OFF THE WIRE
A cop is afraid of a device that captures the truth could "be used a
weapon" Everyone should have this "weapon" on them whenever a cop is
around.
By Innocence Staff
The New York Times published an article yesterday that documents the persistence of lies told by police to gain a conviction. Through their investigation, the Times
discovered that in more than 25 instances since 2015, judges or
prosecutors concluded that a New York City police officer likely
presented false testimony. Such cases—most of which are sealed—were
identified through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current
or former judges.
The Times’ article highlights the common lies about which
police testify, including: saying they saw a gun in a suspect’s hand or
waistband when it was actually out of view; saying they witnessed an
arrest for which they were not actually present; claiming they watched a
drug deal occur, only to later recant or be proven to have lied. In two
recent cases, officers appeared to have given false statements about
eyewitness testimony. “These cases,” says the Times, “are particularly troubling because erroneous identifications by witnesses have been a leading cause of wrongful convictions.”
“These cases are particularly troubling because erroneous identifications by witnesses have been a leading cause of wrongful convictions.”
Why do police lie? According to the Times, in many
circumstances, it’s to avoid restrictions against unconstitutional stop
and frisks. In other cases, the motive is to convict someone, regardless
of whether or not that person actually committed the crime. Some
officers have stated they are pressured by their supervisors to write
more tickets, to reach an arrest quota, or to close a case.
The 25 cases identified by the Times are a small portion of those in which officers are believed to have lied. This is because a large majority of cases result in plea deals.
With a plea deal, if an officer lies, it is unlikely to be exposed: it
is rare for a case to progress to a hearing where a defendant can
question an officer’s version of events.
“There’s no fear of being caught,” a Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for almost a decade told the Times.
“You’re not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be
cross-examined.” The percentage of cases that progress to the
cross-examination of an officer is quite small. According to the
article, in 2016, for example, there were slightly more than 185 guilty
pleas, dismissals, or other non-trial outcomes for each criminal case in
New York City that went to trial and resulted in a verdict. There were
1,460 trial verdicts in criminal cases that year, while 270,304 criminal
cases were resolved without a trial.
“Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail – and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free.”
Police lying persists, even amid an explosion of video evidence that has allowed the public to test officers’ credibility https://t.co/Ee1GZvRC5m
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 19, 2018
