Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – II

This is the second in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here.

When we look at the killing of Eric Garner in New York resulting from a chokehold, and of Michael Brown of a gun shot in Missouri, what I find disturbing is that most have an opinion, often broken down by race, but no one seems to actually know what happened. Both cases were presented to Grand Juries, and in neither case was there an indictment.

In both cases the prosecutors told the public that they should respect the verdict of the Grand Jury. What they did not tell the public, and neither did the media, is that Grand Juries are rubber stamps for whatever the D.A. wants, or as is explained by the website of the law firm of Solomon L. Wisenberg:

As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.'

While this quote refers to federal grand juries, it is equally true, if not more so, when it comes to local grand juries. The Grand Jury is not supposed to determine guilt or innocence of the accused; it is only supposed to determine if there is probable cause for the charge. It is for a “petty jury” to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Thus when the Grand Juries failed to indict in either of these cases, it meant only on thing, I.e. that the prosecutor did not want an indictment. The presentation to a Grand Jury was for show only. The prosecutor had already decided that he not want a jury trial. Thus this farce simply prevented the public from ever hearing all the evidence both against the officers and in their defense.

___________________________________________________________

In my last post on this subject I concluded:

“This was not the last time I discovered that police officers are not always paragons of virtue. More next time!”

I learned much more about how our law enforcement agencies often function much later, and it was summed up in an exchange of Letters to the Editor that I had while living in Montclair, NJ, in 1997. A letter from one, Frank Trico appeared in the local Newspaper, The Montclair Times, and I reproduce it below: 

For those who may have difficulty reading the clipping I set forth a transcript of the letter here:

3/6/97

Montclair Police Deserve Support

Editor, The Times

I have owned and operated a small business in Montclair for the last 20 years. Recently, I have had the pleasure of working with the very fine people of the Montclair Police Department on several projects.

What has impressed me the most is their total attitude of professionalism and commitment to community. From the top man down to the newest recruit, these are people who greet you with courtesy, respect and a smile and never forget to say ‘thank you”. These are people who know how to work with people.

It is easy to forget that police officers are just plain folk, who sometimes wake up with head colds or back problems or that their cars didn’t start or they just might be having a bad day. Police officers put their lives on the line each day. Imagine what it must be like to walk up to a car and not now how the driver of that car is going to react.

I think if we all tried to understand the difficult situations our police face on a daily basis, we might all benefit. Start by saying “Good morning” to a local beat cop or calling him or her by name. Or you might try being polite next time you’re stopped for going a little too fast on Upper Mountain Avenue. Get to know them; they really are here to help you.

Some time ago I read a letter to the editor by a woman who claimed to be more afraid of the Montclair police than she would be of a group of young men.

My grandmother would always say, “You never have anything to fear from the police, that is unless you are doing something wrong!”

FRANK TIRICO

Montclair

My response tells of my experiences and I reproduce it below:

For those who may have difficulty reading the clipping I set forth a transcript of the letter here:

4/10/97

Innocent At Risk

Editor, The Times:

The “Montclair Police Deserve Support” letter, which appeared in your March 6 issue, demands response. While I agree with the positive comments about the Montclair police, the last paragraph, “You never have anything to fear unless you have done something wrong “ is a naïve and dangerous fiction.

Unfortunately, many law enforcement officers do not believe it to be their function to enforce the law. They often decide on guilt and manufacture evidence to insure conviction or administer their own “justice”.

Some 40 years ago, the assistant US attorney, whose office I was assigned to, obtained an indictment on the basis of an officer’s testimony that he had seen a drug transaction under a street corner lamp, and saw another through the window of a bar. Before the trial, we visited the scene and found no street light on the corner and the bar window had a curtain. We dismissed the indictment.

Such outrages were not then general knowledge, but since the Rodney King incident, since the recent killing through a stranglehold by a New York City police officer, angered because a football had accidently hit his car; since officers admitted to the Mollen Commission that they perjure themselves to assure convictions, and commit other criminal acts; since one police officer after being convicted of brutality, theft, drug dealing and perjury, explained he did not feel he had anything to fear from the law because, after all, he was the law; since those cases have surfaced, the belief that the innocent need have no fear from law enforcement officers leaves the innocent at risk.

EMIL SCHELLER

Montclair

I can’t add very much. My letter tells the story.

But for those who might say that was almost 20 years ago, I can only set forth the oft repeated saying: “The more things change, the more they are the same.”

See the New York Times on January 15, 2015 from which I quote:

In researching the case, a lawyer for Mr. Herring, Debora Silberman of Brooklyn Defender Services, found others that mirrored it, involving the same group of police officers. In the other cases, defendants also said the guns were planted, with the police saying that officers saw the suspects storing the guns in plastic bags or handkerchiefs. 

 After the arrests, more similarities arose: The use of confidential informers was suddenly mentioned months into the proceedings, and the informers were never produced in court even after judges’ and lawyers’ requests. Judges had called some of the police version of events “incredible,” and the accounts “extremely evasive.”

Or the New York Times of December 11, 2014:

There were other similarities: Each gun was found in a plastic bag or a handkerchief, with no traces of the suspect’s fingerprints. Prosecutors and the police did not mention a confidential informer until months after the arrests. None of the informers have come forward, even when defense lawyers and judges have requested they appear in court. 

 Taken individually, the cases seem to be routine examples of differences between the police account of an arrest and that of the person arrested. But taken together, the cases — along with other gun arrests made in the precinct by these officers — suggest a pattern of questionable police conduct and tactics… 

 Mr. Hooper spent a year in jail awaiting trial, eventually pleading guilty and agreeing to a sentence of time served after the judge in his case called the police version of events “incredible… 

 In that case, a federal judge said she believed that the “officers perjured themselves.”

More next time!

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.