Vineland's
tainted evidence frees man
Had enough? Write to the Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 and demand federal
hearings into the police problem in America.
Demand mandatory body cameras for cops, one strike rule on abuse, and a
permanent DOJ office on Police
Misconduct.
BRIDGETON
— A state judge Friday dismissed a firearms indictment against a Vineland man
after a county prosecutor admitted a Vineland police detective’s alleged
misconduct raises “credibility” issues about evidence.
Cumberland
County Superior Court Judge Darrell M. Fineman quickly accepted the
prosecution’s motion, allowing defendant Maurice A. Pettway to walk out of the
county courthouse a free man. The dismissal means Pettway cannot be charged again
in the same matter.
Pettway
praised his attorney, state Deputy Public Defender Caroline Turner. “This woman
saved my life,” the Vineland man said outside court, smiling at Turner.
With
Friday’s action, there are now at least 40 criminal cases in Cumberland County
that have been dropped since March 2011. All were dropped based on suspicions
that Vineland police detective Gamaliel Cruz lied in at least one affidavit he
filed for a search warrant while assigned to the city’s narcotics unit.
The
Cumberland County Prosecutor’ Office made that allegation against Cruz after an
investigation into a case unrelated to Pettway’s. That investigation expanded
to include at least 39 cases in which Cruz’s involvement led prosecutors to
drop charges.
Cruz
was suspended from the police force as a result, although he was not charged
criminally. He is fighting the city’s attempt to dismiss him from his job.
Pretrial
argument on whether the state’s case against Pettway was fatally tainted
started last year.
First
Assistant Prosecutor Harold B. Shapiro has handled the Pettway case. Prior to
the hearing Friday, he declined to comment on whether his office might take
similar action on other pending cases.
“The
state has been guided in its consideration of the Detective Cruz cases by what
it deems to be its responsibility to minimize and/or alleviate unfair prejudice
to defendants,” Shapiro wrote in a brief submitted to the judge. “In previously
pending cases where the charges could not be sustained against defendants
without the testimony of Detective Cruz and in circumstances where the state
has determined that the involvement of Detective Cruz may have caused it to
lose confidence in the integrity and credibility of the evidence supporting
prosecution, the state has determined that dismissal with prejudice is
required.”
One
impact from the prosecution’s decision to drop the Pettway case is it
short-circuits a defense motion to obtain copies of all other affidavits Cruz
filed in similar cases over the past several years.
Defense
attorneys, in this case and others, have questioned Cruz’s use of unidentified
“confidential informants” and his habit of using what Turner called an
affidavit “template” to fill out the requests. Cruz would “cut and paste”
information from one affidavit for another, adjusting details as needed, she
alleged.
In
the Pettway case, court documents and testimony indicate, Cruz emailed his
affidavit template to Vineland police Officer Robert Magee. That officer then
used it, with alterations, to secure a warrant from Superior Court Judge Gary
D. Wodlinger to search for any drugs that might be in Pettway’s possession.
Pettway
was arrested on Aug. 5, 2010, at a traffic stop and the warrant executed. But
police did not find the narcotics the affidavit indicated would be present in
his vehicle.
Instead,
Pettway was charged with possessing a stolen firearm that was found during the
search. Pettway denies ever seeing the weapon before police said they found it.
“I’m
delighted that the case is being dismissed by the prosecution,” Turner said
after Shapiro offered his motion. “However, I would like to continue my
discovery motion for the affidavits. Because, Judge, my office represents a lot
of clients that could have been affected by these irregularities.”
“I
don’t think anything has been proven ‘true,’” Fineman answered, adding he must
consider discovery requests on a case-by-case basis.
As
the argument continued, Turner asked, “How are people, who have been affected
by this, to know they have been affected?”
Fineman
responded that is a duty of the prosecution. The Prosecutor’s Office, over the
course of this case, has come forth with additional information favorable to
the defense after investigating defense claims.
Fineman
complimented Turner for showing “tenacity.” But the court isn’t empowered to
address “amorphous” controversies, he added.
In
dismissing Cruz-related cases last year, the Prosecutor’s Office set up three
categories representing what it said were different levels of involvement by
the detective. It decided to dismiss cases in which Cruz was the officer to
file an affidavit, or in which he was a principal witness.
The
office has continued with an undisclosed number of cases for which, it argues,
Cruz doesn’t need to be called as a witness even though he’s linked to the
cases. The legitimacy of such a legal firewall has been in question throughout
the Pettway case.
In
her motion, Turner states: “As part of the affidavit discussed so far has been
proven to be, at least in part a lie, and as the detective who wrote about his
personal knowledge of the CI (confidential informant) in question has been
suspended for lying in an affidavit under oath to a Superior Court judge and as
Office Magee acted in bad faith or a reckless disregard for the truth of his
sworn statement, all the information pertaining to the CI should be stricken.
As stated by the Supreme Court … ‘police can not insulate one officer’s
deliberate misstatement merely by relaying it through an officer-affiant
personally ignorant of its falsity.’”
Outside
court, Turner criticized the Vineland Police Department for a lack of
management oversight.
“There
is no accountability,” she said. “They can change (informant identity) numbers
when they like. The can change other people’s affidavits make it look like their
own. They can tell lies in affidavits. This is a police department?”
