Confusion, Doubt in Police Brutality Case

View Comments (
)
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    Michael Mineo.

    It's jury tampering -- by the jury.

    The jurors in the Michael Mineo police-brutality case was incorrectly told Thursday by another juror that an officer charged in the case,
    Richard Kern, had been either prosecuted or convicted of two other brutality cases.

    There have been two civilian complaints made against Kern, but he was exonerated both times.

    Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Alan Marrus told jurors the information was false and is now considering removing the juror from the case. Justice Marrus and attorneys from both sides interviewed the juror, who said the information would not effect her decision in the trial.

    The information came on the second day of deliberations, which have been delayed as the jury asked to inspect physical evidence, sought a definition of "reasonable doubt", and twice requested readbacks of statements. 

    Meanwhile, Lack of convincing medical evidence, as well as a history of juries siding with police in brutality cases, may guarantee an acquittal of the three officers charged.

    Experts say Mineo's case is reminiscent of Abner Louima's case, who spent two months in the hospital for injuries suffered after he was sodomized at the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn in 1997.  

    Mineo's injuries, however, are not as serious as Louima's. Doctors who treated Mineo maintain that his injuries were consistent with his claims, but, doctors for the defense said they weren't plausible because had he been assaulted with the baton his injuries would've been worse — or at least more obvious.