QUOTE OF THE DAY: "This month, during a three-week civil trial in federal court, Hicks and his attorneys laid out what they called a “series of escalating, sloppy lies” by police, including their contention that officers lied about seeing Hicks rape the victim, then planted a gun on him after shooting him — all to help justify their use of force. The officers “didn’t think Mr. Hicks would live [or] that all of this would follow. And then they were stuck,” said Emma Freudenberger, one of Hicks’ lawyers. “They chose to protect themselves. And the consequences were unimaginable.”
—————————————
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Hicks was charged with the rape shortly after it happened. More than a year later, he was convicted and sentenced to up to 25 years behind bars. In 2020, however, District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office said new evidence showed that Hicks had been shot in the back, not the front, as police had said. And prosecutors said the officers’ version of events contained other inconsistencies that “appear[ed] to stem from” Vinson’s desire to justify his decision to shoot. Hicks was exonerated and released from prison after 19 years."
———————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The award for Hicks came about 18 months after another federal jury awarded $16 million to a Philadelphia man who spent 25 years on death row before he was released from prison. That payout — the largest for an overturned conviction in city history — remains pending as the city solicitor’s office appeals. Still, the verdict in that case and Hicks’ have added to a growing number of police misconduct lawsuits that have cost the city, and ultimately its taxpayers, tens of millions of dollars to resolve in recent years, through either trials or settlements."
-------------------------------------
STORY: "A federal jury found that Philly police built a faulty rape case against a man an officer had shot in the back" by Reporter Chris Palmer, published by The Philadelphia Inquirer, on August 27, 2025. (Chris Palmer covers federal courts and law enforcement in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties, with a focus on white-collar crime, public corruption, and other news at the intersection of law and politics.)
SUB-HEADING: "The panel awarded Termaine Hicks $3 million, finding that he hadn't committed the rape police had accused him of in 2001."
GIST: "A federal jury on Wednesday awarded $3 million to a Philadelphia man whose rape conviction was overturned five years ago — a striking verdict in which the panel effectively endorsed Termaine Hicks’ assertion that police had framed him for the crime after mistakenly shooting him in the back while he was acting as a Good Samaritan.
Hicks has always insisted he was innocent of the sexual assault that occurred in a South Philadelphia alleyway in 2001. In the decades since, he has maintained that he heard a woman screaming that morning and approached her to try to offer help.
When officers arrived at the scene, he said, they mistook him for the attacker, shot him, then fabricated a case against him when they realized their shooting was not justified. He was later convicted of rape and imprisoned.
The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office in 2020 agreed that Hicks’ conviction was riddled with “factual inaccuracies, discrepancies, and inconsistencies.” Prosecutors helped persuade a judge to throw the case out, freeing Hicks after 19 years behind bars.
This month, during a three-week civil trial in federal court, Hicks and his attorneys laid out what they called a “series of escalating, sloppy lies” by police, including their contention that officers lied about seeing Hicks rape the victim, then planted a gun on him after shooting him — all to help justify their use of force.
The officers “didn’t think Mr. Hicks would live [or] that all of this would follow. And then they were stuck,” said Emma Freudenberger, one of Hicks’ lawyers. “They chose to protect themselves. And the consequences were unimaginable.”
Attorneys for the five officers that Hicks took to trial — four of whom are no longer on the force — argued that Hicks was not actually innocent. They insisted that he was the rapist, said he had been unjustly freed from prison, and described his allegations of a cover-up as a “wildly far-fetched conspiracy more fit for TV than in a courtroom.”
Deputy City Solicitor Raymond Escobar told the jury it would be “infinitely complicated and exceptionally evil” for multiple police officers and a rape victim to knowingly frame an innocent man.
But the jurors sided with Hicks — and in unusually definitive fashion. In a supplemental question they were asked before adjourning, members were polled on whether they believed Hicks had committed the rape.
“No,” the foreperson said, speaking on behalf of a unanimous panel.
The award for Hicks came about 18 months after another federal jury awarded $16 million to a Philadelphia man who spent 25 years on death row before he was released from prison. That payout — the largest for an overturned conviction in city history — remains pending as the city solicitor’s office appeals.
Still, the verdict in that case and Hicks’ have added to a growing number of police misconduct lawsuits that have cost the city, and ultimately its taxpayers, tens of millions of dollars to resolve in recent years, through either trials or settlements.
Four of the officers Hicks sued — Martin Vinson, Robert Ellis, Arthur Campbell, and Dennis Zungolo — testified during the trial and defended their conduct, saying that they followed the evidence during the investigation, and that it all pointed to Hicks as the perpetrator.
Zungolo is the only officer still working for the department, a police spokesperson said. The fifth officer included in the suit, Brian Smith, is now deceased.
Attorneys for the city and the officers declined to comment while leaving the courthouse. A spokesperson for the Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ava Schwemler, a spokesperson for the city’s law department, said the city was “reviewing its options.”
Jurors in the case said in an interview afterward that they found the police officers’ testimony inconsistent and unconvincing.
“I think a lot of evidence pointed toward” Hicks’ version of events, said panel member Emily Violante, 22.
Hicks, meanwhile, said he felt vindicated.
“It’s finally over,” he said. “This chapter is officially over.”
The incident began around 5 a.m. on Nov. 27, 2001, when a man pistol-whipped a woman near 15th and Mifflin Streets, then dragged her into an alley behind St. Agnes Hospital and raped her.
Neighbors called 911 after hearing the woman’s screams. And Hicks testified this month that he had been walking to a corner store at the time, but that he sought to find the woman to offer aid after hearing the cries for help.
Shortly after he encountered the victim, Hicks said, he heard officers — later identified as Vinson and Zungolo — behind him. They yelled at him to put his hands up, he said, and when he moved one hand in his jacket pocket, which he had been using to hold a cell phone, Vinson fired three shots into Hicks’ back.
Hicks collapsed onto the rape victim, and both were taken to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital.
The victim has consistently testified that she could not identify her attacker, and did so again at Hicks’ trial this month. (The Inquirer does not identify sexual assault victims without their permission.)
She did say she was dragged into the alley by the same man police shot — something city lawyers argued was proof that Hicks was her rapist. Hicks’ attorneys, meanwhile, said that evidence showed she had lost consciousness, and that her accounts of the attack were understandably hazy due to the trauma and anguish of being beaten and sexually assaulted.
After the shooting, Vinson said he shot at Hicks because he saw Hicks reaching for a gun and lunging toward him. And police said they found a handgun on Hicks while securing the scene.
Hicks, however, insisted he was unarmed at the time. And his lawyers accused Vinson and fellow officers of quickly recognizing that the shooting was unjustified, then working to concoct a cover story that would shift blame onto Hicks.
As part of that, the lawyers accused police of planting a gun on Hicks — one that had been the personal firearm of another city police officer. That officer was not involved in the investigation of the rape, and Hicks’ attorneys acknowledged they could not explain how the officers investigating the crime could have managed to get the weapon to the crime scene.
Still, Amelia Green, one of Hicks’ attorneys, said police were steadfast in working to protect themselves — and didn’t care if they had to do so at Hicks’ expense.
“The answer in this situation was crystal clear: ‘We protect ourselves and our fellow officers, and when we do, the department has our back,’” Green said.
Hicks was charged with the rape shortly after it happened. More than a year later, he was convicted and sentenced to up to 25 years behind bars.
In 2020, however, District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office said new evidence showed that Hicks had been shot in the back, not the front, as police had said. And prosecutors said the officers’ version of events contained other inconsistencies that “appear[ed] to stem from” Vinson’s desire to justify his decision to shoot.
Hicks was exonerated and released from prison after 19 years.
In the years since his arrest, Hicks has written screenplays and poetry, founded a nonprofit while seeking to mentor young people, and, since his release from prison, has worked to make up lost time with his son, who was 4 when he was arrested.
During the trial, one of Hicks’ attorneys asked if being free for the last five years felt the same as he had envisioned during his two decades as a prisoner.
“No,” Hicks said. “It’s much better.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.inquirer.com/crime/termaine-hicks-philly-police-exonerated-rape-trial-20250827.html
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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
