Posted on 02/03/2009 7:30:23 AM PST by joeu01
Judge throws out $2 million worth of drugs, gun as evidence in case against Springfield man called 'big fish' drug trafficker
SPRINGFIELD - Saying the actions of a veteran state trooper and a Holyoke police detective amounted to "lawlessness," a judge has refused to allow close to $2 million worth of cocaine and a loaded handgun to be used as evidence to prosecute a Springfield man described as a "big fish" in drug trafficking.
The ruling by in Hampden Superior Court marks the third time in a month that judges have thrown out evidence in cases being prosecuted by the office of Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett with conclusions that they didn't believe the testimony of police officers.
The previous two rulings involved testimony by Springfield police officers.
William M. Bennett It also marks the second case in the past two years in which Moriarty has raised questions about the credibility of Holyoke detective Paul C. Barkyoumb, a 13-year member of the force who has been involved in some of his department's major narcotics investigations over the past decade.
In reference to the recent case, Bennett said Monday, "The judge is dead wrong. The officers told the truth.
"We stand behind the investigation and the officers involved," Bennett said. "We will do all we can to appeal this unjust result.
"The police did a fabulous job in this case. It is frustrating to see all their hard work go down the drain," he said.
Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott said he would not comment until he had seen a copy of the ruling.
Paul C. Barkyoumb Brockton lawyer Joseph F. Krowski, who represents Jimmy Roman-Rosario, 41, filed a motion challenging the search warrant.
"It's extremely important for the judiciary to recognize that the integrity of the system has to be protected," Krowski said. "The integrity of the system has been protected in this case."
Krowski, who was assisted in the case by defense investigator Rich Williams, said he does not believe there is any issue in the decision that could be appealed.
In early 2007, Moriarty excluded evidence in a cocaine trafficking case against Luis Lopez and Juan Pagan, and the state Supreme Judicial Court upheld Moriarty's decision.
In the ruling in the Pagan and Lopez case, Moriarty, chiefly citing inconsistencies in Barkyoumb's testimony and sections of it which he did not believe, said there was no probable cause to search the defendants' vehicle.
In a 20-page ruling filed Friday in the case against Rosario, of Springfield, Moriarty said his conclusion "yields a regrettable but necessary result" - elimination of the drugs and gun as evidence - in the prosecution of "an apparent major narcotics trafficker."
Daniel J. Soto He cited the famous words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis from a 1928 case involving illegal search and seizure in which Brandeis wrote: "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Barkyoumb had "demonstrated an unhesitating willingness to offer false testimony," Moriarty wrote. And, Trooper Daniel Soto, a member of the Hampden Narcotics Task Force, "both deliberately and purposefully misrepresented and omitted material facts" in the sworn affidavit that he submitted to secure a District Court search warrant for Rosario's home on Putnam Circle in August 2006, according to the ruling.
It was at the Putnam Circle home that a team of state and city narcotics officers seized 38.5 pounds - or 17.5 kilograms - of cocaine with an estimated street value of $1.7 million and a loaded, .357-caliber handgun.
Bennett acknowledged that if the appeal is not successful, without the evidence there is no case against Rosario. He said that Moriarty's ruling will have no effect on past, present or future cases in which Barkyoumb and Soto are involved.
RELATED LINKS Jan. 19: Judge does not believe officer, throws out evidence Jan. 6: Narcotics evidence tossed for unlawful search The search came after Holyoke police conducted surveillance of drug sales in their city and Barkyoumb and Soto took into custody a suspect, Eugenio Negron, on Aug. 17, 2006. Negron told officers he bought drugs from Rosario.
"This foisting of falsehoods, subscribed to under oath, by a law enforcement officer upon a neutral and detached magistrate in an affidavit filed in support of an application for a warrant to search a private dwelling is precisely the type of egregious conduct that has been the target of the exclusionary rule since its inception," Moriarty wrote.
Moriarty said he believes Barkyoumb fabricated a story about surveilling Negron from Holyoke to Rosario's Springfield apartment. The surveillance was used to get the search warrant for Rosario's apartment.
It was Barkyoumb who initiated the investigation that led to Rosario's arrest, according to the ruling. Barkyoumb used information from an informant - "cooperating individual" - to track reported sales of crack cocaine by Negron to dealers on Newton Street. In the week prior to the arrests, several undercover purchases of cocaine were made before a search warrant was obtained for an apartment at 74 Newton St., the ruling explains.
Negron was taken into custody as he attempted to flee the scene where he had been due to deliver a quantity of drugs and was taken to the Holyoke police station where he was questioned for several hours by Barkyoumb and Soto, Moriarty wrote.
According to police, Negron said he had cocaine between his buttocks, and police said they retrieved it.
Hours of testimony at the hearings were devoted to following the path of that cocaine and asking why Negron was only booked for disorderly conduct.
Testimony was that Negron was not booked on drug charges because he gave good information about Rosario.
"While the Holyoke Police Department had in effect at all pertinent times a written policy regarding the handling of evidence, Barkyoumb violated this policy at least in respect to the evidence taken from Negron's person on Aug. 17, 2006," Moriarty wrote.
"There is no record verifying any quantity of crack cocaine was recovered from Negron on that day," Moriarty said.
Barkyoumb testified that 50 grams was seized from Negron.
Moriarty said he did not believe 50 grams was taken from Negron but he believes some amount was taken.
Rosario was arrested on Aug. 17, 2006, at the Putnam Circle address and charged with trafficking cocaine in the amount of over 200 grams, violation of a drug free school zone, and unlawful possession of a gun and ammunition.
Lengthy hearings were held in front of Moriarty on four dates in September and December. Krowski asked hours of questions to officers about what they did and in some cases, why there were no records to support what they said.
In the December hearing, Moriarty asked Barkyoumb if he should stop the hearing so Barkyoumb could get a lawyer.
When Barkyoumb declined, Moriarty asked Barkyoumb if he wished the court to appoint him a lawyer for the proceedings before he continued testifying. Barkyoumb said he would keep testifying without a lawyer.
Soto wrote that Negron was followed by surveillance officers to Springfield where he made several stops, including 50 Putnam Circle.
"I am convinced that, by the preponderant evidence, Negron did not travel to 50 Putnam Circle to purchase crack cocaine from Rosario on Aug. 17, 2006, between 5:30 and 6 p.m.," Moriarty wrote.
He said he found the trip and surveillance reported on Soto's affidavit "a fiction."
Sgt. John T. Michael, head of the Hampden County Narcotics Task Force, referred questions about Moriarty's findings about Soto to Bennett.
Two other recent rulings, one each by Hampden Superior Court Judges Constance M. Sweeney and Judd J. Carhart have thrown out evidence in drug cases, with judges saying they did not believe Springfield police.
Asked how his office can address these situations dealing with police credibility, Bennett said the cases of Rosario and the other two recent rulings are all different and he just wanted to speak about Rosario's case.
The Judge.
Judge and criminal.
The Judge: the cops should never be allowed to break the law when enforcing the law. Eternal vigilance against government is a necessity in a free society.
The judge - not the police.
Having dealt with narco-cops as a third-party, I believe the judge and the criminal over them.
Never seen a more corrupt bunch of thugs in my life -— future Obama Gestapo members, no doubt.
I don’t know who to believe. However, I now know how the term crack cocaine was derived.
One more case that would turn out differently if jurors really knew their rights.
The police are ADDICTED to the “War on Drugs”.
There.
I said it.
You just gotta LOVE that ol’ War on Drugs!
Good one!!
Allow the illegally obtained evidence ...
If and ONLY if all parties to obtaining it first plead guilty to FELONY charges for the illegal part of obtaining it ... and do the same amount of time as the criminal who was convicted based on the illegally obtained evidence.
According to police, Negron said he had cocaine between his buttocks, and police said they retrieved it.
Barkyoumb testified that 50 grams was seized from Negron.
OMG!!! 50 grams? Almost 2 ounces? His butt had to be as big as Michele Obama’s
Sounds like the Judge got his ‘cut’.
The fact that the drugs went missing while in police custody speaks volumes about the veracity of the officers involved.
NOT!
Once you get a rep, deserved or not, for lying to a judge it's time to leave Law Enforcement and get into a new line of work, like, say, Democrat politician.
So I wonder if there was a "civil forfeiture", and if they still get to keep the dude's stuff.
Well, thank God Mr Rosario will get his $2mil in coke and his .357 back. There is some justice in this world after all.
I belive the cops
Really? even after the drugs went missing while in police custody?
Hang all drug dealers
Buying judges must be cheap these days.
No record, makes it tough to believe the cops.
With 50 grams being involved, how come no DA was called in?
"There is no record verifying any quantity of crack cocaine was recovered from Negron on that day," Moriarty said.I belive the copsBarkyoumb testified that 50 grams was seized from Negron.
Hang all drug dealers
They are either lying about finding it, or kept it off the books for purposes of recycling. Which is it? Go.
This whole case stinks to high heaven, The Judge as far as I can tell got it right, except that All the Officers and the DA should have already been arrested and awaiting trial for Conspiracy. Any person that Believes A Police Officer is a FOOL. Police are for the Most CORRUPT group of people I have ever met. Lawyers ara a Close second.
Eyeamok
Couldn’t care less what happens in the sh*t-hole known as Massachusettes.
I doubt that the judge is bought off. Seriously, while most police are honest decent people doing God’s work, there are more than a few of them that don’t mind lying under oath while giving testimony or to get a search warrant.
I had an officer three weeks ago testify that a suspect that was locked in his cruiser, handcuffed behind his back, was free to go and not in custody or detained. Please.
Cops are human just like we all are. They don’t like having to follow the rules when the are doing what they see as a greater good by fibbing to make a bust.
But, if we don’t insist on the police following the rules in their work we are really going down a slippery slope.
Judges generally bend over backwards not to let a crook go when the cops screw up. But, sometimes its just too blatant to ignore.
So how did this guy get nailed with $2M worth of drugs if he had no connection to them?
Get real....this isn’t Iran or Saudi Arabia!
Perhaps. I read somewhere that, compared to the general population, a cop is three times as likely to be convicted of a felony at some time in their life.
Certainly they are exposed to plenty of easy opportunities, but I'm not sure elected officials don't beat them.
The point isn’t that the suspect isn’t guilty. It’s that the cops apparently lied to make an illegal bust because they did not have the evidence to make a legal bust.
You are saying the ends justify the means. I disagree.
By the time Obama and his Democratic homies in Kongress finish with the country you won't be able to tell the difference except that the standard of living will be a lot higher in Saudi Arabia.
but I’m not sure elected officials don’t beat them,,
submitted and accepted, the Jury is still out.
those that can do, those that can’t go into Government.
Eyeamok
Mark Twain said that Congress was America's only native criminal class.
Where did all the coke come from that that they found on him? Was it the perps or was it planted?
Yeah to you crazy Ron Paulite libertarians this city/state team planted all that cocaine on him
Every member was corrupt
You are saying the ends justify the means. I disagree.
For a major cocaine dealer?
Do I care if his right are violated?
Not in a million years
My only regret is he didn't pull his gun and get shot dead
Get real....this isn’t Iran or Saudi Arabia!.................
Hang ‘em high baby!!!
And for meth dealers my preferred mode of execution (after a trial) would be injection of a meth overdose
LOL
That being said, they want to let these guys go.
But want to bust Michael Phelps with no physical evidence.
I’m saying if you bave $2M worth of blow, you should do some time. A paid off judge shouldn’t be making the decision to let you walk.
It’s madness to let such a large coke dealer slide
An update on this story:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/holyokeschief_scott.html?category=Crime+category=Holyoke
Holyoke Police Chief Anthony Scott defends officers in wake of court ruling that accused them of lying
by The Republican Newsroom
Tuesday February 03, 2009, 2:17 PM
By STEPHANIE BARRY
sbarry@repub.com
HOLYOKE - Police Chief Anthony R. Scott threw his support behind a Holyoke detective and state trooper targeted in a stinging court ruling that resulted in $2 million in cocaine and a loaded handgun to be thrown out of a criminal case.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II essentially gutted the district attorney’s case against Jimmy Roman-Rosario, who Moriarty called “an apparent major narcotics trafficker” and Scott on Tuesday labeled “a dirtbag.”
Rosario, 41, was charged with cocaine trafficking and illegal gun possession after his arrest in August 2006. Investigators searched the defendant’s 50 Putnam Circle home in Springfield after an informant said Rosario, known as “Fat Back,” dealt large amounts of drugs.
Based on a motion by the defense to suppress the evidence and a series of pretrial hearings, Moriarty skewered the credibility of Holyoke Detective Paul C. Barkyoumb in a 20-page ruling filed Friday in Hampden Superior Court. The judge said Barkyoumb lied on the witness stand about the investigative steps leading up to the search of Rosario’s home.
“He has, unfortunately, demonstrated an unhesitating willingness to offer false testimony before the Court,” Moriarty wrote.
Scott assailed the ruling on Tuesday, telling reporters during a press conference at police headquarters that investigators should enjoy far more credibility than an accused drug trafficker.
“Detective Barkyoumb is very upset. When your credibility is called into question against a dirtbag like Rosario, I would be upset, too,” Scott said.
According to court records, investigators recovered 38 pounds of cocaine and a loaded gun from Rosario’s home during the search. The drugs had a street value of about $2 million, police said.
The judge also wrote that he concluded Trooper Daniel H. Soto deliberately manipulated facts in a sworn statement drafted to gain the warrant to search Rosario’s home. Moriarty called into question key elements of the criminal investigation - including whether and when police surveillance actually took place before the search.
“Soto knew there was no surveillance of (informant Eugenio Negron)” to Rosario’s home in Springfield, the judge wrote. “In fact, I found (Soto’s) memory to be selective.”
Moriarty also stated in his decision that what he ruled were fatal flaws in the police investigation may have set a drug dealer free.
“My conclusion ... yields a regrettable but necessary result,” Moriarty said in his decision. “Regrettable because evidence in the form of 17.5 kilograms of cocaine and a loaded handgun obtained against an apparent major narcotics trafficker must be suppressed.”
Scott said Hampden County District Attorney William M. Bennett is exploring an appeal of the decision, and federal investigators are mulling whether they can take the case over in the wake of the ruling.
Neither Bennett nor federal prosecutors in Springfield could immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday.
Moriarty, a former Holyoke defense lawyer, also attacked Barkyoumb’s testimony in a 2007 criminal case. He similarly threw out evidence seized during a motor vehicle search because he did not believe the detective’s story. That ruling was upheld by the state Supreme Judicial Court.
More details in The Republican tomorrow.
"Now there's your problem"
They'll get him the next time around if he keeps dealing. The cops are going to go out of their way to nail this guy now. That's just the way it works. Almost all these suppression motions fail. The cops really have to screw up bad for one to be granted. When one is granted and it results in a person getting off the cops go after him with a vengeance, especially if it's a big case that got thrown out.
On another note, it sounds like this officer has had credibility problems in the past besides just this time and he may need to be in a different line of work.
Why do you keep saying the judge was paid off? This officer has apparently had suppression motions granted in his cases before because his testimony wasn't believable. Suppression motions are rarely granted though. Almost all of them fail. The officers have to really screw up bad before one will be granted. It sounds like this guy really screwed up and may need to be in a different line of work. Had he have done his job right this drug dealer would be going to prison for a long time.
The drugs were taken off the street though. The cops are going to go after this joker with a vengeance now and if he keeps dealing he's going to get nailed. And even if he had have gone to prison this time it wouldn't have made that big of a difference because no one would have done without their drugs. Somebody else would have sold the drugs to the people that would have gotten them from him. Drug dealers are a dime a dozen. He was moving pretty big weight but there are plenty of others out there doing the same thing who would gladly supply the people he was supplying. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a lick of difference if a drug dealer gets off. Locking him up wouldn't have made cocaine any more expensive or hard to find in his area. Taking 38 pounds off the market probably inconvenienced a few people in the immediate area for a day or too, but that's about it.
Judges are very liberal in Massachusetts. In this case I could care less if the police didn’t get all the evidence rules 100% correct
This drug pusher will leave town free as a bird. Would you stick around?. A new community will be plagued by him
Drug dealers are a dime a dozen. We lock them up all the time and drugs are as cheap and available as ever. If it was a serial rapist or someone like that that got let off, I’d be a lot more concerned. Lock up a drug dealer and everyone who would have bought drugs from him will just buy from someone else. Lock up a serial rapist or even just a thief, and we prevent a lot of people from being victimized in the future.
That’s why I say kill ‘em all, hang ‘em high (drug dealers)
“That’s why I say kill ‘em all, hang ‘em high (drug dealers)”
That’s what we should have done during alcohol Prohibition, just killed anyone we caught selling any amount of of an alcoholic beverage. Wouldn’t we be a great country now if we had have done that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.