BACKGROUND: From a previous post of this Blog: "Termaine Hicks: Philadelphia: Another one from our 'Enough to make on weep' department": To serve and protect? This 'good samaritan's' lawsuit says police shot him, then framed him to cover up their misconduct, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Reporter Chris Palmer) reports..."Hicks found the victim — whom the suit does not name — on the ground, bloodied and with her pants down. By the time he tried to pull his cell phone out of his jacket pocket, the suit says, Vinson and Zungolo had arrived and told him to put his hands up. Before he could do so, the suit says, Vinson shot Hicks three times in the back.. Vinson later said Hicks had reached for a gun before lunging toward him, which is why he fired the shots. He repeated those assertions as Hicks’ prosecution proceeded through court. But prosecutors in 2020 said new forensic evidence showed Vinson’s shots had entered Hicks’ back, contradicting the officer’s testimony. And the DA’s Office also questioned other aspects of the officers’ version of events, including how they were able to recover a blood-soaked gun from inside Hicks’ jacket pocket even though the pockets themselves were found to be clean. Hicks’ suit offers a theory, accusing Vinson and his colleagues of quickly recognizing that the shooting was unjustified and working to concoct a cover story that would shift blame to Hicks. The suit says Hicks did not own a gun, and it accuses the officers of planting a .38-caliber handgun on him at the scene. The gun was registered to another police officer, though Green, Hicks’ lawyer, said it was unclear how the officers would have had access to that gun at the crime scene. The suit also said officers went on to provide false testimony tying Hicks to the rape, with Vinson telling jurors he’d seen Hicks committing the assault. The victim said she was not able to identify her attacker, making police witnesses the key piece of evidence against Hicks in that crime."
https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/1878356990431721924
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "First, despite their error in judgment, plaintiff's counsel did not act maliciously or in bad faith in executing the scream test," Murphy wrote. "There is no evidence that plaintiff's counsel intended to harm the community or deceive defendants. In their response to the court, plaintiff's counsel appropriately recognizes their missteps and offers to take measures to ameliorate the harm to residents." The court also determined it wasn't necessary to preclude the evidence of the test, as the error in judgment wasn't made in bad faith, or with intention to harm the community. He further noted there was no apparent prejudice to the defendants, and that precluding the evidence would have misplaced effects, by benefiting the defense counsel and penalizing Hicks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"STORY: "Attorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment," by Author Riley Brennan, published by Law.com, on October 11, 2024.
SUB-HEADING: "Counsel for the plaintiff, Termaine Hicks, devised a "scream test," where a looped recording of a woman screaming at 122 decibels played for over an hour, starting at 5:30 a.m. Sept. 23. Area residents apparently weren't warned ahead of time."
GIST: "A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ordered counsel in an underlying civil rights suit to go door to door issuing a formal written apology to community members in South Philadelphia after devising a "scream test" which involved playing a looped recording of a woman screaming for an hour in a residential area.
In a Thursday order, U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered the plaintiff's counsel with Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger in New York and Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg and Lin in Philadelphia to deliver a written apology to residents of the South Philadelphia neighborhood that was exposed to the sounds of a screaming woman during the early hours of the morning last month, without warning. According to Murphy, the counsel disregarded the community members and fell short of ethical standards, issuing the sanctions order requiring them to apology.
"At best, this lack of forethought and sensitive judgment resulted in a deeply disturbing and potentially dangerous situation. At worst, it undermined the local community's confidence in the exact justice system that Mr. Hicks relies on for recourse," Murphy said.
In Hicks v. City of Philadelphia, an investigation stemming from a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff, Termaine Hicks, could have heard the screams of a rape victim two blocks away. Hick's counsel devised a "scream test," where, with no warning to the neighbors and people of the surrounding area, played a looped recording of a woman screaming at 122 decibels for an hour, starting at 5:30 a.m. Sept. 23. According to the court, many community members reported hearing the "deeply disturbing" sound, and were worried someone was in grave danger. Local residents complained in emails to the court.
Murphy ordered counsel to deliver the apology to every home and business on the blocks affected, as well as personally visiting the different establishments to apologize in person by the end of the month.
Hicks originally filed suit against the city of Philadelphia and various police officers, claiming he was framed for rape in 2001 and served 19 years of wrongful incarceration. Hicks claimed he was walking home in the early hours of the morning in South Philadelphia and went to help a woman he heard screaming after being sexually assaulted. Hicks alleged that when police officers arrived on the scene, they shot him three times, planted a gun, and framed him for the crime, according to the opinion.
Hicks was released from prison in 2020 when his conviction was vacated. However, the defendants maintain that Hicks committed the assault, resulting in the parties engaging in over a year of "highly contentious discovery," the opinion said.
According to the court, the defendants conducted an audio test in April 2024 to "determine the veracity of [Mr. Hick's] claims that he heard the rape victim's screams from two blocks away," using a "siren chirp" as a proxy for the screams.
In an attempt to conduct similar testing, plaintiff's counsel retained acoustics experts to conduct the scream test. However, Murphy noted that the counsel failed to provide community members notice of this test, with the parties disputing whether the defendants were responsible for taking necessary precautions with the community, and whether the defendants were given adequate notice that the test would be conducted with a recording of a woman's scream.
Counsel from both parties attended the test in September, with the speaker being located "about a block northwest of the intersection of Broad and Passyunk," which was adjacent to a daycare center and across the street from more than two dozen rowhomes. The plaintiff's counsel played the scream for an hour, despite numerous reactions from the public, including a man coming over with a baseball bat and a woman yelling at them, the opinion said.
According to Murphy, counsel failed to exercise "sensitive professional and moral judgment," in failing "to foresee the obvious impact that their scream test would have on densely populated residential blocks in South Philadelphia."
"First, despite their error in judgment, plaintiff's counsel did not act maliciously or in bad faith in executing the scream test," Murphy wrote. "There is no evidence that plaintiff's counsel intended to harm the community or deceive defendants. In their response to the court, plaintiff's counsel appropriately recognizes their missteps and offers to take measures to ameliorate the harm to residents."
The court also determined it wasn't necessary to preclude the evidence of the test, as the error in judgment wasn't made in bad faith, or with intention to harm the community. He further noted there was no apparent prejudice to the defendants, and that precluding the evidence would have misplaced effects, by benefiting the defense counsel and penalizing Hicks.
Hicks' attorney, Amelia Green of Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger, in New York, and the defendants' attorney, Danielle E. Walsh of the city of Philadelphia law department, did not immediately respond to requests for comment."
The entire story can be read at:
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. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
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!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
