Joseph A. Slobodzian, Inquirer
Staff Writer
The judge said he couldn't
believe the sentence he was imposing. A "gift," he called it - three
months' house arrest and six years' probation for a former Philadelphia police
officer who took $5,000 and skipped court so a man he arrested on gun charges
could skate free.
"It was an honest mistake,
but the worst decision I ever made," Jonathan Lazarde said Thursday before
his sentencing by Common Pleas Court Judge Robert P. Coleman.
The judge seemed surprised by
the statement and, before sentencing Lazarde, seemed to be reconsidering.
Coleman told defense attorney Jack McMahon, "I'm still stuck on 'honest
mistake.' "
McMahon argued that Lazarde had
pleaded guilty and was sorry for what he did: "Don't hold against him a
poor choice of words that were not that articulate."
Lazarde, 28, resigned last
April after almost six years of duty. One month later, the officer, who had
been assigned to the 35th District in the Olney area, was arrested after city
prosecutors alleged that he offered to skip a court appearance for the gun defendant,
guaranteeing acquittal.
The man contacted authorities,
who monitored a meeting in which the man met Lazarde and handed him $5,000 in
cash.
The officer was stopped by
Internal Affairs officers as he left the meeting. Police said Lazarde's hands
and pants pocket tested positive for an ultraviolent dye with which police
treated the money before the meeting.
Lazarde - the son of a retired
city police officer, and married with four children and a fifth on the way -
pleaded guilty in January to a count of using a communication device, his
phone, to commit a crime. The District Attorney's Office dropped bribery and
extortion charges.
Assistant District Attorney
Frank Fina told the judge that Lazarde's conduct "was a serious
matter" but said he did not object to Lazarde serving his sentence on
house arrest because his position as a former police officer might put him in
danger in prison.
Coleman said conduct like
Lazarde's tarnished the reputation of the department and makes prosecuting
criminals more difficult.
"I've had two trials where
I considered there was overwhelming evidence of guilt and the verdicts were not
guilty," Coleman said. "The only argument they had was the police had
to be lying."