File photo of Kareem Bellamy, center, with his attorney Thomas Hoffman, left, and Jonathan Hiles. Photo Credit: Rick Kopstein/ALM

At oral arguments on Thursday for a lawsuit filed against New York City by a man who spent 14 years in prison for a murder he says he didn't commit, judges questioned claims that the case highlights a larger pattern of prosecutorial misconduct within the Queens District Attorney's Office.

The appeal by Kareem Bellamy, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the 1994 stabbing death of James Abbott in the Rockaway section of Queens, centers around the Queens DA's practice in which certain information is not disclosed to trial prosecutors, which defense attorneys say is a sort of “don't ask, don't tell policy” that protects trial prosecutors from potential Brady violations. The practice is said to construct a “wall” between trial lawyers and others who may have access to material that must be handed over under law to the defense.

In Bellamy's case, he alleged, the office did not disclose that it was paying relocation benefits for witnesses in his case.

“There was a tolerance in the office where there was a concentration on winning and there was a lack of concern with violations of constitutional rights,” said Joel Rudin of the Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, who represents Bellamy, to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

But judges questioned the argument that Bellamy's attorneys weren't told that a witness in Bellamy's case received benefits and whether or not the payment of benefits affected what the witness told the investigators.

“I'm not sure we're looking at this horrible Brady violation by the prosecution that becomes an instrument for generally reforming the way in which this DA's Office conducts its business,” said Judge Dennis Jacobs.

Jacobs was joined on the panel by Judge John Walker Jr. and, sitting by designation, U.S. District Judge Michael Shea of the District of Connecticut.

The city maintains that Bellamy received a fair trial prior to his conviction and, with respect to Bellamy's Monell claims regarding the Queens DA's practice, it argues that Bellamy failed to prove that his constitutional rights were violated and that the city has no control over a DA office's alleged policy choices.

Bellamy is appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York, who granted summary judgment for the city in Bellamy's civil case. Donnelly found that the Queens DA's decision to not disclose that it paid benefits to witnesses was a “prosecutorial” one, rather than administrative, and thus it could not be held liable.

Presenting the city's arguments before the Second Circuit, Assistant Corporation Counsel Megan Montcalm said there was no “wall” per se but that there was a policy of preventing trial prosecutors from making arrangements with witnesses themselves to prevent the appearance of a quid pro quo.

“There was nothing preventing trial prosecutors from learning about the financial aspects of the arrangements for the witnesses,” Montcalm said.

Following Bellamy's conviction, he was sentenced to 25 years to life, but Bellamy fought the conviction, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that prosecutors withheld Brady material.

Bellamy's quest for freedom ran into obstacles when he brought forward witnesses who claimed to have witnessed Abbott's stabbing death or its aftermath, but who did not provide enough evidence to warrant vacatur of Bellamy's conviction, according to court papers.

Bellamy's case was further hindered by “questionable tactics” by Bellamy's handling of witnesses, Donnelly wrote in her decision. She said one of Bellamy's lawyers, Thomas Hoffmann, told witnesses that prosecutors knew Bellamy was innocent and that Abbott's “real killer” is still at large, and that one of the witnesses received a substantial payment.

Bellamy's case was also injured by the revelation that another witness who claimed to have an audio recording of someone besides Bellamy admitting to killing Abbott turned out to be a hoax.

However, in the years following Bellamy's conviction, the New York Court of Appeals raised the bar for proving second-degree murder and, as a result, Queens prosecutors determined in 2011 that they would not retry Bellamy.

The Second Circuit panel reserved judgment on Bellamy's appeal.

In addition to Rudin and Hoffmann, Bellamy is represented by Jonathan Hiles of Sanford Heisler Sharp.