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.
By Chris Villanueva, Photojournalist Students, faculty and parents at Scholarship Prep South Bay got an…
“Our State intends to continue its efforts to eliminate air pollution without letup and asks…
Dozens of advocates testified about wage theft during public comments before the city council…
You can rely on Martin McDonagh. Black humor. Sardonicism. Impending menace. Clever twists. Simple phrases…
LOS ANGELES — A 43-year-old Lomita man who previously faced a gun-related felony case and…
Lucero Herrera is Research Director at the UCLA Labor Center, which has been a…