Tragedy Of The Sean Bell Case Injustice In Queens And The Killing Of The Young Man “All Over Again,” The Need For Urgent Reform

“They killed Sean Bell all over again. That’s what it felt like to us.”

Nicole Bell, the woman Sean Bell, 23, was going to marry on the morning of November 25, 2006, when he was mercilessly killed by cops, knows better than most about the impact of the shocking verdict handed down in Queens last week.

Actually, she was reacting, quite appropriately, to the disturbing and unsatisfactory way the lengthy trial was decided by New York State Justice Arthur Cooperman who acquitted three New York City police officers of all charges.

It was, like déjà vu “all over again.”

Time and time again police officers kill, injure or cripple young Black men for no apparent reason. We then go through the ritual of a criminal trial, only to see cops who are supposed to be protecting us exonerated by the court, usually by a jury but increasingly by a judge.

The recent verdict in the Bell case was a shocking example of this farce. It seemed inconceivable that after the mountain of credible evidence which was presented in State Supreme and that demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that at the very least the officers ---. Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora and Marc Cooper --engaged in recklessness and used excessive force the judge would clear them of all charges.

In reaching his verdict, Cooperman who tried the case without a jury underscored what we already know: Blacks can expect little, if any, justice from state courts after they have been brutalized or even killed by police officers, who often use their power in an indiscriminate and deadly manner.

All across this country, almost on a daily basis, police officers, usually white, pull out their guns, even when they are not provoked and proceed to use deadly force in circumstances against Blacks and Hispanics that cannot be justified.

Interestingly, the judge seemingly went out of his way to give the false assurance that as far as he was concerned the “court did not view the victims or the NYPD (New York Police Department) as being on trial here.” But he turned around and put the victims on trial. Cooperman placed the “burden of proof” on the prosecution, “the people to prove each defendant of the crimes of which he was charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s how it should be.

But he contradicted himself by openly impeaching the victims, Bell who was murdered and his companions, Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman, both of whom survived the police assault. The jurist did that by referring to their “criminal convictions” as well as “the interest of some witnesses in the outcome of the case, demeanor on the witness stand of other witnesses and the motive witnesses may have had to lie and the effect it had on the truthfulness of a witnesses’ testimony.”

Incredibly, while the judge complained about “aspects of the defense testimony that were not necessarily credible,” meaning that people lied for the defense, he dismissed that troubling aspect of the trial with a judicial sleight of hand, suggesting that people could lie and get away with it because the “focus must be on the people’s proof” that the accused had committed the serious charges for which they were hauled before the court.

As we see it, the evidence presented to the court during the eight week trial was both compelling and conclusive. The testimony was proof positive why the charges of manslaughter, reckless endangerment and assault were brought in the first place by the office of the Queens District Attorney and the grand jury. The evidence was clear: there was little reason for the cops to use such deadly force a few hours before Sean was to walk his fiancé down the aisle as man and wife. The fact that they fired 50 shots at unarmed men on the flimsy excuse that someone might have had a gun and that a weapon was never found added to the weight of the prosecution’s charges. In addition, the failure of the victims to respond in kind by shooting at the officers should have informed the judge that something was wrong and that the overwhelming use of force by the officers wasn’t justified. Obviously they should have been held criminally liable for their actions.

But the judge ignored the lies of the defense as well as the strong facets of the prosecution’s case. Instead, he used a different standard of proof when it came to what he saw was contradictory evidence by prosecution witnesses. Cooperman used that to help clear the cops. That’s why we agree with Bell’s finance’ that the verdict was akin to a second killing of the man she loved and who was the father of their children.

In a joint statement, several members of the U.S. Congress, including Representatives Gregory Meeks of Queens, Charles Rangel of Manhattan who is also Chairman of the influential Ways and Means Committee, Ed Towns and Yvette Clarke both of Brooklyn joined with New York State Senate Minority Leader, Malcolm Smith made it clear “we do not accept that this is the end of this case.”

That’s a courageous stand. They pointed to the fact that the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department, the office of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were quite rightly undertaking an independent and thorough “review of the facts and circumstances” of the case which has caused so much pain and anguish across the city and throughout the country.

The purpose of the review is to determine if the civil rights of Bell, Guzman and Benefield were violated by the cops. Those rights are guaranteed in the fourth amendment and if they were abridged, then the police officers must be hauled before the federal court, this time before a judge and jury to answer a different set of charges. Under the New YorkState constitution, an accused person can opt for a trial by a judge, even without the approval of the prosecution but under federal statutes that option doesn’t exist.

Reasons abound for the federal review. First, in far too many cases, state and local judicial processes come tumbling down by failing to deliver justice to those persons who have suffered at the hands of others or even the state. Secondly, it puts police officers on notice that there is a higher authority to which they must answer. Thirdly, while the cops are considered innocent until proven guilty, their obvious reckless conduct can’t be allowed to go unpunished.

Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House’ Judiciary Committee, raised the ante on Monday when he stood outside of the Club Kalua Cabaret where the shooting occurred and described the tragedy, the trial and the outcome as “an important moment in the history of the criminal justice system in America.”

But he didn’t stop there.

“We want to make sure justice is served and a message is sent out, not only to law enforcement but to young people that these kinds of tragedies have to end in this country,” was the way Conyers put it.

We couldn’t agree more. For if this case were allowed to end on last week’s sad note, it would simply add to the pain, suffering and the lack of justice Nicole, her children, Sean’s parents, Guzman and Benefield have endured for so long. It would tell police officers that can act recklessly and don’t pay a price for it.

Small wonder, then, that New York’s Governor, David Patterson expressed his surprise when the acquittal was announced. The verdict caught him off guard “to a certain degree, maybe because of the number of shots that were fired.”

The Governor understands why Nicole, Guzzman, Benefield, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Sanford Rubenstein and Michael Hardy, attorneys for the victims, and other right thinking New Yorkers were upset and protesting. The verdict, he warned, “arouse a mistrust” in the criminal justice system, “among people who live in these neighborhoods” where such tragedies occur.

Although Patterson wants people to accept the verdict because “it is the way our criminal justice system works” it doesn’t mean that we can’t work to overturn it. That too is the way our system works.

Having been found not guilty, the cops can’t be tried again on the same charges. That would be double jeopardy. But they can certainly be forced to answer legally in a different fashion and in a different court.

The Rev. Sharpton has proposed a campaign of civil disobedience that would bring back memories of non-violent action of the kind that was embraced enthusiastically the late Dr. Martin Luther King. It’s the kind of action that sends powerful messages to the society and forces authorities to respond to the cries for justice.
In a reaction to the verdict, Rubenstein, who has successfully represented many victims of police brutality, said that the case showed the need for drastic reforms.

For instance, it is wrong, dead wrong to put prosecutors in a position in which they are forced to prosecute police officers on whom they must rely day-in-and-day-out to track down wrong-doers. Rubenstein gas put forward a persuasive case for a permanent federal prosecutor who would take charge of cases similar to Sean Bell’s. There is also an urgent need for a special state prosecutor who would take these troublesome cases out of the hands of District Attorney, who in the best of circumstances and with the best will of the world shouldn’t be placed in the current predicament in which they find themselves.

From the outset of this case, this paper had called for the matter to be referred to a special prosecutor, but those in charge of the criminal justice system declined to see the wisdom of our suggestion. Now they are being compelled to deal with the fall-out from the judge’s ill-considered verdict.

Thankfully, there is still another option, if everything else should fail.

Already, federal civil rights suits have been filed by the victims or their families, seeking damages from the cops and the City. Any immediate action of that aspect of the case was suspended pending a court decision at either the state or federal levels. The matter was brought to the court’s attention because of the statutory limitations placed on filing such cases. They must be filed within a year of the incident.

All of this almost guarantees that the police officers and their supporters will be in court for a long to come.

Another thing. Every year, the U.S. State Department prepares and distributes a global human rights report and in it invariably points a finger at Caribbean police officers accusing them of abuse of power and trust. A few months ago, Washington took police officers to task for some of the same things that the City cops were accused of doing and for which they were exonerated. If the U.S. perceives the need to point fingers at the police around the world, it should begin at home. Otherwise, the country would remain vulnerable to the charge that the steps to take to prepare the voluminous document that goes to the House of Representative and the Senate are a blatant exercise in hypocrisy.

To go after police officers in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and a lesser extent the Bahamas in the way the State Department did the other day was unfair. That‘s not because the charges were fabricated by the State Department but because of the refusal of the U.S. to include itself among the abusers.