Former state trooper Brian Encina's not guilty plea this week in the aftermath of the Sandra Bland tragedy generated many headlines. But a story out of Dallas by the inestimable Tanya Eiserer at WFAA deserves scrutiny, too, as it's closer to the (unwritten) rule whereas the attention focused on the Bland case has been a remarkable and unexpected exception.
An internal affairs investigation found that DPD Sgt. Stephen Baker gave "false testimony" on the stand in a DWI case in February 2015, but perjury charges were never filed. A judge declared his testimony wasn't credible and ordered a directed verdict of "not guilty." The prosecutor in the case wrote in a memo that Baker was so “focused on not backing down he basically perjured himself on the stand.” Since then, "Baker has been on administrative leave since March 2015, collecting his $83,000 annual salary." That's some punishment!
Eiserer reported that "Shortly after making the ... arrest, Baker was put into a special
monitoring program for troubled officers. Despite that troubled
disciplinary history, Baker was promoted to sergeant several years ago.
That boost in rank was given even though an interview board had
unanimously recommended that Baker not be promoted, based on his
disciplinary history and work history."
Encina's behavior received international scrutiny, while Baker's flew under the radar. But what happened to Baker is a more typical outcome when perjury allegations arise against police officers: The behavior is too often excused and overlooked by their peers and supervisors, in this case giving him a year's worth of paid vacation when he should have been fired soon after he got off the witness stand. Once prosecutors begin opining to one another that an officer "basically perjured himself," he won't be of much use in proving criminal cases against future defendants going forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
23 comments:
Look, I don't like perjury either, and it would be unfortunate if this guy could work as a policeman again. But your call for a perjury prosecution seems a bit naive. I certainly don't want a system where a witness is exposed to a perjury indictment everytime a factfinder in court doesn't believe him. Or some misdemeanor prosecutor assumes he was lying.
Re-read, I didn't "call for perjury prosecution." I lamented that such "behavior is too often excused and overlooked by their peers and supervisors." I think he shouldn't be a cop and should have been fired outright a year ago. And while I contrasted the case with Encina's, I didn't call for him to get the same treatment.
That said, the main difference between the cases is the publicity surrounding Encina and it's a fair question why it takes that sort of outcry for folks to be held accountable. One notices it didn't take NEARLY that long for Encina to be fired.
"...That dashcam video was played over and over for [Sgt.]Baker. Baker repeatedly insisted that Salazar ran the red light, refusing to acknowledge his error..."
"...At one point, Baker said his light turned from green to yellow as he approached the intersection. The video shows his light was red the entire time..."
Are you kidding me? In the face of video proof, the cop still thinks that the perp ran a red light? What if this was, instead, a cop-induced murder?
And why would a Prosecutor still follow through with a trial knowing that the video evidence existed, and knowing that the cop produced a fraudulent police report? The charges should have been dropped. Malicious prosecution much, Dallas? This ADA should be fired also.
I didn't mean to try to read your mind about prosecution. It's just that when you wrote, "but perjury charges were never filed," I assumed that was kind of an expression of distaste. Perhaps I was wrong.
Ah, I can see where you would read that into it, 1:26, no worries. That was intended as descriptive, to contrast the case with Encina's. I basically agree with what you said in your first comment.
Lauren Haggerty was the Dallas Prosecutor. She saw the video twice with the officer, knew his story was false, yet still went forward with trial.
Someone should read and explain the "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" to her, as she clearly skipped class that day (Loyola University New Orleans).
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions - A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous..
The People of Dallas can all thank Lauren for wasting taxpayer time and money!
"Once prosecutors begin opining to one another that an officer "basically perjured himself," he won't be of much use in proving criminal cases against future defendants going forward."
You could say the same thing about Prosecutors who know their witnesses are liars, but put them on the stand anyway. Can we impeach the credibility of a Prosecutor?
Xenonman. It is disturbing that you suggest this female prosecutor was "lying on her back" when she missed class. Jeez. Bet you wouldn't say such a thing about an unethical make prosecutor.
Agreed, Alice, Yuck. Just saw this. Will leave it since you responded to it but otherwise would have deleted it on sight. Sorry I didn't get here quicker.
There are commenters on Grits some days who significantly contribute to my own knowledge and the clarification of my thinking and make the process seem worthwhile. And there are some, like that one, who make me wonder why I allow reader comments at all.
Then someone needs to file an grievance against this ADA Lauren Haggerty with the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. Without someone filing a complaint and anyone can file one, they have no authority to move forward with an investigation of her actions. If found true, they will take action against her and it will be up to a disciplinary panel, Judge or a Jury to decide her punishment depending on which she chooses.
http://cdc.texasbar.com/cdc/Home/Index
Someone just needs to fill it out and send it in.
Calling for perjury prosecution?
In my opinion any cop who gets caught in lies should be executed. Period.
Think about the hundreds or even thousands of times he lied and destroyed the lives of not only those arrested but their entire families as well.
If we are to end this type of corruption three things must occur.
1) Execute.
2) Imprison their family members for life at hard labor.
3) Confiscate their assets.
Disagree all you want, but the fact is it will not ever end until these things are done.
Grits,
You're the boss of your page (which I enjoy greatly). However, despite Alice responding, I would still urge you to delete the comment. It doesn't advance the discussion, it's a personal attack and reflects poorly on this page.
thanks for all you do,
Walt
You're right, Walt, done.
@8:14, Seriously, The State Bar will do something?
And if you pull this leg, it plays Jingle Bells.
The State Bar is about as impotent as my 95-year old grandpa (but my grandpa is still honest and ethical).
The greatest penalty that this attorney will suffer is the degrading comments on this blog.
Dallas District Attorney Susan Hawk should be leading the way, demonstrating to her electorate that she has control over her runaway ethically vacuous ADAs.
County Commissioners, you awake?
And the Internal Affairs of Dallas...really, do we have to explain how to do your job?
What's disturbing about this story is that it's one of the rare cases where the police and prosecutor conspire to break the law that was brought to light, but how many more go unnoticed? This is far from an isolated incident, and I would be willing to bet that it's happening more often than it isn't.
Grits, whatsyer problem with all this ??
"Shortly after making the ... arrest, Baker was put into a special monitoring program for troubled officers. Despite that troubled disciplinary history, Baker was promoted to sergeant several years ago. That boost in rank was given even though an interview board had unanimously recommended that Baker not be promoted, based on his disciplinary history and work history."
Screw up, get promoted. Sounds like another good police operation.
2:27
Rare!
The police and Prosecutors are one of the same. Prosecutors are head hunters generating money for their oligarchy by any means. Smith county is the example of generations of nepotism of injustice judges, DA's and police.
Re 9:37-
Same goes for forensic scientists. Jonathan Salvador was also promoted, given raises.
As usual, accountability is tossed out along with proper oversight.
Maybe 9:17 was onto something. "The Secret In Their Eyes".
Generally about the only time that a State Bar will act is if the attorney has been misusing client trust funds.
Okay, let me set the record straight for some of you. Police officers can't shoulder the entire blame for lying. When promotions and the salary increases which go along with them, the system must share the blame. Same goes with prosecutors, who in some places get a 3 day weekend, a fancy dinner for two, or even a gold coin for gaining the most felony convictions a month. This is in addition to promotions and salary increases.
The Texas State Bar has yet to do anything about the unethical Attorneys Seth Kretz and James Volberding who gave up on their client Raphael Holiday, blocked their client from obtaining new lawyers, and sped up his execution.
Do you expect them to do anything about a prosecutor who lies about a simple DWI case?
I've read of cases in TX courts where attorneys sleeping at trial and using cocaine on duty were both held to NOT constitute "ineffective assistance of counsel" !
Anonymous said
"Police officers can't shoulder the entire blame for lying. When promotions and the salary increases which go along with them, the system must share the blame." [sic]
To suggest that an individual wasn't responsible for what he did (except if NCR) is a dead-up loser. I'd agree the system shares some of the blame, but the responsibility goes to the actor. Just following orders (or just getting along) went out as a defense 70 years ago. So many cops work within the bounds of reasonable conduct that it is hard not to appreciate and respect them and the job they do. The bad apples, however (and yes, they are unpoliced by the system), make it all the worse for them. But it -- responsibility -- is on the bad apples, not the system which lets them think they can get away with, well, murder in some instances.
Post a Comment