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The detective put handcuffs on him but didn't arrest him. Duh..... maybe they were playing cops and robbers.
    What the detective should have said he put cuffs on him because he appeared to be upset and they only wanted to safeguard themselves and Lewis should he panic. That could have flown, this does not.

    If that wasn't bad enough after saying Lewis wasn't arrested by putting the handcuffs on him they placed him in a cell.

    To top it off Lewis seems to be more concerned that he wants to watch cartoons while his life is collapsing around him and he is under arrest for a murder.

    When Brown first became DA in 1991 he would show up at crime scenes. If the crime was serious like a murder an ADA would come to the precinct to be there when the investigation began. They would be there while the detective were speaking to the witnesses that might have been suspects who were merely being interviewed, not interrogated. But one day that all seemed to stop. At times the DA would personally show up at crime scenes and that was as far as it went. We started the process and when the subject was ready to confess the DA was called and told we were ready for the camera.

    I told DA Brown at one scene that his presence there is one day going to be a problem.

    One night a detective gets into an accident and the other guy is killed. Detective is sent to the hospital. Brown goes to the hospital to see the detective and see if he is OK. Nice, but stupid if your office is going to charge the detective with a DWI connected to a death.

    The detective's lawyer wants to subpoena the DA to find out that when Brown went to the hospital did he think the detective was intox. Brown refuses. The DA then does a further investigation and finds the married detective had left his girlfriend's house just before the accident. They bring the gal in and want her to testify as to his condition when he left her.

    Yeah, real nice people.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice