It couldn’t be a lot of fun being Gerald McGovern. The 58 year old homeless Fort Lauderdale man had been arrested at least 69 times. This last time, for which he was being held in lieu of $1,500 bail, he was accused of turning violent when he was approached by an undercover deputy. Of course, being homeless and with a rap sheet longer than he was tall, it must be true.
But his public defender, Celine Abram-Schmitt, did the unthinkable. She defended her client, and she did so well. From WSVN.com :
But his public defender, Celine Abram-Schmitt, did the unthinkable. She defended her client, and she did so well. From WSVN.com :
A homeless man’s attorney said surveillance video shows deputies used excessive force in his arrest.
The public defenders office said the surveillance video clears McGovern and implicates BSO. “I don’t believe someone who was falsely accused, as the evidence is going to show with great weight, should be incarcerated just because they’re homeless and they’re indigent,” Defense Attorney Celine Abram-Schmitt said.
It seems the deputy’s story was a little backwards. It wasn’t McGovern who attacked the deputy, but the deputy who attacked McGovern. There was even a witness to the beating.
A witness, Roberto Aguilara backs up McGoverns claim. “They come on top of him to beat, and they kept hitting and hitting and hitting. I think it’s a long time, around two minutes,” said Aguilara.
Of course, the word of a witness, contrasted with the word of a deputy, is a recipe for conviction. Cops don’t lie. Unless there’s a video.
Broward County Sheriff, Al Lamberti, was furious. No, not with his lying deputy. No, not about the fact that his deputy decided to wail on a homeless man. He was furious at Abram-Schmitt.
Broward County Sheriff, Al Lamberti, was furious. No, not with his lying deputy. No, not about the fact that his deputy decided to wail on a homeless man. He was furious at Abram-Schmitt.
Because the public defender released the video to Channel 7, the sheriff is furious. “I know it’s his job to defend the people that he represents, but it’s also my job to investigate or to make sure that deputies are acting appropriately. I can’t do that if I’m going to get blind-sided or a surprised attack with something like this,” sheriff Al Lamberti said.
Fascinating that the sheriff’s complaint is that he was blind-sided. Is that the public defender’s fault, or the fault of his lying, homeless-beating deputy? Nothing stopped the deputy from coming into his boss’ office, feet a-shuffling, head tilted downward, and saying, “ya know that homeless guy I brought in? Well, I gave him a good tuning up when I saw him lying there and, well, just needed to beat on somebody. You know how that is, right boss?” It could happen.
The public defender, on the other hand, would not have been privy to that conversation. In fact, chances are awfully good that if the deputy had that conversation with the sheriff, no one would ever know. It’s not like it’s Brady or anything. At least from the law enforcement point of view.
The public defender decided that his prime evidence, the surveillance video of the beating of McGovern, might not be best entrusted to Lamberti’s caring hands.
So Sheriff Lamberti looks like a fool, and his deputy a thug. Hardly the New Professionals that Justice Scalia talks about. Indeed, beating a homeless man and then lying about it, prosecuting him for an attack that happened backward, is pretty much the old professionalism, sans rubber hose or brass knuckles. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You learn a few things after thirty years in the trenches. Finkelstein learned that he can’t trust the cops. He learned that even poor people, homeless people, are due the best efforts of his office. And he learned that without the eyes of the community watching as a deputy beat Gerald McGovern, nobody would ever believe that his client was the victim of a police beating. Howard Finkelstein knows what he’s talking about.
Without video, who would you believe? And so the defendant was released without bail and the charge dismissed, right? Well, not exactly. The judge ordered the defendant interviewed by pre-trial services to determine whether he should be released, and given a long history of warrants, chances are not good. Who cares if he didn’t commit a crime when there’s a potential warrant for failure to appear? I hope the food in Broward County jail is decent.
H/T Packratt
The public defender, on the other hand, would not have been privy to that conversation. In fact, chances are awfully good that if the deputy had that conversation with the sheriff, no one would ever know. It’s not like it’s Brady or anything. At least from the law enforcement point of view.
The public defender decided that his prime evidence, the surveillance video of the beating of McGovern, might not be best entrusted to Lamberti’s caring hands.
“My obligation as the public defender is to represent poor people and homeless people, and after being in the court system for over 30 years, it has become clear, to almost anybody who is in the court system, that the police can not and will not police themselves unless they know the whole community is watching,” said public defender Howard Finkelstein.
So Sheriff Lamberti looks like a fool, and his deputy a thug. Hardly the New Professionals that Justice Scalia talks about. Indeed, beating a homeless man and then lying about it, prosecuting him for an attack that happened backward, is pretty much the old professionalism, sans rubber hose or brass knuckles. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You learn a few things after thirty years in the trenches. Finkelstein learned that he can’t trust the cops. He learned that even poor people, homeless people, are due the best efforts of his office. And he learned that without the eyes of the community watching as a deputy beat Gerald McGovern, nobody would ever believe that his client was the victim of a police beating. Howard Finkelstein knows what he’s talking about.
Without video, who would you believe? And so the defendant was released without bail and the charge dismissed, right? Well, not exactly. The judge ordered the defendant interviewed by pre-trial services to determine whether he should be released, and given a long history of warrants, chances are not good. Who cares if he didn’t commit a crime when there’s a potential warrant for failure to appear? I hope the food in Broward County jail is decent.
H/T Packratt
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Incredible. Speechless.
What an idiot. Well, maybe not. I too can’t do my job (e.g., instructing clients to remain silent) when I’m “blindsided” by law enforcement not giving me a heads-up when their going to arrest my clients or serve search warrants.
That’s a great idea. We’ll be nicer to them if they give us a heads up before arresting, searching or questioning clients. Fair is fair.
Sir, appreciate the info. I watched the Chan. 7 clip to learn the names of the others involved, with no luck. Are the names of guilty being protected as a courtesy or is it something else?
Thanks.
I found the absence of the officers identities a notable omission in the story as well. As for why, only Channel 7 can say.
Since when can one be held because it might be an outstanding warrant on them? What is N.C.I.C. for? As for the others involved maybe they are withholding their names because they might be innocent,who knows, art all cops innocent.
The police officers are either the hero arresting officers or the villainous homeless man beaters. Either way, there’s no particular reason to conceal their identities.
Once you know to look for it, this happens all the time. Beatings, wrong-house raids, shooting unarmed people…the media almost never names the cops involved.
Well, a minority of states leave disciplinary and internal investigatory information open… but other states states actually have laws that prevent police departments from releasing the names and/or any information concerning police internal investigations until they are completed… Florida is one such state.
Some other states prevent the release unless criminal charges or a firing occurs as a result, some leave it entirely at a police department’s discretion… some even prevent such releases even after an investigation has been completed.
Each state is different… I have the general list of open records laws in regards to police misconduct on my site in the PMI chart (that I won’t link here since I think Scott doesn’t like that) but it’s a handy reference to see what to expect from each state.
Of course, I’m not saying that Broward Co would release the name if they were allowed, by what I’ve been seeing coming out of there I’d say they wouldn’t… but they do have state law backing them when they didn’t release it.
…and, yes, such laws also mean that if that public defender didn’t release that video to the media himself and gave it directly to the BCSO instead, you would have never seen it.
Seems to me the poor sheriff was blindsided by his own detective or internal affairs division. There were conflicting stories between the victim and witnesses and the arresting deputy. Yet, no one thought, “I wonder if there is a surveillance camera covering the scene. Or does the PD office have better investigatory resources than the sheriff’s department?
Am I the only one who can’t discern what is happening in that video? The quality is quite poor.
BTW, they released him from custody without bail on Monday.
Thanks for the update PR. I’m surprised. How often does the right thing happen?
Sad to say, but Sheriff Lamberti’s response looks pretty good compared to what we’ve seen in Central Texas. Travis County Precinct 3 Constable Richard McCain watched a video of his deputy tasing a 72 year old grandmother who used profanity with him and declared that his deputy acted appropriately.
[Ed. Note: Link deleted. Sorry, but including links to yourself in comments is not allowed.]