I have been appointed special prosecutor on a case involving a police officer who clearly lied at an out of jury hearing if the ADA had told her that she could not go into the defendant's requesting a lawyer.

She testified that the D had requested a lawyer. A hearing was held where the officer testified that the ADA had never told her anything about not mentioning request for lawyer. ADA testified that was BS and it was corroborated by two witnesses.

Mistrial granted in this aggravated sexual assault case.

I have no problem with this being "material". Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Hank Paine

You know, it has been my vast experience that attorneys AND police have been 'mistaken' in the past. I even had a witness out and out lie about my conduct (as an ADA) during a trial before. What if the officer is telling the truth, she/he doesn't remember? What if the ADA is telling the truth, she/he advised the witness, and others heard, but the officer has no recall? What if it is a wash? Do you have to choose a side? Is the agg sexual assault case a mistrial with prejudice? Of course, I believe an ADA over an officer (with very few exceptions), and you might be called to make a tough decision that both parties are telling the truth as to what they can recall.

I will just say this, you think that everything people talk about is remembered by the parties, but, historically, that is proven not to be true. It is possible that you are hearing the truth, from both sides, no matter how you dislike it? I would call it a wash unless you can absolutely prove that the officer, heard, remembered, then disregarded. That is really the test. Good Luck.

Hank,

Ineveitably, a perjury case is never open-and-shut unless you have documentation of the truth behind the lie. It is almost always going to be either a swearing match or a circumstantial proof of the lie case. I agree it is material. I also agree that with 2 witnesses to the ADA's comments, your case is a good one.

I have recently had to indict a JP in NE TExas for lying to a Grand Jury about statements he made and the reasons for them, to CPS.

I believe that those in the justice system should be held to an even higher standard for the truth in court than the lay citizen, and that the oath and the truth are beginning to become vague in the public's mind, and this trend needs to be reversed.

If you officer is mistaken in remembering a conversation that three other people distinctly remember, I believe that is what a jury is for.

The officer was indicted yesterday for Aggravated Perjury. On to the dance.

hp