Retired Judge Relates Her Personal Experiences With Police Perjury
Police perjury is neither new nor rare. The facts are not quite as portrayed on Law & Order.
October 26, 2017 at 03:22 PM
5 minute read
Police perjury is neither new nor rare. The facts are not quite as portrayed on Law & Order.
As a NYS Supreme Court judge I instructed countless jurors that they must not find a witness to be more truthful or believable than others by virtue of being a police officer. And, of course, the reverse.
What about the reverse? Cops who lied? Here are some of my up-close experiences with the latter.
Two cops are driving down a street in a patrol car when, they say, they observe the perp (now the defendant) toss contraband from a window, jump from the window and run. They, according to their sworn testimony, jump a fence, pursue him and arrest him. Seeing him toss the object from the window is the predicate for the chase and arrest.
At a suppression hearing, the defense claims that the window is not visible from the cops' vantage point driving down the street.
Did the cops just fabricate this story, perhaps because they had no legal basis for an arrest?
The adversaries' positions are mutually exclusive. Since both sides cannot be telling me the truth, I decide that I have to visit the scene. This involves a large entourage of court personnel, defense counsel (who waived her client's appearance) and the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case.
Guess what? The window could not be seen from where the cops said they saw it. Res Ipsa liquitor. Or, it speaks for itself.
What about the Port Authority arrest where the cop testifying in my courtroom as to his role in the arrest is not the one who a videotape shows to be the actual arresting officer who conducted the acts his brother officer is now saying he executed?
Then there are the cops who say at a hearing to suppress statements that they immediately “gave him his rights.” Those would be the Miranda warnings, the right to remain silent.
Defense counsel: “How many times have you recited those rights?”
“Hundreds.”
Defense: “And what are those rights?”
A blank look, followed by, “Can I get my memo book? I keep them in there.” Sometimes it's, “I have them in my hat.”
Emily Jane Goodman is a former state Supreme Court justice.
Police perjury is neither new nor rare. The facts are not quite as portrayed on Law & Order.
As a NYS Supreme Court judge I instructed countless jurors that they must not find a witness to be more truthful or believable than others by virtue of being a police officer. And, of course, the reverse.
What about the reverse? Cops who lied? Here are some of my up-close experiences with the latter.
Two cops are driving down a street in a patrol car when, they say, they observe the perp (now the defendant) toss contraband from a window, jump from the window and run. They, according to their sworn testimony, jump a fence, pursue him and arrest him. Seeing him toss the object from the window is the predicate for the chase and arrest.
At a suppression hearing, the defense claims that the window is not visible from the cops' vantage point driving down the street.
Did the cops just fabricate this story, perhaps because they had no legal basis for an arrest?
The adversaries' positions are mutually exclusive. Since both sides cannot be telling me the truth, I decide that I have to visit the scene. This involves a large entourage of court personnel, defense counsel (who waived her client's appearance) and the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case.
Guess what? The window could not be seen from where the cops said they saw it. Res Ipsa liquitor. Or, it speaks for itself.
What about the Port Authority arrest where the cop testifying in my courtroom as to his role in the arrest is not the one who a videotape shows to be the actual arresting officer who conducted the acts his brother officer is now saying he executed?
Then there are the cops who say at a hearing to suppress statements that they immediately “gave him his rights.” Those would be the Miranda warnings, the right to remain silent.
Defense counsel: “How many times have you recited those rights?”
“Hundreds.”
Defense: “And what are those rights?”
A blank look, followed by, “Can I get my memo book? I keep them in there.” Sometimes it's, “I have them in my hat.”
Emily Jane Goodman is a former state Supreme Court justice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Biblical Reconciliation Between Judaism and Islam: A Lesson for Everyone, Everywhere
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250