April 26, 2008
A Decision of Many Words Put the Fateful Ones Last
By
MICHAEL WILSON
Criminal verdicts almost always contain either one word or two. The
Sean Bell verdict ran 1,164 words, a methodical and unusual look into a judge’s examination of the burden of proof by the people of the County of Queens.
“The court did not view the victims or the
N.Y.P.D. as being on trial here,” Justice
Arthur J. Cooperman said in a packed courtroom Friday in delivering his verdict on the detectives charged in Mr. Bell’s death. But much of the most damning language was indeed directed at the victims, both at behavior that the judge saw as fomenting the tension that led to the shooting, and then at statements on the stand that he found dubious.
In his words the judge clearly favored the testimony of the detectives, given before a grand jury last year, over that of prosecution witnesses and, in particular, the two men wounded in the shooting,
Joseph Guzman and
Trent Benefield.
The decision is notable for what it does not mention: one of the most explosive elements of the trial, the fact that 50 bullets were fired at three unarmed men, 31 of them by Detective
Michael Oliver, who reloaded in the middle of the fusillade.
At the same time, Justice Cooperman makes it clear that it was his job to decide whether prosecutors proved their case — that the officers were not justified when they opened fire — and not whether they had performed their jobs poorly. That, he wrote, would be up to others to decide.
The verdict, in its cool, unadorned style, is a lesson in witness credibility and its key role in eliminating reasonable doubt. In contrast to much of the heated testimony, the verdict is written without flourish or pontification, beginning with a reminder to the gallery to keep quiet and recognition of the difficulty of the last two months.
“In many ways, this trial was a hardship,” Justice Cooperman said.
The first hint of which way the verdict was heading may have come, to some alert ears, soon after, when the judge seemed to pause to point out that “establishments known as ‘strip clubs’ often generate criminal activity including prostitution and narcotics.” If he had decided to convict the detectives, it would seem unlikely that he would point out valid reasons they had for being at
Club Kalua that night.
“An objective consideration of the proof ruled out sympathy and prejudice and any other emotional response to the issues presented,” he said.
He said he leaned on evidence that suggested what was going through the detectives’ minds and not Mr. Bell’s. “What the victims did was more pertinent to resolving the issues of fact than what may have been in their minds,” he said.
He suggested that whatever the police did wrong that night should be determined elsewhere: “Carelessness and incompetence are not standards to be applied here, unless the conduct rises to the level of criminal acts.”
The judge focused on testimony on two key moments: the argument between Mr. Bell and a stranger, Fabio Coicou, outside Club Kalua, and the seconds before Detective
Gescard F. Isnora opened fire. In doing so, the judge said, he was aware that witnesses recalling the same event might tell it a little differently. “However,” he wrote, “where there are significant inconsistencies related to important facts, they should be considered.”
What Justice Cooperman found in the testimony of the 50 prosecution witnesses were myriad significant inconsistencies. And he listed them among the reasons he found the prosecution’s case to have failed: “Prior inconsistent statements, inconsistencies in testimony among prosecution witnesses, the renunciation of prior statements, criminal convictions, the interest of some witnesses in the outcome of the case, the demeanor on the witness stand of other witnesses and the motive witnesses may have had to lie and the effect it had on the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony.
“These factors,” he continued, “played a significant part in the people’s ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses. And, at times, the testimony just didn’t make sense.”
The judge seemed to single out the two key prosecution witnesses, Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield. Of the former, the judge simply stated that he believed what Detective Isnora said, that he had heard Mr. Guzman tell someone to get him his gun, a claim Mr. Guzman denied.
Justice Cooperman was harsher on Mr. Benefield, calling his credibility “seriously impeached.” He said Mr. Benefield’s claims to have been shot while running away were contradicted by forensic evidence.
By four-fifths of the way through the ruling, the judge still had not disclosed his verdict, but it was becoming clearer how he would rule. “The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal,” he said, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
He followed with a finding on a critical element in the prosecution’s failure to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “The people have not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each defendant was not justified in the actions that each took,” he wrote.
The verdict’s style surprised listeners who were expecting a rundown of the indictment’s eight counts, with “guilty” or “not guilty” attached to each defendant’s name.
The actual verdict only arrived with the last sentence:
“Accordingly, the court finds each defendant not guilty of each of the respective counts in the indictment of which they were charged.”
The judge announced the court to be in recess, and left the room.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/ny...hp&oref=slogin
Linear Mode
