Jermal Shuler, Marc Brittingham, and Rasheed Smith: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ('Deeply flawed forensic testimony'): Major (Welcome) Development: The Innocence Project has announced their exoneration after 28 years of wrongful conviction for a murder they did not commit, as a result of, "newly discovered forensic evidence which undermined the prosecution's entire case by discrediting expert testimony about the victim's time of death and thereby undermining the prosecution's core theory at trial."..."The three men were wrongfully convicted based on a single eyewitness who claimed to see them at the crime scene on Saturday night the weekend that the victim was killed. The eyewitness’ testimony was corroborated at trial by the medical examiner’s initial time of death determination. However, in post-conviction investigations by defense counsel and the Philadelphia District Attorney Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), expert pathologists separately concluded that the medical examiner’s original time of death was unreasonable, and the victim likely died nearly 24 hours after the eyewitness testified that she saw the men."

BACKGROUND: The flawed evidence of Assistant Medical Examiner Bennett Preston: The Philadelphia Inquirer:  (Link below): "At trial in 1998, Bennett Preston, an assistant medical examiner, told jurors Essie Mae Thomas had likely died on the evening of Nov. 8, 1997 — a time frame prosecutors used to bolster the testimony of a sole witness who provided a direct link between the men and the killing...... Preston testified that her injuries and condition indicated she was likely killed on Nov. 8 — a timeline prosecutors said matched the account of a witness who placed the three men at the house that day.  But according to reviews by two forensic scientists, Preston failed to account for several things that contradicted his conclusion, including evidence that rigorous mortis may still have been developing - not disappearing - when Thomas' body was examined. The experts concluded it was extremely unlikely Thomas died on Nov. 8.  Defense attorneys argued in court filings that without Preston’s testimony, the case against the men largely unraveled. There was little physical evidence tying them to the killing, the lawyers said, and no DNA evidence linked them to the crime scene. Preston’s testimony about the timing of her death, they said, was used to prop up prosecutors’ otherwise unstable sole eyewitness, Wadia Brown, who admitted she was high on crack cocaine on the night she said she saw the three men on Thomas’ porch around that time. Efforts to reach Preston were unsuccessful Tuesday. Over the years, questions emerged about Preston’s work in multiple criminal cases, prompting renewed scrutiny from defense attorneys and prosecutors. In recent years, the conviction integrity unit began reexamining cases in which his testimony played a significant role, said unit supervisor Matthew Stiegler. Many of the specifics underlying the questions about Preston’s findings remain unclear. Court filings in the case were heavily redacted. Stiegler said Tuesday “what broke the case open” was the discovery that disciplinary action had previously been taken against Preston, but did not provide further details. Schultz concluded that the evidence uncovered by prosecutors and defense attorneys was crucial to the outcome of the trial and warranted a new one — a prosecution the district attorney’s office said it would no longer pursue."

philadelphia-men-exonerated-murder-essie-thomas-20260526.html

-----------------------------------------

INNOCENCE PROJECT RELEASE: QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Today’s ruling confirms what should have been clear from the outset: These convictions lacked reliable evidence and rested on deeply flawed forensic testimony,” said attorneys for the men. “For nearly three decades, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith maintained their innocence while serving time for a crime they did not commit. The absence of physical evidence, along with new evidence discovered during the joint investigation, makes clear that this wrongful conviction should never have occurred. We are grateful to District Attorney Krasner’s Conviction Integrity Unit for its thorough, independent review to uncover the truth.”

-----------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In 2023, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith retained Illinois-based forensic pathologist Dr. James Filkins, who concluded that the victim did not die on Saturday and likely died early Monday morning — a day later than the eyewitness account.  Dr. Filkins’ findings were supported in 2025, when Dr. James Gill, chief medical examiner for the State of Connecticut and past president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, who was retained by the CIU, concluded that the victim probably died late Sunday night. He opined it was “extremely unlikely” that the victim died Saturday night, further undermining the prosecution’s timeline."

-------------------------------------

STORY: "Three Men Are Exonerated in Philadelphia After 28 Years of Wrongful Conviction," published by The Innocence Project  (Innocence Project Staff) on May 26, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "Newly discovered forensic evidence undermines the prosecution’s entire case."

GIST: "Today, a Philadelphia judge vacated the convictions of Jermal Shuler, Marc Brittingham, and Rasheed Smith in a 1997 North Philadelphia murder after new forensic evidence discredited expert testimony about the victim’s time of death, undermining the prosecution’s core theory at trial.

 Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith spent over 28 years in prison for a murder they did not commit. 

The three men were wrongfully convicted based on a single eyewitness who claimed to see them at the crime scene on Saturday night the weekend that the victim was killed. 

The eyewitness’ testimony was corroborated at trial by the medical examiner’s initial time of death determination. 

However, in post-conviction investigations by defense counsel and the Philadelphia District Attorney Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), expert pathologists separately concluded that the medical examiner’s original time of death was unreasonable, and the victim likely died nearly 24 hours after the eyewitness testified that she saw the men. 

The judge vacated the convictions against the three men after a joint request from Mr. Shuler’s attorneys at the Innocence Project and the Exoneration Project; Mr. Brittingham’s attorneys at the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and the Exoneration Project; Mr. Smith’s attorney at DLA Piper; and the CIU.

“Today’s ruling confirms what should have been clear from the outset: These convictions lacked reliable evidence and rested on deeply flawed forensic testimony,” said attorneys for the men. “For nearly three decades, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith maintained their innocence while serving time for a crime they did not commit. The absence of physical evidence, along with new evidence discovered during the joint investigation, makes clear that this wrongful conviction should never have occurred. We are grateful to District Attorney Krasner’s Conviction Integrity Unit for its thorough, independent review to uncover the truth.”

A Case Built on an Unreliable Witness Identification

On Monday, Nov. 10, 1997, an elderly widow was reportedly found by her nephew, beaten and stabbed in her North Philadelphia home. She had last been seen alive the previous Friday afternoon. 

Police focused on Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith after a single witness claimed to have seen the three men leaving the victim’s home Saturday evening. No physical evidence connected the three men to the crime, and that witness faced significant credibility challenges at trial. To link the witness’s testimony to the murder, the Commonwealth relied on the medical examiner, who testified that the victim’s autopsy results were consistent with her having been killed on Saturday night. The autopsy report, however, never specified a time or date of death.

Faulty Forensics

This case clearly illustrates the impact of flawed forensic testimony on wrongful conviction, which was a factor in 52% of Innocence Project exonerations.

In 2023, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Brittingham, and Mr. Smith retained Illinois-based forensic pathologist Dr. James Filkins, who concluded that the victim did not die on Saturday and likely died early Monday morning — a day later than the eyewitness account. 

Dr. Filkins’ findings were supported in 2025, when Dr. James Gill, chief medical examiner for the State of Connecticut and past president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, who was retained by the CIU, concluded that the victim probably died late Sunday night. He opined it was “extremely unlikely” that the victim died Saturday night, further undermining the prosecution’s timeline.

Mr. Shuler is represented by Innocence Project attorney Angie Louie and Exoneration Project attorney Tara Thompson. Mr. Brittingham is represented by Pennsylvania Innocence Project attorney Nilam A. Sanghvi and Exoneration Project attorney Amelia Maxfield. Mr. Smith is represented by attorney Brian M. Robinson of DLA Piper."

The entire story can be read at:

https://innocenceproject.org/news/philadelphia-men-exonerated-jermal-shuler-brittingham-smith/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

May 27: Technology Gone Wrong: Question of the day: What impact can Artificial Intelligence have on a continent where corruption, impunity, and executive appetite long predate artificial intelligence? Award-Winning Journalist Khalid Bencherif tackles this on 'Global Voices,' noting that: "In the past, tyranny in Africa required prisons, informants, secret police, and visible repression. Today, more and more of it arrives as software, financed by credit, wrapped in the language of modernisation, and sold as an upgrade to public safety."

PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "A March 2026 study by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the African Digital Rights Network found that 11 African governments had collectively spent more than USD 2 billion on AI-powered surveillance systems. Nigeria alone accounted for more than USD 470 million. The kit includes high-definition CCTV, plate readers, facial recognition, biometric identity layers, and a control room where the feeds converge. Much of it is supplied or financed by Chinese firms and banks, while other layers come mainly from Israeli firms."

------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO  OF THE DAY: "Even the KGB, the Soviet Union’s secret police, as Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out, did not have enough people to read millions of reports on millions of citizens every day. The dust in the archive was itself a form of freedom. AI dissolves that dust.   The AI-enabled surveillance now coming online in African cities is much cheaper thanks to Chinese open AI models and Israeli smart tools, because it rarely needs to punish anyone. Mass surveillance technologies — cameras, phone software, local internet networks — do not have to arrest anyone. They only need the citizens to know they are there. The awareness of being watched stops most action before it begins."

------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY: "How AI is upgrading African dictatorship," by Khalid Bencherif, published by Global Voices, on May 22, 2026. "Khalid Bencherif is a freelance, award-winning Journalist from Morocco, based in Berlin, specializing in covering environmental and political issues in North Africa. He received the 2022 Michael Elliott Award for Excellence in African Storytelling, given by the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). This piece was made possible by support from the International Center for Journalists’ Michael Elliott Award, which is celebrating its ten-year anniversary."

SUB-HEADING: "The IDS mapping shows cameras clustered where opposition parties organize, not where ordinary crime is highest 

GIST: “On coins, on stamps, on the covers of books, on banners, on posters and on the wrapping of a cigarette packet — everywhere. Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.” – George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Orwell could not have imagined that eventually, even those few cubic centimetres inside the skull would be contested on a continent already plagued by corruption and tyranny. This matters especially on a continent where corruption, impunity, and executive appetite long predate artificial intelligence. And where AI adoption is outpacing the development of rights-respecting legal frameworks

Africa rushes for smart tools of tyranny

In the past, tyranny in Africa required prisons, informants, secret police, and visible repression. Today, more and more of it arrives as software, financed by credit, wrapped in the language of modernisation, and sold as an upgrade to public safety.

A March 2026 study by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the African Digital Rights Network found that 11 African governments had collectively spent more than USD 2 billion on AI-powered surveillance systems. Nigeria alone accounted for more than USD 470 million. The kit includes high-definition CCTV, plate readers, facial recognition, biometric identity layers, and a control room where the feeds converge. Much of it is supplied or financed by Chinese firms and banks, while other layers come mainly from Israeli firms.

The common justification usually given by African governments is that acquiring this equipment is necessary to fight crime, but the crime numbers are not decreasing. IDS researchers, having examined the installations across several cities, found little evidence that the cameras reduce offending, and the evidence actually shows that cameras cluster in neighbourhoods where opposition parties organise, where protests have happened and where the press has “made trouble” for ruling regimes.

The info-infrastructure of dictatorships in Africa is not new, and it won’t be starting from zero. In most African countries, the state has long had an appetite for data. Records from communications, tax rolls, bank accounts, and administrative registries have been collected for decades and used with little legal restraint, even where protections exist on paper. What is new is the engine. AI turns the dormant files into a queryable archive. A name, a network, a pattern of travel, a history of transactions, now surface in seconds. 

Even the KGB, the Soviet Union’s secret police, as Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out, did not have enough people to read millions of reports on millions of citizens every day. The dust in the archive was itself a form of freedom. AI dissolves that dust.  

The AI-enabled surveillance now coming online in African cities is much cheaper thanks to Chinese open AI models and Israeli smart tools, because it rarely needs to punish anyone. Mass surveillance technologies — cameras, phone software, local internet networks — do not have to arrest anyone. They only need the citizens to know they are there. The awareness of being watched stops most action before it begins. 

The target list

Every movement for change on the continent has begun the same way. A group of people decides the risk of being seen in public is lower than the risk of staying silent. They gather. They post. The images travel. Sometimes the government falls. Sometimes it holds. The calculation in both cases turns on a single moment, when strangers become visible to each other and to the world as a movement. 

The upgrade changes that calculation at the source. 

AI-enabled surveillance is not a neutral grid cast over a city. It is configured around a target list, and that target list is political. The IDS mapping shows cameras clustered where opposition parties organise, not where ordinary crime is highest. 

The effect is pre-emptive; it suppresses dissent before it forms. Facial recognition at a bus stop does not need to arrest the organiser; it only needs to make clear that organising is no longer anonymous, and that being identified carries a cost. For instance, a protest planned for Sunday and identified on Saturday — through metadata, social media posts, network analysis and face-matching — rarely needs to be broken up by police. The organisers already know they have been seen, and they know what being seen can cost: arrest, charges filed later in court, or even being banned from government jobs. Often, the protest simply does not form. 

The logic compresses into a loop: the algorithm flags a person as a likely organiser, and that flag is treated as proof that the event would have occurred; thus, the person cannot be innocent because the alarm itself is the evidence. In a country with thin courts and a politicised security service, this becomes a machine that treats intention as guilt. 

Digital footprints widen the target list. Through the traces users leave online and through state-controlled communications, the state can build a profile of every citizen, then query it for signs of disloyalty. Not for what the person has done, but for what they have liked, who they have called or messaged, which rally their phone was near, which anti-government hashtag they shared. The quietest and most uncomfortable finding within the Atlantic Council’s report concerns this integration of administrative databases into something broader, a loyalty index, built out of records that were each introduced, separately, for a different reason.  

The consequence is that reform dies early. CIPESA (the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa) documents the chilling effect across fourteen countries; a measurable retreat of expression, assembly, and independent media in places where the surveillance architecture has been built out without rights-based safeguards. The citizen who would have marched, posted, joined the committee, filed the complaint, now calculates and stays home. 

From North to South Africa, a new kind of everyday atmosphere settles in. The seed of change is aborted, not in a cell but in a bedroom, by a person who has understood that the database remembers, and that the algorithm does not distinguish between the opinion expressed and the opinion held. 

This is what the upgrade protects most efficiently. Not the state’s capacity to punish. It’s capacity to make punishment unnecessary. Foucault called this the panopticon: a design in which the inmate, uncertain whether the guard tower is occupied, learns to guard himself. 

Those who refuse

While AI surveillance is becoming a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes, there are small counter-efforts, underfunded, and racing against a procurement cycle that has already delivered the cameras and wired the databases. Several journalists and organisations are documenting abuses, litigating test cases, and pushing for rights-based AI governance. Civic technologists are turning the same tools back on the state, including fact-checking generative content, monitoring hate speech, observing elections, and offering open, safe, smart tools for journalists and activists. 

However, the symmetry is false. The infrastructure, the compute, the training data, the vendor contracts, the technical talent, all sit with the state and its foreign suppliers. They do not sit with the African citizen, who struggles every day for just their daily bread. A civic-tech app might monitor some corruption, but it cannot match the control room. 

The few cubic centimetres

Orwell’s dictatorship needed a ministry, a war, an informant behind every door. The new African version seems to need only a loan agreement for buying AI infrastructure, and a population that has been persuaded that the whole thing is for their convenience. 

The historian Yuval Noah Harari has warned that the combination of biometric sensors, facial and voice recognition “make it possible for the first time in history for a dictatorial government to follow all the citizens all the time,” and could produce totalitarian regimes “much, much worse than anything we saw in the 20th century.” That warning is usually aimed at Beijing. But Beijing and Tel Aviv are starting to export the tools to Africa. 

The fear on the continent is not that AI will turn any single African state into a dictatorship. The fear is that AI is lowering the cost of authoritarian capacity and raising its ceiling — at an unprecedented pace, at precisely the moment when the appetite of corrupt regimes is growing, and the legal and institutional safeguards meant to contain them are thin or absent.  

Certainly, AI can be a lever for development and well-being in Africa; for public services, for innovation, and for expression, too. But, without the underlying infrastructure of democracy and a free press, it becomes a nightmare."

The entire story can be read at:

https://globalvoices.org/2026/05/22/how-ai-is-upgrading-african-dictatorship/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Stefon Morant: New Haven; Connecticut; Ongoing Federal Civil Rights Wrongful Conviction Trial: Jury to begin negotiations tomorrow (Wednesday), May 27, The Connecticut Examiner (Reporter Dave Altimari) reports, noting that: "Attorneys for Stefon Morant urged jurors Tuesday to hold city officials accountable for ignoring years of police misconduct, arguing that New Haven should pay up to $60 million for the 21 years Morant spent behind bars for a murder he didn’t commit. “The city is hoping to walk away with a slap on the wrist and no accountability,” attorney Nicholas Brustin said during closing arguments in U.S. District Court in Hartford. “If ever there was a case that screams out for full accountability it is this one. You have seen vividly what happens when rules don’t matter to a police department and misconduct is allowed to go unchecked.”

QUOTE ONE OF THE DAY: (This may ultimately win the Charles Smith Blog award  for  outrageous  quote of the year. HL)  From THOMAS Gerarde, the  lawyer representing the City of New Haven: 

“Let’s not let anger decide us, let’s not base this on sympathy and let common sense decide what we are doing,” Gerarde said. “There’s no evidence where the city should have to pay anything. Be cool, calm and collected.”

------------------------------------

QUOTE  TWO OF THE DAY: "Brustin asked jurors to consider what 21 years of a man’s life is worth — $2 million, $3 million a year? But he argued the deeper loss was everything Morant missed outside prison walls, including the deaths of his father, brother and eventually his son, Christian, who developed a drug addiction not long after Morant was released from prison 11 years ago. “All he endured on the inside paled in comparison to what he was missing on the outside,” Brustin said. “He would have given the rest of his teeth [Morant lost five while incarcerated] for a few more minutes with his baby brother and his child that died. Imagine living wondering if you had been there when your son was growing up you might have been able to save him.”

--------------------------------------

THIRD QUOTE OF THE DAY: "In closing arguments, the four attorneys representing the city and the four officers argued that their clients shouldn’t be held liable and criticized the $60 million figure suggested as potential payment to Morant. Attorney Thomas Gerarde, who is representing the city, said the jury shouldn’t base their decision on “sympathy and anger.” Gerarde said there was “some shock value” to the numbers thrown out by Morant’s lawyers but that the jury shouldn’t let emotions affect their decision.  “Let’s not let anger decide us, let’s not base this on sympathy and let common sense decide what we are doing,” Gerarde said. “There’s no evidence where the city should have to pay anything. Be cool, calm and collected.”

------------------------------------

PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Morant is suing the city of New Haven and four former police detectives — Vincent Raucci, Vaughan Maher, Michael Sweeney and Robert Lawlor individually —  claiming Raucci coerced him to make a statement implicating himself and another man — Scott Lewis — in the October 1990 murders of city alderman Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields. Morant also claims Raucci threatened two key witnesses with million-dollar bonds and possible murder charges unless they changed their statements to identify Lewis and Morant as the culprits. Both later recanted. The lawsuit alleges that the detectives routinely coerced witnesses, fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence during homicide investigations, and that city officials, particularly then-Police Chief Nicholas Pastore either condoned or failed to stop it. Morant served more than 21 years in prison for the murders before being released after state prosecutors acknowledged in open court that the investigation against him was tainted. Morant was eventually pardoned."

-----------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY:  "Brustin asked jurors to consider what 21 years of a man’s life is worth — $2 million, $3 million a year? But he argued the deeper loss was everything Morant missed outside prison walls, including the deaths of his father, brother and eventually his son, Christian, who developed a drug addiction not long after Morant was released from prison 11 years ago. “All he endured on the inside paled in comparison."

---------------------------------------

"STORY: "Lawyers Ask Jury to Hold New Haven Accountable for Wrongful Conviction, 21 Years Behind Bars," by Reporter  Dave Altimari, published by The Connecticut Examiner, on May 26, 2026;  (Dave Altimari joined CT Examiner in 2026 after spending 23 years with the Hartford Courant and more than four years with CT Mirror. He  was awarded a Pulitzer Prize (2026) with Ginny Monk, Sophie Chou and Haru Coryne.)

GIST: "Attorneys for Stefon Morant urged jurors Tuesday to hold city officials accountable for ignoring years of police misconduct, arguing that New Haven should pay up to $60 million for the 21 years Morant spent behind bars for a murder he didn’t commit.  

“The city is hoping to walk away with a slap on the wrist and no accountability,” attorney Nicholas Brustin said during closing arguments in U.S. District Court in Hartford. “If ever there was a case that screams out for full accountability it is this one. You have seen vividly what happens when rules don’t matter to a police department and misconduct is allowed to go unchecked.”

"Brustin asked jurors to consider what 21 years of a man’s life is worth — $2 million, $3 million a year? But he argued the deeper loss was everything Morant missed outside prison walls, including the deaths of his father, brother and eventually his son, Christian, who developed a drug addiction not long after Morant was released from prison 11 years ago.

“All he endured on the inside paled in comparison to what he was missing on the outside,” Brustin said. “He would have given the rest of his teeth [Morant lost five while incarcerated] for a few more minutes with his baby brother and his child that died. Imagine living wondering if you had been there when your son was growing up you might have been able to save him.”

Morant is suing the city of New Haven and four former police detectives — Vincent Raucci, Vaughan Maher, Michael Sweeney and Robert Lawlor individually —  claiming Raucci coerced him to make a statement implicating himself and another man — Scott Lewis — in the October 1990 murders of city alderman Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields.

Morant also claims Raucci threatened two key witnesses with million-dollar bonds and possible murder charges unless they changed their statements to identify Lewis and Morant as the culprits. Both later recanted.

The lawsuit alleges that the detectives routinely coerced witnesses, fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence during homicide investigations, and that city officials, particularly then-Police Chief Nicholas Pastore either condoned or failed to stop it.

Morant served more than 21 years in prison for the murders before being released after state prosecutors acknowledged in open court that the investigation against him was tainted. Morant was eventually pardoned.

In closing arguments, the four attorneys representing the city and the four officers argued that their clients shouldn’t be held liable and criticized the $60 million figure suggested as potential payment to Morant.

Attorney Thomas Gerarde, who is representing the city, said the jury shouldn’t base their decision on “sympathy and anger.” Gerarde said there was “some shock value” to the numbers thrown out by Morant’s lawyers but that the jury shouldn’t let emotions affect their decision. 

“Let’s not let anger decide us, let’s not base this on sympathy and let common sense decide what we are doing,” (The City's Lawyer) Gerarde said. “There’s no evidence where the city should have to pay anything. Be cool, calm and collected.”

Gerarde highlighted that every officer who testified said Pastore had no direct involvement in the Morant investigation.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that Pastore ever got involved with Raucci, Sweeney or Maher and said don’t worry guys you can fabricate evidence and take a false statement and get away with it,” he said.

Gerarde argued Pastore was overseeing a department of more than 400 police officers and didn’t have time to micromanage homicide investigations, even a high-profile one such as the Turner/Fields case.

He also accused Morant’s attorneys of trying to trick some of the officers by asking rapid-fire questions designed to put words in their mouths.

“It was not a fair fight. These old guys who have been off the job for 30 years are no match for the kind of peppering they got from these attorneys,” Gerarde said.

Gerarde had one hour for his closing argument, while the three attorneys representing the officers had a half hour each.

Attorney James Tallberg, representing Raucci, also questioned some of the tactics by Morant’s attorneys, specifically the decision to call Raucci’s ex-wife Donna Desai as a witness, who testified Raucci was a drug addict and threatened her.

“Litigation can be rough, but I would suggest that dragging in the ex-wife was pretty low,” Tallberg said. “Despite all the name calling and mud thrown at Raucci, he did not engage in any of the things he has been accused of.’

Tallberg also addressed the $60 million figure, and instead suggested between $2 million and $10 million was a more reasonable range.

“Rather than grab a number out of the air, what amount of money could possibly make Mr. Morant whole?” Tallberg said.

Morant and his attorneys have acknowledged that, without former detective Sweeney, Morant may have never been freed. Years earlier, Sweeney contacted Morant’s attorney and said the conviction was based on statements taken by Raucci, who allegedly fed witnesses the information he wanted them to repeat.

Still, Sweeney is a defendant in the lawsuit because he failed to report knowledge that Raucci had coerced Orville Ruiz — a key witness who first identified Lewis and Morant as being involved in the homicide — and never wrote a report or told prosecutors his concerns.

His attorney, Michael T. Ryan, argued that Sweeney advised Raucci to stop feeding witnesses information. Ryan also said Sweeney didn’t participate in any interviews, was not involved in the case, and therefore isn’t liable for Morant’s conviction.

“Nothing Sweeney did contributed to Morant’s conviction. At best, it was trivial and inconsequential to what happened,” Ryan said.

Attorney William J. Melley III, who is representing Lawlor and Maher, went last among the defendants’ attorneys.

He called Lawlor a “man of principle.”

He pointed to a discrepancy in Sweeney’s trial testimony regarding a conversation he had with Lawlor about Raucci’s interview with Ruiz. Sweeney had previously testified that he warned Lawlor about Raucci feeding Ruiz information about the homicide, and that Lawlor said nothing.

But in the current trial, Sweeney testified Lawlor acknowledged Sweeney’s warning and assumed it was going to be addressed.

“Sweeney never before said that Lawlor acknowledged him, and now he says 35 years later he tells a different story,” Melley said.

As for Maher, Melley admitted Maher “made some mistakes” during testimony but blamed it on the rapid-fire questioning designed to confuse him. He said Maher had been transferred to a different unit by the time Lewis and Morant were arrested.

“He had nothing to do with the preparation of the arrest warrant or the investigation after he left,” Melley said.

Brustin said only Sweeney has ever taken any accountability for what happened to Morant.

“They didn’t care about him in 1991 and they don’t care about him today, but you can only imagine what his life would have become given his resilience,” Brustin said. “You have seen in court that Mr. Morant is a man of faith and now he puts his faith in you.”

The jury will begin deliberations Wednesday.""

The entire story can be read at:

dave.altimari@ctexaminer.com lawyers-ask-jury-to-hold-new-haven-accountable-for-wrongful-conviction-21-years-behind-bars

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;