RSS Feed
|
|
|||||
|
for larger version       From the Editor's Desk For once, the Daily News got it right. The day after three NYPD detectives went on trial for the tragic and mistaken shooting death of Rockaway resident Sean Belle, it ran an editorial that began: "The trial of three NYPD detectives accused in the fatal Sean Bell shooting began yesterday in Queens Supreme Court. Now is the time for New Yorkers to consider the evidence, and only the evidence with open minds. "Sympathies and emotions have run high in the 15 months since Bell, unarmed, was killed after a bachelor party at a strip club. To many police officers, the accused cops have been made scapegoats merely to placate an angry public. This is not the case. "Nor is it the case, as some have charged, that the detectives are little better that cold-blooded killers whose actions are part and parcel of pervasive police brutality against minorities. "The question to be answered by the evidence is whether Oliver, Isnora and Cooper, any or all of them, were criminally reckless in firing on Bell and a group of his friends. "That means criminally reckless - not horribly, terribly wrong. "That means criminally reckless - beyond a reasonable doubt." So, here we are, three weeks into the trial and we can take a look at the testimony that has been presented so far in light of the question posed by the Daily News - not a paper known to be the cop's best friend. Were the cops criminally reckless in the legal sense of those words? Or, were they simply terribly wrong in believing that Bell and his friends had at least one weapon and were prepared to use it against others, or even against them? In the past three weeks, the prosecution has called several witnesses. Some of them, particularly the lieutenant who was running the detail at the Kalua that night and who ducked under his car when the shooting started, were weak. Most of them, however, corroborated the detective's contention that they believed a gun was present in the group that morning. In fact, the testimony has been so favorable to the cops, some people close to the case and some journalists are complaining that the prosecution is really not trying to win the case. "Whose Side Are The Prosecutors On?" asks Andrea Peyser in her popular New York Post column. "Here at the Queens courthouse, one witness after another has backfired - actually helping the defense of Detectives Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora and Marc Cooper. For the family, the breaking point came during the riveting testimony of police Detective Hispolito 'Hip' Sanchez, the partner of the accused men. "The straight-arrow cops testified - for the prosecution - that he heard Bell's buddy, Joseph Guzman twice yell, 'Yo, go get my gun' on the night of November 25, 2006. He said that Bell was primed for battle, screaming twice, 'Let's fk 'em up.'" A now-retired cop who was a crime scene unit (CSU) member on the scene testified that a bloody bag of drugs was found in the car as well. The prosecution knows to whom the bag belonged, through DNA testing. So far, however, they haven't brought it up in court. It is clear, however, from past testimony and from the criminal records of all the men in the car, including Bell, that drugs and guns were fairly regular accoutrements, even if there was no gun found on the scene that night. Should that count against the men? Certainly not, but it does give some credibility to the stated belief of the detectives that guns were present in the car and that, in fact, their belief that one of the men in the car that had just struck their van and was now backing up towards them, had a gun. The family was reportedly incensed that the prosecution would put on witnesses such as Sanchez, knowing what he was going to say on the stand. Well, I have some words for the family. The testimony is what it is and it most probably is the truth. On Friday, the New York Times did a story on the trial. We all know how the "Paper of Record" feels about the NYPD. The paper would rather the entire department go away and leave the poor criminals alone. The paper constantly tries to show that the police are the problem, not the agency that played such a large part in cutting crime in New York City. Michael Wilson, writing in the Times, said, "After eight days of testimony in the Sean Bell trial, some onlookers have asked a variation of the old saw about friends and enemies: With prosecution witnesses like these, who needs a defense? "Several witnesses called by the Queens District Attorney's office, including Mr. Bell's childhood friends, have provided testimony that seemed to better serve the three detectives charged in his killing on November 25, 2006, near a strip club in Jamaica. "For example, a key to the detective's case is establishing their belief that Mr. Bell or his friends were armed that night. The prosecution has said that Mr. Bell was shot without justification. But Mr. Bell's friends, testifying for the prosecution, have said they believed a man arguing with Mr. Bell outside the club Kaula that morning had a gun. And officers have said that one of Mr. Bell's friends said, 'Get my gun.' "But, in a way, these seeming defense victories appear to be the cost of doing business in a prosecution strategy that says more is more. Prosecutors seem less concerned with landing traditional body blows and rather intend to methodically present to the court every scrap of evidence that has surfaced in the fifteen months since the shooting." In my mind, there are two reasons for the prosecution's presentation of witnesses that they know will bolster the defense case. First of all, it is a lot harder to land the "traditional body blows" when there is no jury. There is an old lawyer's maxim when involved in jury cases. "When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither is on your side, pound on the table." Pounding on the table works when a jury is involved, but hardly ever works in a bench case, where there is no jury and the judge will make the determination of guilt or innocence. The judge knows the deal and Arthur Cooperman is a tough and fair jurist. The prosecution is not going to flimflam him, which leads me to the second reason. The people, in the guise of the district attorney, are supposed to be seeking justice as well as a conviction. How many times have you heard that on "Law and Order?" Well, it's true in real life as well as on television, and the prosecution should be seeking the truth and justice, at the same time that the defense is trying every trick in the book to get its clients found not guilty. That's our system, love it or not. In any case, the truth will come out and Cooperman will make his decision.
Then, we'll see whether the leadership in the black community, including Malcolm Smith, James Sanders and Al Sharpton, -wants justice - or retribution.
|
|
||||
