New York Leads Most States in Number of Wrongful Convictions. New York is ranked third in number of wrongful convictions with 257, topped only by Texas and Illinois. 167 of these 257, or 65% of these wrongful convictions involved official misconduct. The National Registry of Exoneration defines "official misconduct" as, "Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree's conviction." Nationally "2018 saw a record number of years lost to prison by defendants exonerated for crimes they did not commit: 1,639 years all told, an average of 10.9 years lost per exoneree. The current total number of exonerations is 2,425, more than 21,290 years lost." The National Registry of Exonerations
“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America.”
- Former United States Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
QUEENS DA'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
I. Queens DA Leads NY State in Number of Convictions Overturned Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct
II. Queens DA's Prosecutorial Misconduct
(A). Manipulating Evidence and Improper Closing Argument
(B). Withholding Evidence From The Defense
(C). Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenge
(D). Lying to A Trial Judge
(E). Queens DA's Unconstitutional Policies
(F). The Queens Wrongfully Convicted Can Sue City of New York
III. The Queens 25 Wrongfully Convicted
QUEENS DA'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
I. Queens DA Leads NY State in Number of Convictions Overturned Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct
"The fact is that out of the 62 counties in New York State, the Queens DA’s office has the highest amount of reversals on appeal for prosecutorial misconduct. Under DA Richard Brown, the undisputed fact from our Appellate Courts is Queens is # 1 in prosecutorial misconduct. It is extremely rare for an Appellate Court to reverse a conviction based on a prosecutor’s misconduct.
Under Brown, over 107 convictions have been overturned, with over 25 cases resulting in Appellate Courts exonerating the wrongly convicted. Misconduct in the Queens DA’s office is not the exception, it is procedure. DA Brown has never disciplined an assistant for misconduct, instead, he promotes them. Over 98 percent of Brown’s cases are the result of plea bargaining. So for every reversal on appeal there are hundreds of other cases of misconduct that no one will ever hear about. Thousands of lives have been destroyed by government functionaries like Ryan. Brown’s legacy of disgrace has gone under the radar. Until now.
On June 25th the voters have a chance to change everything. While most of the candidates for DA begin by saying 'Judge Brown has a long and distinguished record…' Tiffany Cabán does not. Tiffany has identified the metrics of a failed criminal justice system and now the voters have a real choice. A new Sheriff is coming to town and her name is Tiffany Cabán." by John O’Hara, a civil rights attorney with a focus on prosecutorial misconduct, Queens Daily Eagle.
An appellate court almost never reverses a conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct when it finds "the evidence... was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet, that is exactly what the appellate court did in a murder case in which Gregory Lasak was the judge. Lasak is now running for Queens DA. See People v Singleton. The Court cites a laundry list of prosecutorial misconduct in the trial and then states, "We recount these examples of the prosecutor's misconduct in the hope that our disfavor will be noted and that those charged with the duty of participating as advocates in criminal trials will approach their responsibility in an appropriate manner."
II. Queens DA's Prosecutorial Misconduct
A ProPublica investigation uncovered only one prosecutor, former Queens assistant district attorney Claude Stuart, who was disciplined for his actions and eventually lost his job after several abuses including manipulating evidence and improper closing argument, withholding evidence from the defense, discriminatory use of a peremptory challenge, and lying to a trial judge. Who Polices Prosecutors Who Abuse Their Authority? Usually Nobody.
Claude Stuart had been a Queens assistant district attorney for 12 years and had handled over 70 felony trials. He was supervised by Gregory Lasak. "Among the thousands of prosecutors who have tried cases in the name of the people of New York City, Claude Stuart came to hold a handful of unfortunate distinctions:
• He was a serial abuser of his authority. State appellate courts reversed three convictions based on his wrongdoing.
• His misconduct actually led to disciplinary action by his superiors. He lost his job, and eventually his law license, after an appellate court determined he had lied to a judge about the whereabouts of a key witness.
• The particulars of his disciplinary proceedings became public, opening a window into the typically secretive panels that are supposed to police the state’s lawyers." Lasting Damage: A Rogue Prosecutor’s Final Case.
Stuart's sworn testimony at his August 9, 2004 disciplinary hearing demonstrates that he was taught to make closing arguments in a manner that is textbook prosecutorial misconduct, and he, a prosecutor with 12 years of experience, didn't even know it. On page 99, line 7, of the transcript, Stuart is being cross examined by a NY Bar trial attorney.
Q. And didn't they also find that you gave your own opinion regarding truth and falsity of a witness' testimony?
A. If that's what's in the -- as prosecutors we always comment about, you know.
Q. As prosecutor, do you always comment about the truth and falsity of a witness's testimony?
A. I mean, it all depends on what words you use, but there are many times we comment about whether the person is worthy of belief or not worthy of belief.
Q. Actually, Mr. Stuart, that is grounds for reversal; that's prosecutorial misconduct.
Combating Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Arguments by Michael D. Cicchini explains this type of prosecutorial misconduct.
"As late as the 1960s, some prosecutors were able to win convictions by preventing defendants from testifying at trial. Today, however, courts recognize a defendant’s constitutional right to testify in his or her own defense. And to ensure this right has real meaning, courts often instruct juries that 'you should not discredit the testimony just because the defendant is charged with a crime.' Yet prosecutors have developed arguments to accomplish exactly what the law prohibits: they urge juries to disregard the defendant’s testimony simply because he or she is the defendant... This type of argument [is] improper as it 'implies that the defendant lied simply because of his [or her] status as a defendant.' In other words, arguing that a defendant’s testimony should be discredited, dismissed, or ignored because he or she is the defendant is, in substance, the equivalent of preventing him or her from testifying in the first place—something the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional.
The prosecutor must not be allowed to accomplish the same end by different means. Worse yet, this prosecutorial argument violates an even more important constitutional principle: the presumption of innocence. This can be demonstrated in three simple but irrefutable steps. First, in any criminal case involving the defendant’s testimony, the prosecutor takes the position that the defendant is guilty, but the defendant testifies that he or she is innocent. Second, to argue that the defendant is lying (or slanting his or her testimony or shifting blame) because of his or her status as a defendant necessarily implies that the defendant is guilty. That, after all, is the whole point of the prosecutor’s argument. And third, to argue that a person is guilty merely because he or she has been charged with a crime is blatantly unconstitutional, as such arguments 'diminish the defendant’s fundamental right to the presumption of innocence.' Whether based on the defendant’s right to testify or his or her right to a presumption of innocence, arguments that the defendant’s testimony should be disregarded based solely on his or her status as the defendant are improper."
Assistant District Attorney Claude N. Stuart of the District Attorney’s Homicide Trials Bureau, under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Daniel A. Sauders and the overall supervision of Executive Assistant District Attorney for Major Crimes Gregory L. Lasak, prosecuted the cases of Jay Walters, Tony Bennett, Allah McCall, and Tyrone Johnson.
(A). Manipulating Evidence and Improper Closing Argument
1995 - Jay Walters. In 1995 Claude Stuart tried a murder case against Jay Walters. Walters was convicted on February 1, 1995. However, an appellate court reversed the conviction due to Stuart's prosecutorial misconduct in People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433, 674 N.Y.S.2d 114 (1998). This misconduct involved Stuart's (1) "insinuation [to the jury] that the gun which had been recovered from the defendant two weeks after the crime in an unrelated arrest may have been the gun which was used to shoot the victim,” despite Stuart's “knowledge that the ballistics test performed by police conclusively established that the gun had not been used in the crime,”; (2) improper inflammatory remarks that he “persist[ed] in making” that were “designed to appeal to the jury's sympathy,” including his statement that “the victim was left ‘on the street to die, to die like a dog’,” that “but for the crime, [the victim] ‘was probably going to be a brilliant artist’,” and that the jury should “ ‘imagine what a shock it was to [the victim's] wife, who's eight months pregnant’,”; (3) suggestion to the jury that the defendant, not the State, bore the burden of proof; and (4) description, in closing argument, of “the defendant's testimony as ‘continued lies on top of lies, on top of lies'.” In 1999 Stuart received a Letter of Caution issued by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District for prosecutorial misconduct in this murder trial, which resulted in the conviction being overturned.
(B). Withholding Evidence From The Defense
1997 - Tony Bennett. In 1997 Claude Stuart tried a murder case against Tony Bennett. Bennett was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 year-to-life in prison. Bennett's conviction was reversed because Claude Stuart withheld critical evidence from Bennett's attorney. In 2008 Bennett was released after serving 13 years in prison. The Court held:
"We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor's conduct deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Put simply, the prosecutor ambushed the defense by his deception regarding his intention to call Rickey Davis as a witness and withholding of the Rosario material pertaining to Davis, by his last-minute presentation of Davis's testimony regarding the victim's excited utterance when the police had not yet arrived and the victim's statement to the police as well, and by his capitalizing on these unfair tactics in summation. These tactics led to and then undermined the defense theory that the police had been the only ones to hear the victim's accusation against the defendant and had conformed their testimony to assure its admissibility. Because the instances of prosecutorial misconduct were flagrant and the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, we reverse the conviction and order a new trial." People v. Bennett 40 A.D.3d 653, 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007).
(C). Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenge
1. 2001 - Allah McCall. In November 16, 2001 a jury found McCall guilty of the 1999 murder of a teenager who was shot following an argument over the victim’s gold chain. McCall was sentenced to 20 years to life. However, Claude Stuart during jury selection excluded "a prospective juror because she was of Jamaican ancestry."
The right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. However, this right cannot be exercised to exclude jurors based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. A defense attorney challenging a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge which she believes is based on race, ethnicity, or gender is called a "Batson" challenge. The trial judge then must determine if the peremptory challenge is being used by the prosecutor in a race, ethnic, and gender neutral manner. In making that determination, the judge must weigh a potential juror's constitutional right not to be discriminated against and a prosecutor's privilege to exercise peremptory challenges.
On March 14, 2004 the Appellate Division, Second Department found the "Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror because she was of Jamaican ancestry." People v McCall 2004 NY Slip Op 01800 [5 AD3d 608] March 15, 2004. The Court ordered a new trial.
On June 30, 2004 the New York Post reported that McCall "who was convicted of gunning down a teen over a gold chain, only to have the verdict reversed on appeal, pleaded guilty yesterday to avoid a retrial. Allah McCall, 22, admitted he shot Eddie Newson, 17, in Far Rockaway on Aug. 20, 1999, and was sentenced on the spot to 10 years in prison. McCall was initially convicted of murder in November 2001 and sentenced to 20 years to life. An appeals court later overturned the conviction, citing what it said was prosecutor Claude Stuart’s intentional exclusion of Jamaican jurors. According to defense lawyer Murray Singer, Stuart excluded those jurors because he believed they hailed from a violent society. Stuart resigned in 2002, after withholding a prosecution memo in another murder case. Singer said his client, 'is happy that the matter has been resolved and that he can continue serving his sentence.'” KILLER PLEADS GUILTY TO ‘99 SLAY, NY Post.
After McCall's conviction the Queens DA's office issued the following press release:
"Friday, November 16, 2001
FAR ROCKAWAY MAN FOUND GUILTY OF 1999 MURDER OF A TEEN; FACES 25 YEARS TO LIFE
Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown today announced that a Far Rockaway man has been found guilty of the 1999 murder of a teenager who was shot following an argument over the victim’s gold chain...
Assistant District Attorney Claude N. Stuart of the District Attorney’s Homicide Trials Bureau, under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Daniel A. Sauders and the overall supervision of Executive Assistant District Attorney for Major Crimes Gregory L. Lasak, prosecuted the case."
2. Gregory Lasak's Improper Handling of Queens ADA's Use of A Peremptory Challenge. Lasak was Claude Stuart's supervisor when he discriminated against a potential juror because of her Jamaican ancestry. In 2002 Stuart lost his job as a Queens ADA and Lasak was elected judge in Queens. In 2016, as a judge, Lasak improperly handled another Queens ADA's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude an African American man from serving on a jury.
"Jury service is one of the most significant ways in which an individual can directly participate in the administration of justice and influence the adjudicative process. Yet the right of a prospective juror to be free from discrimination in her participation in jury service is put at risk by a litigant's unfettered discretion in the use of the peremptory challenge.' In order to safeguard a potential juror's equal protection guarantee against discriminatory exclusion from jury service, the United States Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky and its progeny, imposed significant restrictions on the way in which litigants exercise peremptory challenges. Litigants may not base peremptory challenges on the race, ethnicity, or gender of a prospective juror.
The Supreme Court's limitations on the way in which litigants utilize peremptory challenges demonstrates the superiority of a prospective juror's constitutional rights over the litigant's privilege to exercise peremptory challenges.” BATSON MEETS THE FIRST AMENDMENT
In 2019 an appellate court revered a conviction because Gregory Lasak permitted an African American potential juror to be excluded from jury service without deterring if the Queens ADA's alleged reason for excluding him was credible. The New York Law Journal reported “A Second Department panel found the former Queens criminal judge had failed to properly handle a 'Batson' challenge by the defense, sending the case back for retrial.
Former Queens state judge turned district attorney candidate Gregory Lasak has seen a recent manslaughter conviction secured in his courtroom reversed on appeal, after the panel found he failed to properly handle concerns of racial bias in a move that kept a prospective juror who was black off the case.
The reversal and remittance for a new trial in Queens Supreme Court comes during the early days of Lasak’s bid to replace Richard Brown, who announced last week he wouldn’t run for re-election as DA.” DA Hopeful, Ex-Judge Lasak Reversed Over Handling of DA Bias in Jury Selection, By Colby Hamilton, New York Law Journal.
The case was People v Alexander. In 2016 Diamonte Alexander (18 years old) was found guilty by a jury of the November 2012 murder of a young man in Rockaway, Queens. On appeal Alexander alleged that during jury selection, the prosecutor sought to exclude a potential juror “based solely on the potential juror’s race.”
"The prosecutor stated that she believed this potential juror to be too young and inexperienced to serve on a murder trial. [Lasak] allowed for further questioning of this potential juror and, based on this additional questioning, determined that the potential juror seemed to have difficulty understanding the questions posed to him, that he appeared to have "a glazed-eye look," and that his "ability to communicate is somewhat impaired." [Lasak] then allowed the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge against the potential juror, deeming the peremptory challenge to be not "in any way based on any discrimination." However, [Lasak] never provided a ruling on the defendant's initial Batson challenge, relating to the prosecutor's contention that the juror was too young and inexperienced to serve.
Under these circumstances, the [Lasak] failed in [his] duty to determine whether the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations were credible." People v Alexander, 2019 NY Slip Op 00135, Decided on January 9, 2019, Appellate Division, Second Department.
(D). Lying to A Trial Judge
2002 - Tyrone Johnson. In his last trial, on June 4, 2002, Queens ADA Claude Stuart lied to Judge Jaime A. Rios in People v. Johnson. Stuart told Justice Rios that he had no knowledge of the whereabouts of a witness whose statements the defense maintained were exculpatory. When in fact, Stuart did know the witness' whereabouts and had met with her on May 31, 2002 at her job. Who will prosecute the corrupt prosecutors?
After Johnson's conviction the Queens DA's office issued the following press release:
"Thursday, June 6, 2002
JAMAICA MAN CONVICTED AFTER JURY TRIAL OF MURDER IN SHOOTING DEATH OF ACQUAINTANCE
...District Attorney Brown identified the defendant as Tyrone Johnson...
Assistant District Attorney Claude N. Stuart of the District Attorney’s Homicide Trials Bureau prosecuted the case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Daniel Saunders, Bureau Chief, and under the overall supervision of Executive Assistant District Attorney for Major Crimes Gregory L. Lasak."
Missing from this press release is the fact that the conviction was obtained through Stuart's serial prosecutorial misconduct that, if not condoned by the office, had been tolerated since at least 1998. Stuart's lies were finally so blatantly obvious that the Queens DA agreed to a new trial, saving the defense the need to appeal to overturn the conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Stuart lost his job in 2002 and had his NY license to practice law suspended in 2005 for three years, his NJ law license was suspended for three months in 2007, and his DC law license was suspended for three years in 2008.
Having done such a great job at supervising Claude Stuart, Gregory Lasak with the help of the Queens Machine was elected State Supreme Court justice at the end of 2002. Mr. Murder. He is now a candidate for Queens District Attorney. Claude Stuart became director for "a charity set up by State Senator Malcolm A. Smith and United States Representative Gregory W. Meeks." Yes, this is the U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks who is the new Queens boss. See "New Boss, Same Broken Machine" section below. "Stuart was placed on the Senate payroll by Mr. Smith in 2002 shortly after he lost his job as a Queens prosecutor for lying to a judge." Figure Under Scrutiny in Inquiry Into Charity Was on Senate Payroll, NYTimes.
Tiffany L. Cabán will end all this gamesmanship on day one!
(E). Queens DA's Unconstitutional Policies
1. "New York's highest court ruled... that a script prosecutors in the Queens district attorney’s office had read to criminal defendants before they were arraigned so undercut the Miranda warning that it violated their constitutional rights.
In a 6-to-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals found that the way pre-arraignment interviews were conducted... gave the message to the defendants,'for all intents and purposes, that remaining silent or invoking the right to counsel would come at a price — they would be giving up a valuable opportunity to speak with an assistant district attorney, to have their cases investigated or to assert alibi defenses...'
Writing for the majority, Judge Susan Phillips Read said that statements in the script like 'give me as much information as you can,' 'this is your opportunity to tell us your story' and 'you have to tell us now' directly contradicted the later warning that they had the right to remain silent.
'By advising them that speaking would facilitate an investigation, the interrogators implied that these defendants’ words would be used to help them, thus undoing the heart of the warning that anything they said could and would be used against them,' Judge Read wrote." NYTimes
Using this unconstitutional method, the Queens DA interrogated approximately 15,000 unrepresented, indigent criminal defendants directly before arraignment, when they would be appointed counsel.
2. "State Supreme Court in Queens revealed flaws in a longstanding practice within the district attorney’s office that has allowed prosecutors to keep information that could be valuable to the defense from emerging during trial. The judge said that had deprived the defendant of due process.
The unwritten policy, described internally as a Chinese wall, tells members of the district attorney’s office not to share certain information about witnesses and defendants with each other in some circumstances. Though such policies can be used to prevent conflicts of interest, in the murder case it effectively blocked the release of material information that legally must be disclosed to the defense, the judge found." Murder Conviction Tossed Out in Queens.
"According to Joel Rudin, this practice has gone on for 'the last 20 years by current Queens District Attorney Richard Brown.'
The actions of the Queens DA’s office in the instant case calls into question the validity of witness testimony in all criminal cases during this period since there are likely undisclosed files from the Witness Protection Program that were never turned over to trial attorneys in a number of cases, not to mention the office’s obvious lack of understanding about its own obligations under the Constitution." Queens DA’s Office Ignores Brady Obligations, Relies on “Chinese Wall”.
(F). The Queens Wrongfully Convicted Can Sue City of New York
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently rendered a very important decision allowing the assertion of §1983 claims against the City of New York based on a district attorney’s office policies and practices. In Bellamy v. City of New York, 914 F.3d 747 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held that the Queens County District Attorney is a City policymaker with respect to the training, supervision, and discipline of Assistance District Attorneys. The decision paves the way for the plaintiff’s §1983 wrongful conviction Monell claims to proceed against the City...
Kareem Bellamy’s §1983 action arose from his wrongful convictions in New York Supreme Court, Queens County for second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He was incarcerated for 14 years until the state court vacated his conviction based on newly discovered evidence that another individual may have committed the murder.
In his §1983 complaint Bellamy alleged that: (1) Detectives Solomeno and Gillen fabricated evidence of Bellamy’s guilt and withheld exculpatory impeachment evidence, namely, the full scope of relocation benefits provided to a prosecution witness who was in a witness protection program; and (2) Assistant District Attorney (ADA) David Guy of the Queens County District Attorney’s Office (QCDA) engaged in serious misconduct that violated Bellamy’s due process right to a fair trial when he told the jury near the end of his summation, “I know who committed the murder” (meaning Bellamy); 'Where is there proof defendant had no motive to kill somebody?’; and that Bellamy was 'not going to get away with it, not this time,' which permitted the jury to infer 'that Bellamy had committed other uncharged crimes at other times (murder, no less, the crime for which Bellamy was on trial) and that the government had evidence of those crimes to which the jury was not privy.' Bellamy, 914 F.3d at 763 (citations omitted). During his summation Guy also called Bellamy 'a liar.'
The Monell claims against the City alleged that (1) the QCDA had a 'policy of purposefully shielding from prosecutors (and thereby the defense) the full scope of relocation benefits given to witnesses in its witness protection program'; 914 F.3d at 733; and (2) the QCDA’s office was deliberately indifferent to its systemic failures to train and discipline its ADA’s with respect to improper summations." by Martin A. Schwartz, New York Law Journal. Bellamy v. City of New York, No. 17-1859 (2d Cir. 2019).
Kareem Bellamy (convicted in 1995, exonerated in 2011) was 1 of 25 wrongful convictions by the Queens DA, that were subsequently overturned and the persons exonerated for crimes they did not commit.
III. The Queens 25 Wrongfully Convicted
Studies have identified prosecutorial misconduct as one of the causes of wrongful convictions, especially prosecutorial failures to comply with their due process Brady obligations to disclose exculpatory material to the defense. Brandon L. Garrett, Convicting the Innocent, p.168 (Harv. Univ. Press 2011). 11 of the 25, or 44% of the following wrongful convictions involved official misconduct and they all involved people of color. Again, The National Registry of Exoneration defines "official misconduct"as, "Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree's conviction."
1. Angelo Martinez
2. Teobaldo Guce
3. Terrence Mason
4. Todd McCord
5. Eddie Andre
6. Clinton Turner
7. Amine Baba-Ali
8. Gerald Harris
9. Shih-Wei Su
10.Lambert Charles
11.Lazaro Burt
12.Evangelo Vamvakas
13.Kareem Bellamy
14.Lee Long
15.Arthur Stewart
16.Carlos Cardenas
17.Fancy Figueroa
18.Racky Ramchair
19.Napoleon Cardenas
20.Ronald Dudley
21.Lamar Palmer
22.Melinda Bronson
23.Julio Negron
24.Ricardo Benitez
25.Derrick Redd