THE SPOTA TRIAL...assuming he goes to trial.

Hawkshaw- you seem to be knowledgeable when it comes to law enforcement. How (if in any way at all) will repealing 50-a affect the Long Island serial killer case? Will repealing 50-a allow the public to view what were once private police records regarding police officers disciplinary records? If so, would the public be able to view records from whenever or just records starting from today (the day 50-a is/was repealed)? Thanks.

I havent been able to find any LI records, but here are databases available of NYPD complaints since 50-A repeal. And to answer your other question, No- they go back pretty far:

NYPD Misconduct Complaint Database

The NYPD Files: Search Thousands of Civilian Complaints Against New York City Police Officers - ProPublica.
Last edited:
NYPD / SCPD? Two different police departments.
Yes I know. This is all thats been released As far I can tell. Figure it might helpful somewhere maybe.

I wonder when and if SC or NC’s will be available. The repeal is statewide I believe.
There is another website that has most of Burke's records throughout the years.
I, too, would be interested in this. I have a ton of questions about his career and personal life. You in particular have made numerous mentions in your posts that fomented questions I have been unable to source. Thanks!
It was reported today that Spota and McPatland lost their bid for a new trial based on the idea the witness Hickey was a liar. I believed that was only a stalling tactic for Spota to delay his sentencing. It didn't work. They tried another BS scam to have Burke appeal his conviction to shield them from having Burke being forced to testify. An appeal would have given him a temporary status of innocence so he couldn't be forced to testify. The testimony would have undoubtedly been about the case at hand and it could have jeopardized his role in the Loeb case. It was nothing more than a ruse to delay the trial. That didn't work, either. I suspect Spota will come up with another scheme to delay the sentencing by probably saying he is too ill to go to jail. Watch and wait for it. On the other hand McPartland is much younger and it apparent good health.

The hope is Judge Azrack and the US attorney is not going to fall for it. My hope is justice will be done and the defendants will be made to pay for their shenanigans on sentencing day. The hope is Spota will be handcuffed and suffer the indigity of being led off to jail for whatever period of time. I hope the judge recognizes the importance of sending this monster to jail.
What was hilarious about that latest BS about the witness Hickey being a liar and not to be trusted is HICKEY was their Liar in Chief. They knew it and that is why he was appointed to be the head of the SCPD's Criminal Intelligence Unit, a very sensitive and important position. His reputation is well known. It was so sweet to watch his farce unfold, This guy might be worse than Burke. He has already plead guilty in the Loeb case and some expect that despite his cooperation in the Loeb case he will have to do some time.

My 3 main targets for all these years have all been punished , but not nearly. enough.
There is no Wikipedia page created yet for J Burke, that is crazy. Frightening too that he is out of prison.
Funny you should say that because when Burke was arraigned Judge Wexler didn't give him bail
It was reported at the end of February that federal judge Joan Azrack (EDNY) announced that she would unseal a number of the records in the Spota/McPartland trial that were not made public during the trial, including material relating James Burke. She didn't state when she would do it, and last I checked (late last week) there was still nothing unsealed.

This is worth keeping an eye out for.

Judge in Spota-McPartland criminal case to unseal court records
What’s the purpose? Maybe everyone wants to have fun them as payback for all the frivolous appeals
What’s the purpose? Maybe everyone wants to have fun them as payback for all the frivolous appeals

The un-sealing of these documents will likely provide us with new information and evidence. Judges don't tend to seal documents that are probative unless they run the risk of otherwise being susceptible to prejudicial treatment by prospective jurors and/or tainting the jury pool.

Sealed documents are documents that have never been public facing. No one outside of the court and parties involved in the information contained within them are privy to their contents. They have never been reported out - they've been sealed.

Grand Jury testimony and proceedings are always sealed. These can usually only be unsealed under extraordinary circumstances - intense public interest is one, but I believe someone would have to request this. Judge Azrack has already made it clear that among the documents that will not be unsealed is certain grand jury testimony and proceedings. I do not know if this is an action taken by the Judge herself, or if it's in response to a FOIA request. I do know that Burke's attorney, Meringolo, is quoted in the article as not being too happy about this decision.

What will be the value of what she does unseal? Who knows. But, it is definitely worth looking out for and reviewing.
I was told Burke testified in the grand jury for my son in law's case. No such testimony was used in court. I would love to see his testimony as it was probably filled with lies.

On a personal level I would love to see such records. Why not? Why do you think Burke copped out and pled guilty? Too bad Jimmy because a lot of it came out in Spota's trial which was really more to do with you than Spota.
I heard some rumors that McPartland is going to get a bigger sentence than Spota. Word is Spota is blaming Burke and McPartland for his troubles. McPartland could wind up with more time than Burke, Spota, and HIckey
Still nothing unsealed, but it doesn't look like there will be a whole lot unsealed and of that which is unsealed, some of it may be heavily redacted. A lot of talk about motions in limine (pre-trial motions made on the admissibility of evidence at trial: limiting or excluding it).

It looks like the request was prompted by the request by a reporter back in 2020 (on freedom of information-type grounds). The Judge did not take it upon herself to unseal (which she can do).

Here's the Order: United States v. McPartland, 17-CR-587 (JMA) | Casetext Search + Citator

Here's something that's coming (when, we do not know. Nothing yet)

"Filings that Will be Unsealed...

1. Filings Concerning Burke
i. Overview

Defendants ask the Court to continue to seal (or to redact) various filings discussing allegations concerning James Burke. Defendants argue that "[r]eferences to James Burke's Internal Affairs Bureau ('IAB') history and other alleged misconduct - other than the evidence admitted at trial - should remain under seal." Defendants maintain that the "government never sought to admit this information into evidence and the Court therefore had no occasion to exercise its Article III authority over them." The Government asserts that all these materials should be unsealed without any redactions.

As explained below, the Court concludes that none of the materials discussed below should remain under seal or be redacted.

Defendants seek continued sealing (or redaction) of court filings that discuss allegations of misconduct by Burke. The evidence of these allegations came in four forms: (1) 3500 material that documents statements by various individuals to the government concerning Burke; (2) documents in Burke's IAB file; (3) the December 2011 anonymous letter concerning Burke; and (4) Spota's response to the anonymous letter. As explained below, for all the court filings concerning these materials, the presumption of access outweighs the other interests asserted by Defendants."
United States v. McPartland, 17-CR-587 (JMA) | Casetext Search + Citator

Doesn't look like they have an edit function here, huh?

Here's what Spota's and McPartland's defense attorneys' response was back in 2020 when the Judge told them to file papers in response to this request (by the reporter), followed by the Judge's ruling:
"...Defendants argue that: (1) these allegations against Burke, which were not admitted at trial, risk tainting the jury pool in the event that Defendant secure a retrial on appeal; (2) the unverified and unsubstantiated nature of the salacious allegations against Burke weighs against disclosure; (3) the IAB complainants have privacy interests; and (4) both departmental policy and state law treat IAB reports as confidential. Ultimately, none of these concerns convince the Court that continued sealing (or redactions) are warranted here concerning any of the documents discussed above

Defendants speculate that disclosure of these materials will increase the risk of a polluted jury pool in the event that Defendants succeed on appeal in obtaining a retrial. These speculative concerns are not persuasive and do not weigh heavily in favor of continued sealing."

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
Guests online
Total visitors

Forum statistics

Latest member