Krasner Files Contempt Motion Against Police For Withholding Info

Philadelphia PA

12 August, 2021

12:20 PM

Description

PHILADELPHIA — Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is looking to force the Philadelphia Police Department into complying with subpoenas for information about police officers' credibility. Krasner and Conviction Integrity Unit Supervisor Patricia Cummings Wednesday filed six motions for an order holding the Philadelphia Police Department in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas. The DA's office said the motions are to "address long-standing failures in the criminal legal system that have resulted in convictions of innocent people, numerous lawsuits against the City of Philadelphia, vacated convictions of people whose rights were violated by the PPD and prior DA administrations, as well as an untold number of convictions jeopardized by failure to properly disclose information to judges and juries." The motions for the police department to be held in contempt for failing to provide information as required by Giglio v. United States were filed after the department failed to properly comply with subpoenas served on May 21, 2021, in ongoing criminal cases being prosecuted by the DA's office. The DA's office has also conceded vacatur of 26 murder and rape convictions where police and/or prosecutorial misconduct, including failure to disclose information, occurred (not all of which were exonerations). Additionally, the DA's office filed a motion to consolidate the six contempt motions for the PPD's failure to comply with subpoenas seeking potential Giglio material concerning officers who may be called as witnesses for the Commonwealth. The subpoenas at issue in the motions are a sample of many more subpoenas served upon the PPD on May 21. The department did not move to quash the subpoenas, nor did the department contest the subpoenas to the DA's office in writing or verbally, the DA's office said. Instead, the department responded to the subpoenas with legally inadequate information, likely resulting in the DA's office failure to comply with its constitutional obligations in an unknown number of criminal cases, according to the DA's office For example, the DA's office identified 16 criminal cases involving a police officer whose disciplinary record includes sustained charges of falsification of documents that were not disclosed to the DA's office, thereby making it impossible for prosecutors to properly disclose the potential Giglio information to defense counsel and the court as is required by law. In another sample case, a police officer was the lone eyewitness in a firearms possession violation case. The department's disclosure of the officer's record to the DA's office indicated he was given a penalty of "Training and Counseling" by the Police Board of Inquiry, but does not disclose the formal PBI charge against him; nor were departmental violations leading to an Internal Affairs Division abuse allegation involving the officer identified, which left the DA's office in the impossible position of not knowing the nature of the misconduct committed by the officer, the DA's office said. The six ongoing cases involving police officers as potential witnesses for the Commonwealth and for which the DA's office filed contempt motions against the Philadelphia Police Department are: Commonwealth v. Gilliam (MC-51-CR-0019780-2020)Commonwealth v. Gonzales (CP-51-CR-0001197-2020)Commonwealth v. King (CP-51-CR-0008689-2019)Commonwealth v. Mendozza (CP-51-CR-0001330-2020)Commonwealth v. Monroe (MC-51-CR-0008125-2021)Commonwealth v. Watson (CP-51-CR-0008632-2018)