 |
| Hey Seth, where's the beef? |
for BigTrial.net
On Dec. 3, 2012, District Attorney R. Seth Williams wrote a two-paragraph letter to then Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.
In the letter, Williams announced that in "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion," his office would no longer prosecute any drug case that involved five Philadelphia narcotics officers, as well as their supervisor.
The letter, which the D.A.'s office allegedly leaked two days later to Fox 29, effectively put out of business, "the most accomplished and effective narcotics unit in the history of the Philadelphia Police Department," according to court papers filed by a lawyer for the five narcotics officers and their supervisor.
The D.A's letter also prompted the city to eventually throw out about 800 drug cases involving arrests made by those narcotics officers. Of the 800 cases, about 175 accused drug dealers have turned around and filed civil rights lawsuits against the former narcs as well as the city of Philadelphia, seeking damages.
During litigation over one of those criminal cases that was subsequently dismissed, the public defender's office, representing one of the accused drug dealers, repeatedly asked Seth Williams to provide the "information and documents" that led the D.A. to write that letter that put the narcs out of business.
The public defender's office was expecting to discover the files, information and documents that backed up the D.A.'s letter that led to the dismissal of 800 drug cases. The disturbing answer to the public defender's repeated requests for discovery, however, was that there were no files, no information, no documents.
The bottom line, as revealed in five years of past criminal and civil litigation: Seth Williams wrote a letter that destroyed the careers of six police officers and freed 800 drug dealers without one shred of demonstrable proof to back up his words.
The losers in these ongoing legal battles are the taxpayers.
To defend itself in 175 civil rights lawsuits, the city is expected to spend millions of dollars to hire five lawyers from the King of Prussia law firm of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.
The city's apparent legal defense strategy in the civil lawsuits: the narcs did everything by the book, the D.A.'s office signed off on every drug arrest by approving probable cause affidavits and search warrants, and Seth Williams had no basis to write that letter to the police commissioner.
It's not a stretch to believe that Williams went off half cocked against the narcs. There is already plenty of evidence on the record to question the judgment of R. Seth Williams
This is a district attorney who has already admitted that he improperly accepted $160,000 in unreported gifts from campaign donors.
A district attorney who has already admitted that he waited 12 days before reporting that his girlfriend had slashed his tires.
A district attorney who has a charitable organization, The Second Chance Foundation, where the board of directors, after receiving a federal subpoena for financial records, has already voted to disband the charity and give away its remaining assets.
The FBI and a grand jury are currently probing the D.A.'s campaign finances. Maybe somebody should also be investigating the D.A.'s use of prosecutorial discretion.
Here is the text of the D.A.'s 2012 letter to Commissioner Ramsey:
"Dear Commissioner Ramsay:
[By the way, it's Commissioner Ramsey; Seth couldn't even spell the former police commissioner's name right.]
"I am writing to inform you that in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office will no longer be using the following officers as witnesses in narcotics cases," the district attorney wrote. Then, the D.A. listed the names of Police Officers Thomas Liciardello, Brian Reynolds, John Speiser, Michael Spicer and Perry Betts, as well as their supervisor, Lt. Robert Otto.
"Also the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office will no longer accept any narcotics cases for charging when any of these police officers is a necessary witness," Williams wrote. "Finally, we will no longer approve any search or arrest warrants on narcotics cases when any of these officers is the affiant, nor if the probable cause portion of the warrant contains any averments from any of these officers."
"Very truly yours,
R. Seth Williams, District Attorney."
For the narcs, the D.A.'s letter was just the start of their problems.
In a subsequent 26-count RICO indictment, the U.S. Attorney's office charged six former members of the narcotics field unit with routinely robbing and beating the drug dealers they had arrested. In the indictment, the feds charged that the narcs stole at least $500,000 from the drug dealers in cash and drugs, and that the cops tried to cover their tracks by falsifying police reports.
But the feds had no sting video or financial records to back up their charges. Instead, they relied on a former member of the narcotics unit who became a cooperating witness after he was busted red-handed in a sting operation, and the uncorroborated tales of 20 drug dealers with all kinds of credibility problems.
The result in court was a disaster for the government.
On May 14, 2015, after a trial that lasted nearly six weeks, a federal jury unanimously acquitted all six officers on all 47 charges. It was a complete repudiation of the government's racketeering case.
On July 10, 2015, an arbitrator ruled that all six officers would get their jobs back, plus a year's worth of back pay. [One of the officers, Perry Betts, was subsequently dismissed after he failed a drug test.]
So the former narcs survived their legal ordeal.
In a motion for a new trial and post-conviction relief filed Feb. 4, 20l3, public defenders
The public defenders were referring to a landmark 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was a violation of due process for the prosecution to withhold any information or "exculpatory evidence" that could benefit a defendant.
The public defenders were seeking a new trial in the case of the Commonwealth v. Juan Vargas, who pleaded guilty on May 13, 2010 on drug charges and was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 23 months.
"On Dec. 6, 20l2, Bradley S. Bridge, an attorney from the Defender’s Association of Philadelphia, wrote First Assistant District Attorney Edward McCann, Esquire, and formally requested, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, material regarding the six officers contained in District Attorney Williams’ Dec. 3, l2 letter," the public defenders wrote in their motion for a new trial.
"First Assistant McCann verbally told Mr. Bridge that they were dismissing the cases because of prosecutorial discretion and that there was no Brady information," the public defenders wrote. "Attorney Bridge subsequently requested Brady material again and on Jan. 8, 20l3, First Assistant District Attorney McCann again denied being in possession of Brady material."
The public defenders were incredulous over McCann's response, so they asked the judge to order the D.A.'s office to turn over any Brady material. "Moreover, the failure of the D.A.’s office to provide Brady material, whether or not it had been requested," constituted a violation of Brady v. Maryland, the public defenders wrote to the judge.
In their motion for a new trial, the public defenders argued that the 2012 letter that Seth Williams sent to the police commissioner "was obviously the result of an examination of information and documents by District Attorney Williams and others," the public defenders wrote. "The information and documents leading D.A. Williams to the conclusion that the officers were not trustworthy was unavailable to defense counsel at the time this case went to court."
In seeking Brady material, the public defenders continued to assert to the judge that the district attorney's office was stonewalling when it repeatedly said there was no Brady material.
"It is also particularly significant that the District Attorney's Office, though in possession of information demonstrating the officers were corrupt, suppressed this information and still has not disclosed it to defense counsel, though mandated to do so," the public defenders wrote.
The court record does not state what happened with the public defender's request to the judge to order the D.A.'s office to turn over any Brady material.
In a interview, Public Defender Bradley Bridge explained that he was ultimately able to work out a satisfactory resolution with the D.A.'s office, namely throwing out 800 drug arrests.
"If the cases are going to be thrown out, that satisfied my concerns," Bridge said. "I got more than I wanted so I'm not going to be greedy about it."
About the Brady material, Bridge said, "I don't recall off the top of my head any Brady material that was turned over. It was not even needed."
The court record does not state what happened with the public defender's request to the judge to order the D.A.'s office to turn over any Brady material.
In a interview, Public Defender Bradley Bridge explained that he was ultimately able to work out a satisfactory resolution with the D.A.'s office, namely throwing out 800 drug arrests.
"If the cases are going to be thrown out, that satisfied my concerns," Bridge said. "I got more than I wanted so I'm not going to be greedy about it."
About the Brady material, Bridge said, "I don't recall off the top of my head any Brady material that was turned over. It was not even needed."
The legal battle over whether the D.A. had any information or files to back up his letter to the police commissioner was repeated this year in federal court, where U.S. District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond is overseeing the civil rights cases filed by the accused drug dealers against the city and the former narcotics officers.
On July 28th, in the case of McIntyre v. Liciardello et al., Judge Diamond held a status conference on all outstanding discovery. No court reporter was present and no minutes were recorded. The judge, however, according to sources familiar with the proceeding, asked about the existence of any files to back up the district attorney's 2012 letter to the police commissioner.
The city's lawyers, who declined to comment, informed the judge that there were no such files.
The judge, according to sources, seemed incredulous, and asked for an explanation.
A spokesman for the district attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The D.A.'s 2012 letter to former Police Commissioner Ramsey was the subject of a defamation and false light suit filed in federal court on behalf of the six officers named in the letter, against D.A. Williams, former Police Commissioner Ramsey, and former Mayor Michael A. Nutter.
The defamation suit was subsequently dismissed on June 6th by Judge Diamond. But on July 6th, a lawyer for the officers filed a notice of appeal.
In the defamation suit, attorney Christopher D. Mannix described the D.A.'s letter as "entirely misbegotten and irresponsible." It unleashed a "a gigantic, destructive avalanche of severe and permanent wrongs, damages and injustices" Mannix wrote, not only upon the narcs, "but upon all Philadelphia citizens who count on the fundamental purpose of government -- public safety and order through the criminal justice system."
When D.A. Williams sent his 2012 letter to Ramsey, "Plaintiff Otto was an extremely effective, skilled, dedicated, hard-working, honest and experienced Police Lieutenant," Mannix wrote. When D.A. Williams wrote his letter, according to Mannix, Officers Spicer, Reynolds, Betts, Speiser and Liciardello "were all extremely effective, skilled, dedicated, hard-working, experienced police officers."
"There was no legitimate reason" for D.A. Williams to write a "utterly reckless and irresponsible" letter to Ramsey, Mannix wrote.
According to Mannix, when the D.A.'s letter was delivered to Rasmey, "both the Commissioner and the District Attorney knew there was no legitimate evidence against the Plaintiffs' honesty and credibility."
The D.A.'s office, according to the defamation suit, was also responsible for leaking the D.A.'s letter to the media.
On Dec. 2, 2012, according to the complaint filed by Mannix, First Assistant District Attorney McCann, the second-highest ranking official in the D.A's office, "instructed Director of Communications/Spokesperson [Tasha] Jamerson on how to handle media inquiries about the letter."
At the time, Jamerson's husband, according to the defamation suit, was the managing editor of Fox 29.
The decision to publicize the D.A.'s letter to Ramsey was "explicitly authorized" by superiors in her office Mannix wrote, and was "made and carried out in bad faith and with deliberate indifference to, and reckless disregard for, the liberty, interests and the reputational interests of the Plaintiffs."
The Williams letter to Ramsey, publicized by the media, "stigmatized and humiliated the Plaintiffs," Mannix wrote, as well as "impugned, blackened and utterly disparaged their professional and personal reputations."
"Criminals began to walk free, " Mannix wrote. Meanwhile, the narcs became the criminal targets of "very public scorn," Mannix wrote, even though there was "never a scintilla of evidence" for D.A. Williams to attack "the credibility and honesty" of the cops.
"D.A. Williams," Mannix wrote, "was not exercising legitimate prosecutorial discretion in the writing of the letter."'
When D.A. Williams sent his 2012 letter to Ramsey, "Plaintiff Otto was an extremely effective, skilled, dedicated, hard-working, honest and experienced Police Lieutenant," Mannix wrote. When D.A. Williams wrote his letter, according to Mannix, Officers Spicer, Reynolds, Betts, Speiser and Liciardello "were all extremely effective, skilled, dedicated, hard-working, experienced police officers."
"There was no legitimate reason" for D.A. Williams to write a "utterly reckless and irresponsible" letter to Ramsey, Mannix wrote.
According to Mannix, when the D.A.'s letter was delivered to Rasmey, "both the Commissioner and the District Attorney knew there was no legitimate evidence against the Plaintiffs' honesty and credibility."
The D.A.'s office, according to the defamation suit, was also responsible for leaking the D.A.'s letter to the media.
On Dec. 2, 2012, according to the complaint filed by Mannix, First Assistant District Attorney McCann, the second-highest ranking official in the D.A's office, "instructed Director of Communications/Spokesperson [Tasha] Jamerson on how to handle media inquiries about the letter."
At the time, Jamerson's husband, according to the defamation suit, was the managing editor of Fox 29.
According to the lawsuit, McCann "instructed Jamerson that she had authority to communicate to the press that the D.A.'s office would no longer be using the six Plaintiffs in narcotics cases because of prosecutorial discretion."
The decision to publicize the D.A.'s letter to Ramsey was "explicitly authorized" by superiors in her office Mannix wrote, and was "made and carried out in bad faith and with deliberate indifference to, and reckless disregard for, the liberty, interests and the reputational interests of the Plaintiffs."
The Williams letter to Ramsey, publicized by the media, "stigmatized and humiliated the Plaintiffs," Mannix wrote, as well as "impugned, blackened and utterly disparaged their professional and personal reputations."
"Criminals began to walk free, " Mannix wrote. Meanwhile, the narcs became the criminal targets of "very public scorn," Mannix wrote, even though there was "never a scintilla of evidence" for D.A. Williams to attack "the credibility and honesty" of the cops.
"D.A. Williams," Mannix wrote, "was not exercising legitimate prosecutorial discretion in the writing of the letter."'
Why did the D.A. want to put the narcs and their supervisor out of business? Seth Williams has never spoken publicly about the reasons behind his feud with the narcs. The defamation complaint, however, filed by the officers provides an explanation: a "petty and childish" feud between the narcs and the district attorney's office.
"The Plaintiffs, mainly [Lt. Robert] Otto and [Officer Thomas] Liciardello, had been battling with the District Attorney's Office for more than a year over the issue of the proper handling of confidential informants, and, the system of proffers," Mannix wrote. "The District Attorney's Office's positions on these aspects was unprofessional and often petty and childish."
Less than a week before the letter was sent, Mannix wrote, "First Assistant District Attorney Edward McCann said, with regard to the Plaintiffs, approximate words or approximate words to the strong effect: 'I'm tired of their shit. Enough is enough."
So Seth Williams decide to end the feud, without any due process, by writing his letter to the police commissioner that put the narcs out of business.
Through a spokesperson, McCann, who now works as the first assistant district attorney in Montgomery County, declined comment. Lawyers defending the city declined comment. The lawyers defending the police officers in the civil suits did not respond to a request for comment.
Jimmy Binns, a criminal lawyer who successfully defended Police Officer Michael Spicer against the federal RICO charges, said it was no surprise to hear that Seth Williams had nothing to back up that letter he wrote to the police commissioner.
"We knew that all along," Binns said. "That's why I was able to predict accurately to a federal judge at Mike Spicer's bail hearing that he would acquitted of all the charges."
"It just verifies what all of the defendants said to their lawyers all along," Binns said. "It was not that the prosecutors lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was that there did not exist a scintilla of credible evidence against the defendants."
So Seth Williams decide to end the feud, without any due process, by writing his letter to the police commissioner that put the narcs out of business.
Through a spokesperson, McCann, who now works as the first assistant district attorney in Montgomery County, declined comment. Lawyers defending the city declined comment. The lawyers defending the police officers in the civil suits did not respond to a request for comment.
Jimmy Binns, a criminal lawyer who successfully defended Police Officer Michael Spicer against the federal RICO charges, said it was no surprise to hear that Seth Williams had nothing to back up that letter he wrote to the police commissioner.
"We knew that all along," Binns said. "That's why I was able to predict accurately to a federal judge at Mike Spicer's bail hearing that he would acquitted of all the charges."
"It just verifies what all of the defendants said to their lawyers all along," Binns said. "It was not that the prosecutors lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was that there did not exist a scintilla of credible evidence against the defendants."