By JOHN ELIGON
Published: May 26, 2011
Related
Two New York City Police Officers Acquitted of Rape (May 27, 2011)
About New York: What Proof Does a Woman Have to Have? (May 27, 2011)
News Analysis: Setback for Top Prosecutor as Another Big Test Looms (May 27, 2011)
But to Richard Schimenti, a juror in the trial, it was a crucial moment.“When her testimony was read back without her in the mix, it was much easier for us to see what she said,” Mr. Schimenti said. “And it sounded like a construct from the prosecution, which did not prove beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that there was a rape.”After just over a day of further deliberations, on their seventh day considering the case, the jurors returned on Thursday with a not-guilty verdict on the rape charge against the two police officers, Franklin Mata and Kenneth Moreno.While the officers were acquitted of most charges, including burglary and falsifying business records, the jurors did convict them on three misdemeanor counts of official misconduct. That was enough for the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, to strip them of their jobs.The verdict was a victory for the former officers, but they still walk away from the trial having left less-than-stellar impressions.Mr. Schimenti, 56, said he did not believe Mr. Moreno’s testimony alleging that the woman made advances at him in her bedroom while wearing nothing but a bra.“I’m no big fan of Officer Moreno, believe me,” Mr. Schimenti said, adding that he was glad the jury found him guilty of official misconduct.Over all, Mr. Schimenti said, it was hard to believe a lot of the testimony.“None of us believed anything that anyone said,” he said. “We have no proof. We’re talking about the letter of the law.”At one point it seemed the case would result in a hung jury, when three jurors said they believed the former officers were guilty of the rape, and nine did not.But Mr. Schimenti said the jury’s efforts to resolve that deadlock were “magnificently civilized.”“This jury was brilliant,” he said. “There was not one dud or bum person on the jury, even though we disagreed.”Another juror, Eric Casiano, 33, said a tape of Officer Moreno and the woman recorded a few days after the alleged rape played a big role in the jury’s deliberations. At a meeting between the two outside a police precinct house, known as a “control meet” in police parlance, the officer told the woman, who was wearing a recording device, that he had used a condom.“To me the ‘control meet’ played a main factor,” Mr. Casiano said. “You need to hear the ‘control meet.’ You need to read it. He wasn’t trying to confess anything. He was trying to get away from her outside his precinct. She was trying to attack him.”Mr. Casiano said that before Officer Moreno had said he had worn a condom, he had made statements that exonerated him.Still, Mr. Casiano said, neither Officer Moreno nor the woman were completely convincing:“Both his and her stories were full of holes. And the law says, our good government says, innocent until proven guilty.”Another juror, John Finck, 57, said in an e-mail: “This jury heard seven weeks of testimony and deliberated for seven days. We found that the evidence presented to us in the courtroom did not satisfy the standard of reasonable doubt required to convict the defendants in the major charges of rape and burglary.”One of the major stumbling blocks of the prosecution’s case may have been the accuser’s drunkenness the night she said the rape took place.“There’s no way in the world under the sun and the moon and the stars that you can come down guilty on a charge so heinous without proof,” Mr. Schimenti said. “The prosecution, they did an amazing job. They built a great case. But they never really crossed that line that would prove or help us to say guilty.”An alternate juror who saw most of the trial said by phone that he agreed with the rape acquittal, citing the lack of DNA evidence as a crucial point. He said that although the woman seemed sincere, he had questions about her spotty memory. He also said that the prosecutors, through no fault of their own, just did not have enough evidence to prove their case.“I definitely thought some funny business went on,” said the alternate juror, who insisted on anonymity. “Is it possible they raped her? Sure.”
To spectators in the Manhattan courtroom, it was a mundane moment: a court stenographer reading in a monotone voice the testimony of a woman who said she was raped by a police officer.
Related
Two New York City Police Officers Acquitted of Rape (May 27, 2011)
About New York: What Proof Does a Woman Have to Have? (May 27, 2011)
News Analysis: Setback for Top Prosecutor as Another Big Test Looms (May 27, 2011)
But to Richard Schimenti, a juror in the trial, it was a crucial moment.
“When her testimony was read back without her in the mix, it was much easier for us to see what she said,” Mr. Schimenti said. “And it sounded like a construct from the prosecution, which did not prove beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that there was a rape.”
After just over a day of further deliberations, on their seventh day considering the case, the jurors returned on Thursday with a not-guilty verdict on the rape charge against the two police officers, Franklin Mata and Kenneth Moreno.
While the officers were acquitted of most charges, including burglary and falsifying business records, the jurors did convict them on three misdemeanor counts of official misconduct. That was enough for the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, to strip them of their jobs.
The verdict was a victory for the former officers, but they still walk away from the trial having left less-than-stellar impressions.
Mr. Schimenti, 56, said he did not believe Mr. Moreno’s testimony alleging that the woman made advances at him in her bedroom while wearing nothing but a bra.
“I’m no big fan of Officer Moreno, believe me,” Mr. Schimenti said, adding that he was glad the jury found him guilty of official misconduct.
Over all, Mr. Schimenti said, it was hard to believe a lot of the testimony.
“None of us believed anything that anyone said,” he said. “We have no proof. We’re talking about the letter of the law.”
At one point it seemed the case would result in a hung jury, when three jurors said they believed the former officers were guilty of the rape, and nine did not.
But Mr. Schimenti said the jury’s efforts to resolve that deadlock were “magnificently civilized.”
“This jury was brilliant,” he said. “There was not one dud or bum person on the jury, even though we disagreed.”
Another juror, Eric Casiano, 33, said a tape of Officer Moreno and the woman recorded a few days after the alleged rape played a big role in the jury’s deliberations. At a meeting between the two outside a police precinct house, known as a “control meet” in police parlance, the officer told the woman, who was wearing a recording device, that he had used a condom.
“To me the ‘control meet’ played a main factor,” Mr. Casiano said. “You need to hear the ‘control meet.’ You need to read it. He wasn’t trying to confess anything. He was trying to get away from her outside his precinct. She was trying to attack him.”
Mr. Casiano said that before Officer Moreno had said he had worn a condom, he had made statements that exonerated him.
Still, Mr. Casiano said, neither Officer Moreno nor the woman were completely convincing:
“Both his and her stories were full of holes. And the law says, our good government says, innocent until proven guilty.”
Another juror, John Finck, 57, said in an e-mail: “This jury heard seven weeks of testimony and deliberated for seven days. We found that the evidence presented to us in the courtroom did not satisfy the standard of reasonable doubt required to convict the defendants in the major charges of rape and burglary.”
One of the major stumbling blocks of the prosecution’s case may have been the accuser’s drunkenness the night she said the rape took place.
“There’s no way in the world under the sun and the moon and the stars that you can come down guilty on a charge so heinous without proof,” Mr. Schimenti said. “The prosecution, they did an amazing job. They built a great case. But they never really crossed that line that would prove or help us to say guilty.”
An alternate juror who saw most of the trial said by phone that he agreed with the rape acquittal, citing the lack of DNA evidence as a crucial point. He said that although the woman seemed sincere, he had questions about her spotty memory. He also said that the prosecutors, through no fault of their own, just did not have enough evidence to prove their case.
“I definitely thought some funny business went on,” said the alternate juror, who insisted on anonymity. “Is it possible they raped her? Sure.”
No comments:
Post a Comment