Two New York City police officers were acquitted of rape and other felony charges but convicted of official misconduct, a misdemeanor, following a trial in which they were accused of taking advantage of an intoxicated woman they had helped into her apartment.
After more than six days of deliberations, a jury found New York City Police Officers Kenneth Moreno, 43 years old, and Franklin Mata, 28, not guilty of rape, burglary and falsifying records. Mata was also acquitted of tampering with evidence.
An update from the Daily News:
The NYPD fired two Manhattan cops Thursday just hours after they were acquitted of raping a helpless East Village woman.
Officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata were given the boot because the jury convicted them of official misconduct for going back to the woman's apartment three times without telling their superiors.
"The guilty verdict reached today involved a violation of the officer's oath of office and merits immediate termination," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said. "Both officers will be terminated today."
Both cops face up to two years in prison on the misdemeanor charges when they are sentenced June 28.
Kelly lowered the boom after a relieved Moreno branded the now 29-year-old accuser a liar.
"I thought she made the whole thing up," Moreno said moments after he and Mata were found not guilty of rape charges that could have sent them to jail for up to 25 years.
Gothamist is reporting that there will be a demonstration tomorrow against the acquittal outside the Manhattan Criminal Court building at 100 Centre Street from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
26 comments:
Cops can get away with anything in this city.
Fu*k the Police.
I am beyond disgusted that these COPS got away with raping this woman.
If they had handed down this verdict before April 15th, I would have to organize civil disobedience and try to get people to protest by not paying their city tax.
Cops are criminals.
Cue cop bashing in 3, 2, ... oh wait, it's already begun.
In this country, we have a standard of guilty as "beyond a reasonable doubt." There was not enough evidence to reach this standard - no DNA evidence, the victim was inebriated, ... They were still found guilty of misconduct.
Sure, I feel bad if actually guilty people are let go for lack of evidence, but I'd rather have that then a system which puts lots of innocent people in prison because it's too easy to convict people.
But never mind all of that. You can now return to your regularly scheduled blind police bashing.
yeah, anon.1:11pm. much like there was "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict oj...
in this country, the only difference between the police and criminals is that the police carries a badge
you may now return to the blind protection of police injustice
@Anon 1:11, The standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is only for the jury. I’m not on the jury and all the evidence points to the cops doing no good, there was no reason for Moreno and Mata to return to the victim’s apt 3 times and if you believe Moreno’s excuse that he only wanted to counsel the woman about her drinking then you are either naïve or just a fool. Moreno works in the 9th precinct, just ½ a block over from the victims apt is TSP there are scores of drunks Moreno could have counseled but he just conveniently decides to counsel a pretty 27 year old with a job? How many times did Moreno reach out to all the drunks on crusty row?
Clearly something happened, and whether it meets the strictest definition of rape or not, he clearly took advantage of someone. I've personally known good cops, but these two assbags are terrible. You can say the legal requirement wasn't met for conviction, but imagine that girl was your sister or your friend, and ask if you'd be okay with the cops getting acquitted.
Clueless 1:11PM
I was an eyewitness to the bashing of innocent residents by the "Fighting 9th" during the "Tompkins Square Riots". How supposedly "civil" servants were billy clubbing local residents whose only "crime" was trying to get to their homes. I guess now they'll be known as the "Fucking 9th". You're a fool.
Since I have no desire to re-state what has already been said about these two scumbags, who are paid with our tax dollars and who will probably still be getting their taxpayer-funded pensions while we're all eating cat food, I'll confine myself to one of the jury verdicts - not guilty of falsifying records. And this after Moreno ADMITTED to making a fake 911 call? What am I missing here?
I see we have 12 more strong candidates for the Darwin Awards. Their stupidity is as unbelievable as the verdict they rendered.
@Lisa, we don't know if all 12 jurors voted for acquittal or if there was just one hold-out. I hope a few members of the jury speak out but until them we don't know if there were 12 morons or just one.
One of the cops was recorded on tape saying that he used a condom. They had video of them going back three times. What did this jury need to turn in a guilty verdict, ringside seats?
I need to add to what I wrote earlier because I did it too quickly and didn’t make myself clear. Of course at the end of the day all 12 voted to acquit on the most serious charges but maybe there were holdouts and they ended up changing their votes because they knew the others weren’t going to change their minds and they thought getting the official misconduct charge was the best they could get.
what would mr penley and the zippies do on this matter
Thanks for posting the update which let us know they were (rightly) FIRED right after they were acquitted.
Officer Moreno, "I thought she made the whole thing up". Um.. if you're innocent, you would definitively say, "She made the whole thing up", not thought. Dumbass. Can't even lie well. Burn in hell, f*ckers.
Does anyone know why the jury is making a decision on "official misconduct"? That doesn't seem like a normal crime, but a police matter which should have been decided on by the police (IAB or whoever). Why is a civilian jury judging violations of police protocol?
I doubt that the defense was able to pack the jury with cop-lovers. And I'll bet that there was at least one juror who would have just loved to have convicted those cretins on the rape charges. But that didn't happen because the decision to acquit (or to convict) must be unanimous. If it is not unanimous, then it is considered a hung jury, which results in a mistrial.
And as someone else here pointed out, there was no DNA evidence. And without DNA evidence, the prosecution was not able to convince all 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the cops were guilty of rape.
What do you think happened before DNA evidence, which is pretty recent. Without it there are historically few convictions for rape, which inevitably comes down to the woman's word against the man's, and guess who are considered lying bitches and who are considered upstanding honest do-gooders. That the DA took on this case means they thought it had a good chance and they believed her to be a good witness. I don't remember hearing about testimony that she invited them over, just that they decided to keep going back? I would have preferred a hung jury than this bullshit.
One thing I read is that it is estimated that 6% of rapists go to jail.
Protest tomorrow/Friday NOON at City Hall.
how can you council a drunk when they are drunk?
anybody that has ever talked to a drunk person knows that they have to wait for the person to sober up before they even attempt at talking to them.
and if they agree with your counseling they probably won't remember it in the morning.
i can't even move my fingers to type my outrage at this case.
Being the first Anon, I will offer this response:
I'm not saying the cops were innocent or are not scum bags. But they were tried under the laws of our country and the prosecution was unable to get 12 jurors to agree on the most serious charge because it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, it sucks if there was an actual crime committed, but that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. To scream for blood after the jury decision is a little ridiculous. You either respect the jury system or reject it. You can still disagree with the verdict, but you will need to remember that everyone had their day in court.
As for the "it could have been one holdout" group: it was acquittal, not a mistrial. A mistrial would allow for a retrial on that charge. An acquittal settles the issue (see: Double Jeopardy)
It's too bad these typical cops won't pay what they deserve. Instead we'll all be paying the 57 million civil judgement sure to be forthcoming. What seems like 98% of all cops are asshole bastards - they see all citizens as scumbags - cops that are there to protect and serve are instead feared by those they are sworn to serve. I guess they see the worst of us, and that's their excuse. It sure is fucked up though. I've only met one or two nice cops the rest are assholes.
Anon Dumb-ass (yeah, you know who you are.)
You're so stupid you can't write a single sentence without contradicting yourself.
But congrats on your originality with the "Cue the {blah, blah} in 3, 2, ... oh wait, it's already begun."
That was brilliant of you. Did you learn that line all by yourself? Or did you have to go to blog commentator school to pick that up?
Let's see - one thing cops are taught is how to look for clues at a crime scene - given that, I think it would be pretty easy for them to clean up any clues they might have otherwise left behind.
How about the fact that this girl had ridiculous amounts of semen in her bed, more then a petry dish at a sperm bank. Your such cop haters that you dont even look at the rest of the facts.
Anonymous 11:55: I don't see "cop bashers" here -- I see folks who are outraged at two bad apple cops getting away with their crimes.
You seem bothered that anyone dare criticize bad cops, but cops like YOU ought to be bothered that these two cops have made you all look bad. If you guys policed yourselves, perhaps we'd have less bad cops!!
@Anon. 11:55 - Wow, what a Neanderthal piece of turd YOU are, didn't know they assembled 'em like you any more! So according to your way of "thinking" - and believe me, I use that term very loosely - the "fact" that this woman had a number of prior sexual episodes with - gasp - different men! - and got shitfaced one night meant she deserves to be raped by a predator in a uniform? Please tell me how sexual encounters between two consenting adults makes it okay for a cop to basically stalk her while she was comatose (instead of taking her to the hospital as he should have)? Following your "thought" process to its logical conclusion, that must mean that every guy who's had many sexual partners (Eeeeeeey, score, dude!) and goes on a bender deserves to be bent over a table and buttfucked, right? Right? Because what's sauce for the gander should certainly certainly sauce for the goose!
Here's a hot flash for you, dimwit - the 1950s are over. It's the 21st century, and women have the right to get to be as stupid as men without getting assaulted for it. Now go away and learn to spell.
Not every cop is a criminal. It is so sad that 99% of the cops make the rest look bad.
Ladies, just to be on the safe side, don't get blind drunk in public, especially in a mean city like this.
Post a Comment