The Sean Bell killing trial is winding down, as the defense is mopping up.  According to  Newsday’s interviews with a number of defense lawyers hanging around the courthouse, it’s looking grim for the prosecution.

This is one of those conflicted cases for criminal defense lawyers, where it’ hard to know who to root for.  Three police officers are on trial for pumping 50 bullets into Bell and his friends as they left his bachelor party on the day before his wedding. 

For the public and lawyers in other practice areas, the 50 bullets has always been the key factor.  It’s been played up in the media because of its sensationalistic ring.  It is, of course, a red herring.  The issue has always been whether the police officers were justified in firing the first bullet, not the last.  Police are trained to keep firing until the job is done, and if they were righteous when they first pulled the trigger, then it was a righteous shoot no matter how many bullets followed.

The public has this sense that the disproportionately high number of shots fired somehow changes the scenario.  Fifty bullets just seems like overkill.  It was in an absolute sense (why were that many shots needed?), but it is of little legal significance.  This is a hard sell, however, and should there be no conviction in this case, people will take to the streets because of the “injustice”.  There may well be an injustice done here, but the number of shots fired won’t be it.

The defense took the stunning path of trying this case before a judge rather than jury.  I  questioned it at the time.  The strategy appears designed to get over the 50 bullets hurdle, one that the judge, Arthur Cooperman, would be more likely to overcome than 12 jurors.  For cops, it’s hard to find a jury of one’s peers. 

Justice Cooperman, who  received a reversal (again) from the Appellate Division during the course of this trial for failing to suppress illegally obtained evidence, will decide this case on his own.  It will be one of his final decisions before leaving the bench, and likely the one for which he will be remembered.  It’s hard to know how this will influence his feelings about the case.

But the criminal defense lawyers who have been sitting in the courtroom, watching some strong lawyers like Tony Ricco defend the cops, say that the prosecution has blown the trial.  From the accounts I’ve read in the papers, it’s appeared as if they were trying to blow the case at times.  Not to be cynical, but prosecuting cops has its problems for the District Attorney as well. 

The district attorney lives and dies on the cooperation of the police; they need the cops on their side if they are to do their job.  Police, on the other hand, always circle the wagon, no matter what a cop is accused of doing.  They don’t believe anybody, including the DA, understands them or their job, and that there is never a good reason to put a cop on trial.  The only exception would be Serpico because he was a cop-rat, the only unforgivable offense.

The structure of the prosecution’s case left much to be desired.  The two friends of Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, are both suing the City for their injuries, giving them 50 million reasons to lie.  The prosecution knew this, of course, but did nothing to address it. 

Jean Nelson, the one friend of Bell’s who wasn’t in the car and hence wasn’t shot, was called by the prosecution, but gave the defense critical testimony.

Nelson helped police when he said he saw Isnora on Liverpool Street standing in front of Bell’s Altima with a drawn gun, saying, “Yo, I want to holler at you,” slang for “I want to talk to you.”

Bell then drove straight at Isnora, an undercover cop, who jumped onto the hood to get out of the way before the vehicle slammed into a police van being driven by Oliver, according to Nelson.

Since Nelson has no financial interest at stake and he’s naturally inclined toward the Bell side, this testimony looms huge.  Even though Nelson testified that he saw no shields and heard no one announce that they were police, the justification defense relies on the belief of the cops that Bell was using his car as a weapon against them.  It’s the reasonable belief of the cops that matters for the defense to prevail.

Another prosecution witness, undercover Det. Hispolito Sanchez, also provided testimony that may prove crucial in this regard.  He testified that he heard “someone in Bell’s group remarked, ‘Yo, go get my gun’ during the argument outside the Kalua.”  While this testimony lacked a certain ring of truth about it (particularly since there was no such gun), as if the undercover was offering his blue brothers a wink that no one could dispute, one still has to wonder what the prosecution was thinking when the called Det. Sanchez as a witness.

The lawyers quoted in the article know a little something about criminal trials, and I’m inclined to believe that they’re opinion that the prosecution has blown the case is accurate.

“I clearly feel that the prosecution has not proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Murray Richman, a top defense attorney from the Bronx who concedes he is not “pro-cop.”

When “Don’t Worry” Murray, who has probably tried more cases than anyone else I know, says they didn’t prove the case, I’d bet money he’s right.  While it won’t help the relationship between the NYPD and the people of Queens, or anyplace else in New York City, and it will have the taint of another thrown prosecution when cops are involved, it looks like Justice Cooperman’s job won’t be that difficult.  And he won’t go out on yet another reversal.

But there will be cries in the streets if these 3 officers are acquitted by the judge.  50 bullets.