Having followed the trial of Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes in the Southern District of New York, it would be wrong to leave you hanging. The jury returned. Was justice done?
Interest was peaked in the case when Simoes, accused of body slamming Irma Marquez after a bar fight involving her niece, ended up on the wrong side of the thin blue line. The trial started with fellow officer John Liberatore testifying that, contrary to Simoes claim that he accidentally dropped Marquez, body slammed her to the group, causing her substantial injury.
Of course, it didn’t help that Liberatore didn’t find religion until the video tape of the conduct came out. Before that, he saw nothing.
Then, the defense called an expert to deconstruct the video via a frame by frame parsing which, in the opinion of the expert, proved that Simoes didn’t body slam her on the ground, as it clearly appeared in the video, but merely dropped her when he slipped. Unintentionally, of course.
The defense’s videotape expert had been precluded, after an in limine motion, from answering the ultimate question for the jury, but the question was asked anyway. And the prosecution neglected to object. “It came out of the blue,” the prosecutor explained. The judge nonetheless struck the testimony afterward, and no doubt the jury forgot all about it since the jury does whatever the judge says. Always.
As all trials do, this one came to an end. From LoHud, the outcome:
The jury of eight men and four women deliberated for a little more than five hours yesterday in U.S. District Court in White Plains before finding Simoes not guilty yesterday of the lone charge against him, violating the civil rights of Marquez.While an acquittal is usually a cause for celebration, showing that not every arrest demands a conclusion of guilt, and that our system of trial by jury remains vital, I again find myself posting about an acquittal involving a cop. Not merely the acquittal of a cop, but one where there was a videotape showing, as conclusively as one could dream possible, what happened. And still, the officer was acquitted.
“We watched the video and we watched the frame-by-frame,” Jhonna Van Dunk said, “and we could not determine that he intended to hurt her.”
Don’t blame Wayne Simoes for the acquittal. No one, cop included, wants to be convicted, and no one can blame a defendant for fighting the charges. Certainly his lawyer, Andrew Quinn, did his job well. But if you want someone to blame, blame ourselves. Blame the fact that we can see a video of a cop body slamming a woman to the ground and still give the cop the benefit of the doubt.
In New York, the jury is instructed that a person intends the natural consequences of his act. Slam a woman to the ground and one intends to cause her harm. If not, then don’t body slam her. It’s not a difficult instruction, nor conclusion to reach. Except when the slammer is a cop.
Wayne Simoes is not guilty of the charges against him. That’s how the system works. But if you’re not a cop, I wouldn’t try to copy Simoes, because it doesn’t seem the system works the same for others. And it will continue that way for as long as we can’t seem to get it into our heads that police officers, like anyone else, sometimes do harm. And when they do, they should be subject to the same “benefit of the doubt” as anyone else, for better or worse.
Update: In case you were wondering what an accident by Wayne Simoes looks like, here a photo of Irma Marquez, courtesy of BlackListedNews via Karl Mansour. Imagine what she would have look like if he meant to hurt here.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yah, well, you know, cops have a tough job, and we have to cut them some slack.
I’m not sure they should be held to the exact same standard as everyone else, because they have a duty to intervene whereas others do not.
That said, the video showed excessive force, no doubt.
All in all I just don’t think this was a good case to prosecute, video or not. It seems to me to be a situation where the civil remedy would be adequate and appropriate.
Much more disconcerting is the fact that the woman was charged and the police engaged in shameless spinning to protect themselves. It is also true that no other class of defendant would get the same benefit of the doubt about their intent. Prosecutors generally have 90-100% conviction rates at trials, except when the defendants are police officers, in which case it appears to be something less than 33%.
Of course you are right that this is saying something about us and our deference to police and authority. This is not an entirely Bad Thing, but when it predominates over facts and truth it is.
Cut them some slack when it’s your butt on the line, not someone else’s. Part of that “tough job” is not harming, maiming and killing people. They shouldn’t be held to the same standard as others, but to a higher standard. That’s what the job of being a cop is all about, and if they aren’t up to it, then they shouldn’t be cops.
With the Feds involved and all the publicity surrounding this case, you’d think it would have been a “slam” dunk. Why wasn’t this animal charged with assault or at least simple battery? Disturbing, a cop gets to do whatever he wants with no real consequences.
It probably would have been a different verdict if the case had been venued in the Bronx. Sgt. Stacey Koon was acquitted in Ventura County Ca. but convicted in Los Angeles County. Granted, the charges were different but there, as in this case, it seems the jury pool had more to do with the verdict than any other factor.