 |
| Photo credit: Tim Tai/The Philadelphia Inquirer |
for BigTrial.net
District Attorney Larry Krasner lied about the existence of public records that would show just how many cases his inept and corrupt office has turned down for prosecution.
Krasner doesn't want the public to know about the more than 200 cases his so-called charging unit declines to prosecute every month, or the 2,562 cases his office declined to prosecute during 2018, his first year in office. These cases run the gamut of crimes, including aggravated assault, prostitution, bringing weapons to school, robbery and rape.
There's another public document that Krasner hopes the public never sees: a list that tracks the number of cases where the district attorney's office downgrades charges, which average nearly a hundred a month, or a total of 1,159 for 2018. Such as when Michael White stabbed Sean Schellenger, an unarmed man, to death in July 2018 with a knife with a six-inch blade in Rittenhouse Square. And Krasner twice downgraded the charges in the case, from first-degree murder, to third-degree murder, and finally, to voluntary manslaughter.
Krasner doesn't want the public to know about the deals he cuts with criminals, and he doesn't want them to know about all the cases where arrests were made, or the cops said they knew who the bad guy was, but the D.A.'s office was too inept or corrupt to take the case to court.
Krasner doesn't want the public to know that he isn't doing his job. But all of those records exist, in both the Police Department and the District Attorney's office. And Krasner, the city's top law enforcement official, is a liar who's leading an official cover up.
On June 19, 2019, William J. Heeney, then a candidate for City Council, filed a right-to-know request seeking the "number of cases declined by the District Attorney Charging Unit from January 2018 to present, and documented reasons for the declination."
A. Benjamin Mannes, a former cop who's a consultant on security and criminal justice reform, wrote about Heeney's attempt to get those records in a previous post on this blog.
On June 26, 2019, the district attorney's office requested a 30-day extension to reply to Heeney's request. They could have given Heeney the answer to the first part of his question, how many cases have been declined for prosecution by the D.A.'s office, in 30 seconds with one stroke on a keyboard.
But instead, they decided to lie.
On July 29, 2019, the D.A.'s office, with Krasner's name stamped on the top of their official stationary, sent Heeney a formal denial of his request, written by an appropriately named assistant district attorney, Benjamin Jackal.
"Your request is denied," Jackal wrote Heeney. "The DAO does not have possession, custody or control of records responsive to your request."
Soon after I posted Mannes' story on the blog, a city official in the know wrote in a response under Big Trial's comments section that said the D.A.'s office was lying:
"There is a weekly report generated to a select number of personnel in the Police Department and the District Attorney's Office via email documenting every declination (refusal by the District Attorney to prosecute a case) and the reason for the declination."
"Many cases are declined based on the failed policies of Krasner as the crime rate continues to spiral out of control in the city due to these policies/declinations. This report has been generated and documented for several years. Both the police department and the District Attorney's Office have the number of declined cases at their fingertips and can generate the list with the push of a key on their keyboard."
Also not buying the D.A.'s explanation -- the city's Office of Open Records. That office then ordered the district attorney to produce the records. The D.A. refused, but changed the story, claiming the records were immune from disclosure because they're privileged.
In response, Heeney sued the D.A.'s office in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. In his Feb. 22nd lawsuit, Heeney wrote, "The reasons the District Attorney provides lack merit. They are mere attempts to hide the underlying progressive agenda the District Attorney's office wishes to maintain in the city of Philadelphia."
The citizens of Philadelphia, Heeney wrote, "who are supposed to be protected by the office of the District Attorney, are entitled to know why its chief law enforcement officer is declining to prosecute criminal cases."
"The District Attorney's office is keeping secrets from the citizens of Philadelphia and the citizens are suffering," Heeney wrote. "Crime is out of control. These documents are needed to find out why."