By Jake Pearson for ProPublica (Oct. 22)
One judge said she believed the testimony of a Bronx defendant’s 64-year-old mother more than that of the two New York City police officers who arrested him.
Another said she didn’t buy the testimony of an officer and his colleagues, concluding that they had stopped a car not because they’d seen its occupants break any laws but because it was driven by “three young men of color.”
A third jurist toyed with using the word “perjury” to describe the testimony of an officer who repeatedly contradicted himself, claiming, for example, the defendant had both told police and not told police where he lived.
In each of the cases, the officers’ testimony was supposed to help prosecutors secure convictions against people charged with illegal gun possession. Instead, the cases fell apart, done in by the officers’ own dubious statements. Yet prosecutors had pursued trials knowing there was reason not to put these cops on the stand.
The multicity amicus brief lays out the arguments for why the federalization of the National…
Over the last 50 years, the state’s clean air efforts have saved $250 billion in…
Unified command agencies have dispatched numerous vessels and aircraft to assess the situation and provide…
Since February 2022, Ethikli Sustainable Market has made it easy to buy vegan, ethically sourced,…
John Horton was murdered in Men’s Central Jail in 2009 at the age of 22—one…
The demand for this program has far outstripped available funds, further underlining the significance of…