Seventeen months to the day since two bullets from a swarm of 50 fired by the police killed Sean Bell, the verdict in the case against three detectives arrives about 9 a.m. on Friday, with the judge’s decision sure to set off an outcry no matter what it is.
Skip to next paragraph
It is rare to know far in advance the exact date and time of a courtroom verdict, but the timing of this one was announced on April 14 by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman of State Supreme Court, who heard testimony in the case over seven weeks without a jury. Some lawyers not involved in the case said the detectives’ decision to waive a jury trial was a risky legal strategy.
The judge gave himself almost two weeks to render a verdict, and the wait has promised to bring beyond-capacity turnout to the courtroom in Queens where the case was heard.
Some see the case as far-reaching in its possible ramifications on the conduct of the city’s police officers during undercover operations or in those moments when they must decide whether to shoot at a suspect.
Outside the courtroom and around the city, the police have tried to anticipate any type of reaction to the verdict, an effort that has been done more out of municipal habit than as a response to any direct threat of unrest.
“We are prepared for any contingency,” said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.
On Wednesday, the Rev. Al Sharpton said that nothing short of manslaughter convictions would bring justice. He said Mr. Bell had no idea that the first officer to fire, Detective Gescard F. Isnora, was a police officer:
“If I’m 4 o’clock in the morning in a car and a man came up and said, ‘Police!’ I would embrace him and say, ‘Thank God, I thought you were a carjacker.’ ”
Mr. Bell’s supporters say that the case is another in a line of police shootings of unarmed black men that have occurred in recent years, and is emblematic of a pattern of abuse of police power in the black community.
Two of the officers charged in the Bell case, Detective Isnora and Detective Marc Cooper, are black.
The case may offer the judge the possibility of what in legal circles is sometimes called “splitting the baby,” named for King Solomon’s proposed solution to the case of two women who claimed to be the same child’s mother.
In a criminal trial, splitting the baby is to find the defendant a little bit guilty and a little bit innocent, which tends to please the interests of neither the victim nor the accused.
In the verdict in the Bell shooting, the baby is an eight-count indictment against three detectives, and there are plenty of places for Solomon to cut.
On Nov. 25, 2006, after leaving his bachelor party at the Club Kalua in Jamaica, Queens, Mr. Bell tried to go back inside to retrieve a hat and was confronted by a stranger.
Detective Isnora and others were working at the club in an undercover operation, and Detective Isnora said that during the exchange that followed, he heard Joseph Guzman, a friend of Mr. Bell’s, say, “Get my gun.”
Detective Isnora followed Mr. Bell, Mr. Guzman and another friend, Trent Benefield, to Mr. Bell’s car, where he said he showed his police badge, clipped to his collar, and shouted, “Police! Don’t move!” Mr. Bell drove his Nissan Altima into Detective Isnora’s leg and into an unmarked minivan driven by Detective Michael Oliver. Mr. Bell backed up and hit a gate, and then hit the minivan again.
The officers opened fire — with Detective Oliver firing 31 shots — killing Mr. Bell and wounding his friends.
Convicting Detectives Isnora, Oliver and Cooper of the least serious charge of reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, would be a compromise verdict, lawyers who have watched the case have said. So would acquitting one or more detectives and convicting the third on some charge.
Detective Isnora, who fired first, and Detective Oliver, who fired by far the most, are charged with first-and second-degree manslaughter.
Counts three, four and five in the case relate to the two men wounded, Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield, and the last counts are based on errant bullets that broke windows but were deemed by a grand jury last year to be cause for charges of recklessness.
Detective Cooper is charged with two counts of reckless endangerment, one for putting a bullet through a window at an AirTrain platform. In the array of charges, this case differs from one with which it is often compared, that of the four officers charged in the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant killed in a blast of 41 shots as he reached for his wallet. Those officers were charged with second-degree murder, a more serious charge than manslaughter, and reckless endangerment.
Skip to next paragraph
However, as is often the case in criminal trials, jurors in the Diallo case were instructed by the judge to consider lesser charges against the officers if they found them not guilty of murder.
Those lesser charges included manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The jury acquitted the officers on all charges.
In the Bell case, Justice Cooperman cannot consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide because neither side requested that he do so, lawyers have said.
The defense must be advised, before closing arguments begin, that lesser charges will be included in the deliberations, so that lawyers can properly prepare their final remarks.
Justice Cooperman has more charges to consider than the Diallo jurors did, simply because more people were shot in the Bell case.
Detective Oliver was charged with first-degree assault in the shootings of Mr. Guzman and Mr. Benefield.
Detective Isnora faces the same charge in the shooting of Mr. Guzman, but a lesser charge of second-degree assault in the shooting of Mr. Benefield, as none of his bullets appear to have struck him.
In grand jury testimony, all of the detectives said that at no point had they aimed their fire at Mr. Bell. The defense has argued that if the officers were justified in taking the first shots at Mr. Guzman, who Detective Isnora said he feared was reaching for a gun, then all the bullets that followed were also justified.
By that logic, if Justice Cooperman acquits the detectives on the manslaughter charges, it would be inconsistent to turn around and convict them for assault, or even reckless endangerment, the argument goes.
A possible exception, and a baby-splitting outcome that some see as a possibility, is the conviction of Detective Oliver alone. The judge could find that a reasonable person would not fire 31 shots without at some point pausing to reassess whether he or a fellow officer was still at risk.
Detective Oliver told a grand jury he did not know he had fired 16 rounds when he reloaded.
“It would only seem like a second or two,” he said. “I looked at my gun. I didn’t know if it had any bullets or something was wrong.”
The differences in sentences for the crimes are significant. First-degree manslaughter carries an automatic minimum prison sentence of 5 years and a maximum of 25.
Second-degree manslaughter generally brings a sentence as low as one to 3 years and as high as 5 to 15.
First-degree assault brings 5 to 25 years; second-degree assault, generally 2 to 7 years.
Reckless endangerment, the misdemeanor, is punishable by up to one year in prison, or with simple probation and no prison time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment