Trial of Ex-Suffolk County DA Begins With Questions About Mental Well-Being of Key Witness
"Hallucinations. Delusions. Paranoia. Alcoholism. Raw self-interest," Larry Krantz, defense counsel to a former unit chief in the DA's office, said with no prelude. "That is what this case is actually about." Ex-DA Thomas Spota's lawyer, Alan Vinegrad, said a prosecution witness had "every reason in the world to lie."
November 14, 2019 at 02:26 PM
4 minute read
Arguments about the credibility of one witness, a former Suffolk County Police Department lieutenant, consumed much of the opening statements in the trial of former Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota and his former unit chief Christopher McPartland in the Eastern District of New York on Thursday.
Spota and McPartland are charged with obstruction of justice and related offenses in connection with the concealment of a 2013 assault of a man arrested in Suffolk County after breaking into then-police chief James Burke's car, according to federal prosecutors.
Burke was convicted of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and sentenced to nearly four years in prison in 2016. He was released this spring.
One of Burke's former lieutenants, James Hickey, was assigned to prevent the Suffolk County detectives involved in the assault from talking about it, Assistant U.S. Attorney Justina Geraci told the jury during her opening statement.
Geraci said Hickey was under a tremendous amount of pressure from Burke and Spota to keep the detectives in line. She acknowledged that Hickey broke the law and is cooperating because he hopes for leniency at his own sentencing.
"Just like Jimmy Burke, Hickey went from cop to criminal … you won't like what he's done," Geraci said.
Hickey was hospitalized twice during the course of the coverup, Geraci said—once for symptoms associated with alcoholism and then, after he had quit drinking, for severe stress and sleep deprivation.
Larry Krantz of Krantz & Berman, who is representing McPartland, characterized the hospitalizations differently as soon as he had a chance to address the jury.
"Hallucinations. Delusions. Paranoia. Alcoholism. Raw self-interest," Krantz said with no prelude. "That is what this case is actually about."
Krantz questioned whether Hickey could clearly remember the events he planned to testify about, considering that he had been suffering seriously from alcoholism during major parts of the case and was hospitalized for acute pancreatitis. Two years later, he said, Hickey was hospitalized after hearing voices and seeing people who were not actually present.
"The heart and soul of the government's case rests on the credibility of just one witness—James Hickey," Krantz said, arguing that no other witness has first-hand information and that the government lacks written or recorded evidence of the alleged cover-up.
Two of the detectives involved in the assault will also testify, Geraci said, in addition to the Suffolk County assistant district attorney who was assigned to handle the car burglary despite working in McPartland's anti-corruption unit.
Krantz told jurors that Hickey's medical history was only revealed in 2019 and the government is "stuck" after making a deal with him.
Alan Vinegrad of Covington & Burling, who is representing Spota, echoed some of Krantz's points about Hickey, telling the jury he has "every reason in the world to lie."
Krantz said that instead of being part of a cover-up, McPartland was one of the many people Burke lied to about what happened.
Vinegrad acknowledged that Burke and Spota have a long relationship—before he was chief, Burke was assigned to lead a detectives' squad inside Spota's office—but he said Spota's interest in the case and general support for Burke does not make him part of a conspiracy.
Geraci urged jurors not to be impressed by the resumes or reputations of Spota and McPartland.
"Criminals come in all shapes and sizes," she said. "They even wear suits and take oaths of office as prosecutors."
U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack is presiding over the trial, which is expected to last several weeks.
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 2European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 3UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 4For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 5Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
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