City of Bayonne Settles Another Police Brutality Case: Internal Affairs and Police Accountability by Department Supervisors Non-Existent

A federal civil rights law suit, Condo v. City of Bayonne, against the city was recently settled for the sum of $95,000.00. 

The allegations as contained in the complaint assert that two Bayonne police officers engaged in the wonton beating of plaintiffs Condo and DeRocco, by repeatedly kicking and punching them after they came out of a bar in Bayonne.  It is alleged that other officers seeing the brutality failed to intervene.

The plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights were violated under federal civil rights laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  As a result of the beating both plaintiffs’ sustained serious injuries which required medical attention at the local hospital.

Although both plaintiffs were also falsely charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest against the arresting police officers, all charges against Condo and DeRocco were administratively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.  Named in the lawsuit along with the city police department were police officers, Dominick Lillo, William Peterson, Timothy Carey and Timothy McAuliffe. 

This type of abuse will continue in Bayonne by the police department until such time as the department takes serious citizen complaints and engages in honest internal affairs investigations of its officers; and when appropriate the disciplining of errant officers.

Update:  February 20, 2015, Dominick Lillo arrested by the FBI and charged by the United States Attorney's Office for excessive force in the beating of another Bayonne citizen arrested for outstanding municipal warrant.  He was also charged with lying to federal agents.  The Chief of Police, Richard Kubert, knew about this errant officers for years, and did nothing.  Mr. Kubert should be fired immediately, if the department wants to regain any integrity.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourcivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Question of Jury Nullification Does the Jury have the Right to Engage in Jury Nullification? Making the Argument that You Must Find the Defendant Not Guilty When There is Insufficient Evidence.

In the United States unlike many other countries once a jury renders a verdict of not guilty it is final, meaning the defendant can never be tried again because of principals of double jeopardy, and second, the jury can never be punished for its verdict no matter what it is.

Historically jury nullification was used by some northern juries in refusing to convict people engaged in freeing and helping black slaves hide and escape, in violation of the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act.  On the flip side sometimes southern juries sometimes refused to convict defendants, especially police officers engaged in blatant violation of federal civil rights laws especially applied to African-Americans and other minorities.  Unfortunately this all too frequently happens even today when police officers are placed on trial and acquitted or held liable when they should be convicted of violating the law or held liable for abusing others.

Evidence of jury nullification by the jury is sometimes manifested by the jury convicting of lesser included offenses, or hung juries.

Under New Jersey law under the definition of reasonable doubt which is given to each jury at the beginning and end of each criminal trial, the jury is instructed that if “you are not firmly convinced of defendant’s guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him or her not guilty.

The powerful and operative words are you must. An honest jury which is sworn to uphold the law cannot violate its sworn duty to fairly and impartially follow this jury instruction.  Accordingly, in that case the jury must enter a verdict of not guilty, if the State does not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, any doubt, which is reasonable, must be a vote of not guilty for that jury.

 

Accordingly, whether that acquitting juror is in the majority or the minority is of absolutely no significance since it is that juror who has made his or her individual decision which is scared and irrevocable and based on his or her own conscience.

Harvard Law school graduate, and former federal prosecutor and now law professor at the George Washington University National Law Center (my undergraduate alma mater), Paul Butler, argues that under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution ever jury has the right to engage in “jury nullification.”  Professor Butler in his OP-Ed article in the New York Times is perplexed why the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of in New York is prosecuting Julian P. Heicklen a retired chemistry professor for handing out leaflets in front of the United States Court House for advocating jury nullification that Professor Butler has been advocating through such forums at The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8eQ_EYwQQI

Professor argues that founding fathers John Hancock and John Adams believed that in the concept of jury nullification.  Citing Adams, each juror has the duty to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Professor Butler even suggests that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to be open to the suggestion that jurors can engage in jury nullification when he appeared before the United States Senate, when Justice Scalia stated that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible results.”

This New Jersey criminal defense attorney respectfully submits that because New Jersey criminal law allows for a verdict which is based on all the evidence and facts of any given case it is improper for anyone to second guess the decision of jury and their decision making process.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: December 23, 2011

NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Defense Attorneys.

  

Double Standard Applies to the New Jersey State Police

Having represented many defendants accused of sexual assaults, I am at a loss to understand why the Morris County Prosecutor, Joseph Bocchini, feels it necessary that he conduct a full inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations made by a 25 year female that a number of New Jersey State Police Officers sexually assaulted her at her home in Trenton on December 7, 2007.

Those in the criminal defense bar are at a loss to understand when was the last time that a prosecutor doubted an alleged victims accusation of sexual assault until such time as law enforcement did a full inquiry into the matter. In fact, as we all know, such investigations are rarely, if ever done. Rather, the sworn statement of the alleged victim is enough for an arrest warrant. Normally, the time frame from statement of the alleged victim, to arrest warrant, varies from a few hours, to a day, at most.

As we all know in the criminal defense bar, and for the ones unfortunate to have been accused of such crimes, a simple statement that he or she was sexually assault (whether true or not) is enough for law enforcement to issue an arrest warrant for the suspect, and request a high bail.

Remarkably because the Morris County Prosecutor's Office has received a complaint that a number of New Jersey State Police Officers are involved in this alleged crime, does the prosecutor take the position, as reported in The Star-Ledger (December 20, 2007) that the investigation is "a nightmare" and a "complex puzzle where investigators likely won't reach any conclusions until well after the first of the year."

In all of 18 years of being a criminal defense attorney have I ever seen a prosecutor or law enforcement agency attempt to test the veracity of an alleged victim with an investigation? Would prosecutor Bocchini extend this caution to the average citizen? I think not. When, if ever, does law enforcement challenge the truthfulness of an alleged victim that he or she was sexually assaulted? This alleged victim should not be treated any different than any other alleged victim, just because she made her complaint against cops.

It is time that prosecutor Bocchini handle this case like any other, and not show any favoritism to these troopers just because the defendant/suspects are members of the New Jersey State Police. Such behavior by our prosecutors (law enforcement officers who are attorneys) reaffirms to the citizens of this state that there is a double standard in the State of New Jersey and that cops are treated differently and that cops cannot investigate other cops.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

December 20, 2007

CriminalDefenseNJ.com