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 motion also calls for the expansion of workfare and volunteer opportunities across county departments…
This launch marks a significant step in the state's ongoing effort to lower prescription drug…
After the Indiana University Media School fired its director of student media and banned…
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles Business Journal has given a top legal honor…
The Final 2024 Class 8 Drayage Truck Feasibility Assessment Report focuses on battery electric and…
So far in 2025, Public Health has reported 118 cases of clade II mpox.