DA’s decision on retrial of man shot by police overshadows civil lawsuit
Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. will play a key role in whether Leon Ford gets a chance at millions of dollars from a civil lawsuit against Pittsburgh before a federal jury even hears the facts of the case, legal experts said on Tuesday.
An Allegheny County jury on Monday acquitted Ford, 21, of Shaler of aggravated assault and deadlocked on five other counts related to a November 2012 traffic stop in Highland Park. He remains charged with recklessly endangering another person, resisting arrest and escape.
Zappala has until Sept. 26 to tell Common Pleas Judge Donald E. Machen whether his office will retry Ford on those charges.
“If the DA decides not to pursue the charges, it’s a win for the defense,” Downtown lawyer Steven Townsend said. “The city might as well open its checkbook.”
If Zappala pursues and Ford is convicted of any of the remaining charges, that could be “detrimental” to the civil case, Townsend said, because “it makes the officers’ actions justified.”
Ford, who is black, was paralyzed on Nov. 11, 2012, when Pittsburgh police Officer David Derbish shot him five times in what the officer said was self-defense. Ford’s attorneys said the three white officers unnecessarily escalated the situation.
Ford will retain at least some of his claims in his federal lawsuit against the city regardless of whether prosecutors pursue the remaining charges against him, including that the officers used excessive force and unlawfully stopped him, Downtown attorney Joel Sansone said.
Ford’s civil case is “very strong,” Sansone said.
Exactly how much a jury could award Ford remains a guess. Local lawyers estimated a seven-figure pay day.
A gag order that remains in the criminal case prevented Ford’s civil lawyer, Monte Rabner, from commenting. Howard McQuillan, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1, city public safety spokeswoman Sonya Toler and Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney, all declined to comment.
Councilman Ricky Burgess said Ford’s case highlighted the city’s racial divide and a lack of diversity among the rank-and-file officers. It also furthered a “false narrative” that has caused a distrust between the community and police, which leaders are working to mend, Burgess said.
Court settlements and judgments are paid out of the city’s general fund. The city sets aside $1.6 million a year for that, said Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto.
Tim Stevens, chairman of the Black Political Empowerment Project, implored Zappala to dismiss the remaining charges against Ford. “We feel that the fact that Mr. Ford will never walk again is unto itself reason enough to not refile the charges in this unfortunate incident,” he said.
He added that it “will also provide an opportunity for some level of healing within our African-American communities between the community and the police.”
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412- 391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Guard, John Carter, not guilty in Pittsburgh shooting
Three-day trial ends in mixed views about verdict
By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A Verona security guard charged with aggravated assault after shooting a man accused of stealing from a delivery truck in Homewood was found not guilty Wednesday.
John Carter, 54, testified on his own behalf during the three-day trial before Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III.
The jury only deliberated about 30 minutes before returning its verdict.
Defense attorney Steven Townsend said his client should never have been charged.
“I have no idea why they pursued a case like this,” he said. “It was clear from statements, witness accounts and the video — John Carter was defending himself after being robbed.”
But District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said if the same circumstances were presented to him again, charges would again be filed.
Mr. Carter was charged with shooting Edward Brown Jr. on Oct. 2 as he ran away.
According to Pittsburgh police, Brown took a jitney to Baker’s Dairy on Hamilton Avenue that day, knowing a truck for the Triangle Tobacco & Candy Co. regularly made deliveries.
Brown walked to the back of the truck, tugged on a bungee cord attached to a container holding money, grabbed more than $1,100 and ran.
Mr. Carter, who worked on the truck, told police when he was first questioned that he chased Brown, heard someone scream that there was another person and then saw Brown stop and reach toward his waistband. That’s when he fired, he said, to defend himself.
But prosecutors said a video taken from a Port Authority bus did not show Brown “stopping and turning around as Mr. Carter reported.”
“I think he was defending his employment,” Mr. Zappala said. “We’re a society of laws, and you can’t shoot somebody who tries to steal from you.”
But Mr. Townsend disagreed.
“John Carter’s actions were certainly justified.”
He said his client is looking forward to regaining his permit to carry a firearm, as well as getting his job back as a security guard.
Brown pleaded guilty to theft in May before Judge Anthony M. Mariani and was sentenced to serve two years’ probation and pay restitution.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/08/20/Verona-security-guard-not-guilty-aggravated-assault-Homewood/stories/201408200169#ixzz3B1YqKH8y
Finally, Hard Data on How a Fast the Suspct Can Be in the 11 Difference Shooting Scenarios
By: Bill Lewinski, Ph.D.
We have always known that generally action beats reaction. And, we’ve been able to demonstrate this in a variety of civilian and law enforcement situations. Since the invention of the shot timer, we’ve known how quickly officers can react in shooting situations. Now, for the first time, we have accurate, sophisticated measurements on how quickly the suspect in the street can actually do what they do in 11 different kinds of shooting scenarios. Some of you may find the results depressing, for this research proves that in the street, action really does beat reaction. For others, it will provide a clear explanation for problems, such as why so many suspects get shot in the back. Readers should find the results of this study truly amazing – the implications for law enforcement training are profound.
October 30, 2013 11:01 AM
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – An armed security guard accused of shooting a robbery suspect in Homewood earlier this month was in court for a preliminary hearing today.
John Carter, 53, of Verona man is charged with aggravated assault after shooting a man, who allegedly robbed a delivery truck in Homewood.
“He believes and I believe and I think everyone will believe in the end, that he did the right thing yet he’s in the position where he’s in the box trying to prove his innocence,” defense attorney Steve Townsend said.
On Oct.2, Edward Brown allegedly grabbed a money bag out of a delivery truck at Triangle Candy and Tobacco.
Carter, working for Triangle as a guard, gave chase. He opened fire on Brown, striking the 32-year-old in the abdomen.
“This area where this took place in Homewood, it’s like Afghanistan, it’s Bosnia. Shootings there are almost a daily occurrence,” Townsend said. “Someone’s threatening you with bodily force and you’re in fear of serious bodily injury, you have to do what you have to do to protect yourself and that’s what happened.”
Carter, a 16-year veteran and qualified to carry a firearm, told police Brown turned around and reached for his waist.
Carter thought he had a gun and fired. However, there was no gun.
Carter told police a bystander yelled that Brown had a gun, but videotape showed Brown, who would be charged with robbery, never turned around and never had a gun. Brown survived his injuries.
“I believe that he’s innocent. I don’t believe that he committed a crime and I believe that that will come out in the end. Unfortunately, he’s left in the situation where he’s probably going to have to take this case to trial,” Townsend said.
Carter remains free on bond and continues to work as an armed security guard.
Designed Exclusively for Landowners and Mineral Owners
BEAVER — It took a Beaver County jury less than two hours Friday to find a man not guilty on charges he sexually assaulted a 3-year-old New Brighton girl six years ago.
Thomas H. Javens II, 33, whose last known address was 1621 Sampson St., Conway, was accused of inappropriately touching the girl, now 9, in her home. He was charged with aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault by New Brighton Area police in May 2012 after a forensic interviewer concluded the girl was making what they call a “positive disclosure” of sexual abuse, according to the police report.
After the interviewer’s ruling, police set up a telephone call using the mother to obtain a confession from Javens. His defense attorney, Steven Townshend, however, argued during this week’s trial that the apology Javens gave on the recording was for a recent argument involving the child, not past sexual contact.
Townshend argued it was an older child in the home who touched the girl, not Javens, and her mother was taking advantage of the situation to harm Javens, who she was fighting with over a custody issue involving another child.
Assistant District Attorney Frank Martocci argued the girl has always been consistent in her story about what happened and that Javens inappropriately touched her.
He also argued that the apology telephone call clearly was about the 2007 incident, not the more recent argument.
After the verdict was read, though, Martocci said, “I respect the jury’s decision.”
Share with others:
On June 29, 1976, Jeffrey Cristina was found guilty of second-degree murder and robbery.
He was 17 years old and faced a mandatory prison term of life without parole — even though the jury did not believe he killed the victim.
Since that time, Cristina, now 54, has remained incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
He has not received a single misconduct write-up while in prison, and has taken advantage of just about every educational opportunity presented to him.
“Most of these kids that went in for life had no incentive to do anything because they figured they’d never get out,” said Cristina’s defense attorney, Steve Townsend. “What he’s done with his life for the last 37 years is pretty decent.
“He’s taken every advantage he’s had inside to be rehabilitated. The system actually worked for him.”
It is that, Mr. Townsend said, that he thinks gives his client a good chance of someday getting out.
This week, Cristina will become the first person in Allegheny County to be resentenced based on last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, which made mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional.
According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, there are 2,570 people serving life without parole who were convicted as juveniles across the United States. More than 25 percent are serving that sentence for felony murder (when a person is killed during the commission of another felony, such as robbery, for example) or accomplice liability, the organization says.
Pennsylvania has more juvenile lifers than any other state.
As of April 1, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, there were 462 such offenders imprisoned across the state.
Of those, 266 were convicted of first-degree murder — a premeditated killing. Another 157 were convicted of second-degree murder — or felony murder. A person can be convicted even if he or she did not actually commit the killing, but participated in the underlying crime.
Philadelphia has the largest number of juvenile lifers at 265, while Allegheny County has the second largest — 48.
Attorneys on both sides of the issue are awaiting a decision from the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Cunningham, which will determine if the Miller decision applies retroactively.
Those advocates arguing in favor of retroactivity say that juveniles cannot be held to the same societal standard as adults — that they are not emotionally mature, and that because of that, they fail to recognize the consequences of their actions.
But those on the opposite side say that making Miller retroactive, and applying it to defendants convicted years ago, is legally unsound and a violation of due process for the victims.
Further, they say, such a change in the law is unnecessary, since sentencing relief for those who have turned their lives around in prison already exists through clemency.
According to the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, 40 people have been granted clemency on first- or second-degree murder convictions since 1979.
A hearing Friday
Jeffrey Cristina was uprooted from his home in Brookline after his parents divorced in the mid-1970s and he moved with his mother to Lawrenceville.
Although he had never been in trouble before, he fell in with the wrong crowd, said his niece, Heather Taylor.
On Dec. 10, 1975, Frank Slazinski, an 82-year-old retired steelworker, had just returned to his Butler Street apartment after being released from the hospital.
About 9 that night, officers found his door open, and Slazinski lying inside, badly beaten.
He died four days later.
During the investigation into Slazinski’s death, Cristina and others implicated gave varying statements to police. At trial, Cristina testified he attempted to rob the man but fled before the victim was beaten.
Still, he was found guilty of second-degree murder.
The Board of Pardons unanimously recommended Cristina for clemency in 1993, saying he had compiled a “stunning record,” although his bid was rejected.
After seemingly exhausting all of his appeals, Cristina filed a petition seeking collateral relief in August, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller.
Over the objections of the Allegheny County district attorney’s office, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Anthony M. Mariani agreed to hear it, and the matter is scheduled for court on Friday.
At the hearing, Mr. Townsend will ask the judge to resentence his client, taking into consideration the decision that made mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional.
The defense attorney would love for his client to be sentenced to time served, which would allow for his immediate release, but a decision last month by the state Supreme Court could make that argument difficult.
The court, in a decision known as Batts, found that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller requires sentencing judges in Pennsylvania to set a minimum prison term for defendants convicted of first- or second-degree murder. It also requires those same judges keep the mandatory maximum sentence at life in prison.
That means that instead of possibly being released with time served, those defendants’ only hope to get out will be through the parole process.
The Batts decision, however, applies only to what amounts to a handful of cases in Pennsylvania that are currently on direct appeal, said Allegheny County chief deputy district attorney Dan Fitzsimmons.
The rest of the state’s juvenile lifers — about 450 — will have to wait for another case pending before the state Supreme Court, Pennsylvania v. Cunningham, to be decided.
That case, stemming from a second-degree murder conviction in Philadelphia, will determine if the Miller decision can be applied retroactively in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Townsend doesn’t see how the court could not make Miller retroactive.
“If [Miller] means it’s cruel and unusual punishment now, then it was cruel and unusual punishment in 1976,” he said. “The same standard has to apply.”
But Hugh Burns, the chief of the appellate unit in Philadelphia who argued the Cunningham case, disagrees.
His argument revolves around whether the Miller decision is a procedural or substantive change in the law.
According to Mr. Burns, the Miller decision lays out brand new procedures, and under Supreme Court precedent that means it cannot be made retroactive.
In issuing the Miller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court created a new process for the lower courts, requiring the sentencing judge to consider a juvenile’s age, level of maturity, family and home environment, the extent of participation in the crime, the impact of family and peer pressure and the possibility of rehabilitation before handing down punishment.
“This is a case that falls clearly in the procedural realm,” Mr. Burns said.
Further, he said, Miller does not categorically prohibit life without parole for juveniles — and instead only suggests it should be “uncommon.” Therefore, the prosecutor continued, it is not a substantive change in the law.
But Bradley Bridge, who represented Cunningham in the state Supreme Court, argues that because Miller struck down the only statutory sentence available for juveniles charged with second-degree murder — mandatory life without parole — then his client must instead be sentenced to the only constitutional option still available — the lesser included offense of first-degree robbery.
He further claims that juveniles convicted of second-degree murder cannot be classified as the most serious offenders deserving the most severe penalty under Miller.
“In Pennsylvania, second-degree [felony] murder is a legal fiction that allows convictions for murder absent a finding that the defendant killed or had the intent to kill,” Mr. Bridge wrote. “Instead, a felony murder conviction requires only the intent to commit or be an accomplice to the underlying felony.”
Mr. Bridge said Miller must be made retroactive because it created a “watershed rule of criminal procedure and thus calls into question the ‘fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.’ ”
Sara Jacobson, a law professor at Temple University who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief in the Batts case, said making Miller retroactive will not “open the prison gates to anyone.
“Basically, it opens the parole process,” she said. “That’s what Miller says needs to happen. It talks about a meaningful opportunity for parole.
“It sends a message to the now-adults serving these sentences there’s a possibility the worst thing you did in your life isn’t the sum of who you are.”
Emily Keller, a staff attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, said Miller was another acknowledgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that juveniles should be treated differently.
“You read the social science — that adolescents are impulsive and subject to peer pressure and likely to outgrow it.
“It’s more than just academic research.”
Mr. Townsend agrees.
“At 16, you don’t even know what life’s about,” he said.
Mr. Bridge said that science shows that children don’t think the same way adults do.
“We all know children don’t engage in the same thought process that adults do,” he said. “They’re not just like little adults.”
But Mr. Burns does not buy it.
“Everybody knows that premeditated murder is wrong,” he said. “The line has to be drawn somewhere.”
As for the cases involving second-degree murder, Mr. Burns said that perhaps had those juveniles not participated, the crime would not have happened.
“Maybe I’m draconian, but I think the line should be drawn to try and protect people from being murdered.”
Cristina has been able to maintain a positive outlook despite 37 years in prison.
“I follow my faith pretty strongly,” he said. “You’ve got to have hope to keep going.”
The Miller decision renewed that. “It gave juvenile lifers a chance,” he said. “It’s a light at the end of the tunnel we never had before.”
But for the victims of juvenile lifers, Miller had the opposite effect.
Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, the president of the National Organization for Victims of Juvenile Lifers, said that what Miller did was reopen wounds.
The woman’s 25-year-old pregnant sister and her husband were killed in their suburban Chicago home in 1990.
After Ms. Bishop-Jenkins learned about the possibility of juvenile killers getting relief, she didn’t sleep for four months.
“There’s no such thing as closure or healing,” she said. “You go on as best you can.”
But when a defendant is sentenced to life without parole, she continued, “You do pretty much walk away saying ‘Thank God, that’s over.’ There is a legal finality.”
With the prospect that Miller could be applied retroactively — and possibly allow for the ultimate release of hundreds of convicted murderers — victims’ families are having to relive the past trauma, horror and anger they endured at trial, Ms. Bishop-Jenkins said.
As an advocate for victims’ rights, she said that it does appear that Pennsylvania has overly sentenced juveniles to life without parole, and she believes that is not an appropriate sentence for second-degree murder.
But, she continued, court precedent that could invalidate sentences duly handed down is not the answer.
Instead, Ms. Bishop-Jenkins continued, there is already another option available — clemency.
But for Cristina, a unanimous recommendation for clemency fell upon deaf ears.
Still, in all these years, he has remained hopeful.
Her uncle’s positive attitude has always resounded with Ms. Taylor, who was just an infant when he was first arrested.
“I don’t know how he was able to maintain that being incarcerated for so long — to not lose hope,” she said.
As she grew up, Ms. Taylor and her family visited Cristina every weekend while he was housed at the State Correctional Institution Pittsburgh. They exchanged letters and cards regularly. She continues to visit him often at SCI Somerset, where he is now.
“All I’ve been thinking about is getting out and being with my family,” Cristina said.
He recognizes the vast changes in the world since he was first incarcerated may be a difficult adjustment.
“It scares me, but I’m excited about it, too,” he said. “I have a good support system.”
First Published April 7, 2013 12:00 am
Interrogating Juveniles Without Recordings: Pressure Turns Friends Into Confessors
By Cynthia Levy
The Innocence Institute of Point Park University
In December 1975 when Frank Slazinski returned to his Lawrenceville home after a lengthy hospital stay caused by a beating he took from robbers, they struck again.
This time, the 82-year-old retiree was bludgeoned with a blackjack before his assailants took $15 and a television set, which was never recovered.
He managed to tell his daughter two kids were responsible, and flashed cops two fingers before he died four days later.
As weeks became months with no arrests, three Butler Street youths were among a handful of suspects. James “Red” Phillips, 19, a neighborhood bully, William Pirozzi, 17, whose mother worked at the restaurant where Mr. Slazinski regularly ate and knew he just got a new television, and Jeffrey Cristina, 17, the new kid on the block with a clean record.
By the time detectives filed charges against all three, they’d amassed a total of six confessions – some recorded, some not — riddled with contradictions and lies. Charges were dropped before trial against Mr. Phillips and Mr. Pirozzi entered a guilty plea for a three-year prison hitch.
Mr. Cristina, who maintained his innocence, was the only one to go to trial because his father would not let him plead guilty. Despite another series of confusing recantations, he was convicted as an adult and sentenced to life behind bars.
He remains confounded by his conviction and devastated his claims of innocence have escaped examination by appeals courts.
Killing for Nothing
The first to be arrested was Mr. Phillips. He was charged, passed a polygraph test – which is inadmissible in court—and was released seven days later after charges were dropped.
Mr. Cristina was brought in next. Officers taped the interview and his father was present. He said Mr. Phillips kidnapped him and Mr. Slazinski in a car and beat him during a 45 minute siege.
Court documents suggest Mr. Pirozzi partially corroborated his story, saying he tried to help Mr. Cristina get out of a car driven by Mr. Phillips.
The following day Mr. Cristina was questioned again, without his parents.
He abandoned the kidnapping story; instead stating on a tape machine he says was repeatedly turned on and off, he was standing outside the victim’s apartment with Mr. Pirozzi when Mr. Phillips told them he was going in to “collect some money.”
When he heard a crack inside the apartment, Mr. Cristina told police he saw Mr. Phillips beating the old man with a blackjack. Mr. Cristina led police to the hidden blackjack saying Mr. Pirozzi asked him to hide it after the beating.
Then Mr. Pirozzi changed his story too. He said Mr. Phillips kicked in the apartment door and went in, but wasn’t sure if Mr. Cristina did too.
The next day, both added another twist in their third statements to police, claiming they served as lookouts, but fled when the beating began. Both were charged with murder based on their admissions.
In the Shuman Detention Center, awaiting trial, Mr. Pirozzi offered police yet another version where he was clearly being led by investigators. This time he left Mr. Phillips out of the murder plot, and said Mr. Cristina was the killer.
Trial of Lies
Despite all of his previous statements, Mr. Pirozzi implicated Mr. Cristina in the killing. Prosecutors also used Mr. Cristina’s final statement in which he admitted being a look-out as a confession.
While Mr. Pirozzi pointed the finger at Mr. Cristina, he couldn’t keep straight how much money was taken and if Mr. Cristina possessed a blackjack.
After being drilled about the inconsistencies and replying “I don’t know” to more than a dozen questions asked by both attorneys, Mr. Pirozzi was asked which story was true.
“None of it is,” he said, sobbing.
After a break to regain his composure, he again implicated Mr. Cristina in the killing and insisted after all the lies, he was now being truthful.
Mr. Cristina took the stand and said after telling numerous lies, he finally wanted “to tell the truth.” Now he admitted attempting to rob Mr. Slazinski with Mr. Pirozzi, but said both fled after the elderly man beat Mr. Pirozzi with a cane.
Fifteen minutes later, he testified, he gave Mr. Pirozzi the black jack which was used in the killing. Days later, he said Mr. Pirozzi told him he and Mr. Phillips killed the elderly gentleman.
Mr. Cristina was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
In June, Mr. Pirozzi told Innocence Institute reporters he faced such pressure during interrogation he’s blocked out the memories and wishes to be hypnotized to figure out what really happened.
Mr. Pirozzi did remember certain elements of the case when specific instances were broached, even though he said he was drunk and on medication during his initial interrogation.
Today, he doesn’t remember lying under oath (and admitting it), nor does he recall penning a letter to Mr. Cristina’s brother while awaiting trial where he wrote that since he was in Carrick with his girlfriend the night of the murder, that he, “don’t know if Jeff was there that night.”
“I was brainwashed,” said Pirozzi about his lack of recall during what he said were “long, long hours” of questioning.
As Mr. Cristina was shipped to prison, information about Mr. Phillips and Mr. Pirozzi began to emerge.
A woman told police Mr. Pirozzi implicated Mr. Cristina because Mr. Phillips threatened to kill a family member. She also said Mr. Phillips threatened her after she visited Mr. Pirozzi in jail.
During his pre-sentence investigation, Mr. Pirozzi confessed again to an Allegheny County psychologist, this time his story matched much of what Mr. Cristina said on the witness stand.
Mr. Pirozzi told the psychologist he borrowed the blackjack from Mr. Cristina, to commit the robbery with Mr. Phillips. He told the counselor Mr. Cristina declined participation. He said after the robbery, they left Mr. Slazinski unharmed, but Mr. Phillips returned and beat him to death.
Afterwards, Mr. Pirozzi told the psychologist Mr. Phillips threatened him and told him to blame the crime on Mr. Cristina.
In a later letter to Mr. Cristina’s sentencing judge, the psychologist, Jay Greenfield, said the case “left a great weight on him” and he worried Mr. Cristina got a “bum rap.”
Dr. Greenfield also revealed in pre-sentencing reports both teenagers repeatedly failed lie detector tests stating, they “blew the machine up.”
In October 1989 after 13 years in prison, Mr. Cristina filed for and was unanimously approved for commutation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Pardons; but former Gov. Tom Ridge denied it.
Mr. Cristina’s appeals are exhausted and without extraordinary judicial relief, he will never be freed.
“I was brought up believing that the justice system was correct and true, so during my trial and everything leading up to it, I always thought everything would work out and that they would find the truth. That didn’t happen,” said Mr. Cristina.