It amazes me that a cop would consider lying about a case. Granted, there’s not a lot of information in this post that would allow us to know what the lie was, but as a former prosecutor with the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, I understand that it must have been a pretty substantial lie or misrepresentation for the district attorney’s office. . to OFFER VOLUNTARILY to annul the conviction. Normally, a criminal defense attorney would be the one seeking to vacate a conviction, NOT the district attorney!
KXAN reported that an Austin police officer is under investigation for allegedly lying about a case that led to the criminal conviction of an Austin man.
Ernest Smith was convicted in September on drug charges, but the district attorney’s office learned something was wrong and it involved an Austin police officer. It’s unclear exactly what this officer may have lied about, but it was big enough that the district attorney did something he rarely does.
The district attorney’s office began a conversation with Smith’s defense attorney and offered to vacate his conviction based on new information. Essentially, Smith’s conviction from September will be dropped. APD and DA aren’t sharing much information with KXAN either, but we do know this… Sources say the officer lied about something in the drug case, so District Judge Bob Perkins dropped the case entirely about three months later. that Smith was convicted.
But her friends say it’s too late. That’s because Smith is still in jail on unrelated drug charges. It is also unclear how this might affect the other cases in which this accused officer is involved.
It amazes me that a cop would consider lying about a case. Granted, there’s not a lot of information in this post that would allow us to know what the lie was, but as a former prosecutor with the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, I understand that it must have been a fairly substantive lie or misrepresentation for the Travis County District Attorney’s office. district. to OFFER VOLUNTARILY to annul the conviction. Normally, a criminal defense attorney would be the one seeking to vacate a conviction, NOT the district attorney!
Now, why am I fascinated by a police officer lying in a case? Simply put, we have nothing to gain by lying. If a case is not strong enough to warrant a conviction, then the person should not be convicted. It does not reflect negatively on the officer if one of their “collars” or arrestees are not convicted, unless of course said officer is on an “ego trip” and takes the lack of conviction personally. Consider the following scenario (written in an imaginary police report):
1) The officer responds to a disturbance at an apartment complex, where a suspect is reported to be selling drugs.
2) The officer first meets with the suspect and justifiably performs a “search” or “frisk” of his outer clothing to ensure that no weapons are present that could endanger the officer.
3) The officer feels a bulge in the suspect’s pocket and, based on the officer’s “training and experience,” realizes that the substance is an illegal narcotic. Now, we have invoked the “single touch” rule… a close cousin of the “single view” rule…
4) The officer reaches into his pocket and pulls out the contraband and arrests the suspect for possession of the narcotic…
5) Valid arrest?
Any political or personal agendas aside, the above scenario is almost a textbook scenario for what happens to officers on an almost daily basis. Passed? I guarantee that somewhere in this great State of Texas there is at least one person arrested for things like this every day! Now, fast forward to the trial…
The officer testifies about the above events, but during direct questioning by the prosecutor, the officer embellishes the story a bit. In fact, the Officer says: “Yes, the Suspect resisted when I tried to handcuff him. In fact, he pushed me in the chest, and because his hand hit my sternum, it caused me pain.”
At this point, the officer has proven the elements that would justify filing an assault against a peace officer of the suspect. But is it critical to determine if the facts of the resistance were in the report? What about the bread? The injury? If not, believe me, it didn’t happen. That’s the most basic training police officers receive at an academy… write in detail and be thorough. Don’t omit facts.
So what, you may be asking, what does this do to the officer? Won’t the suspect still be convicted of drug possession, even if the resisting charge is dropped or never filed? Yes, probably… but I challenge you to consider this: “Should the suspect be convicted or should he receive a more severe punishment based on the facts now presented?”
Now I could go on for pages discussing the last question, but I won’t… I want you to think about it.
Long story short, what happened here is that the officer may have simply made a mistake by omitting the facts from the report, and if that’s what happened, that’s what he should have explained. Or he could have truthfully stated that he did not remember the details and left the case alone… but above all things, the officer must not lie about the facts of the case or enhance them with more details…
After all, what does the officer bring to the witness stand: credibility? Integrity? A will to “protect and serve”? Or is it more of a desire to “win at all costs”?
I challenge anyone reading this, especially police officers, to consider what it is they stand for and why they do the job they do… As an officer, I assure you, I care more about my credibility and integrity than a desire to ” win” a case. In the end, I don’t care if the person I arrested is convicted. For me, what counts is that I did my job and that I did not violate anyone’s rights. And as for the person I took to jail on a given shift, that person is not subhuman…they just made a mistake…or just got caught…but lying or even stretching the truth a bit. a little… that causes an entire justice system to collapse in on itself… and brings down the officer’s credibility, jeopardizing every case he’s ever touched.
In the end, I am a lawyer from Texas. I’m also a Texas police officer. And I do believe that the system works, when all parts of the system fulfill their respective roles. But I am also moved when I see that someone, taking advantage of his position or authority, loses credibility and is dismissed or sanctioned. Yes, I am a defense attorney. Yes, I’m a policeman. But first and foremost, I am an honest person who believes in doing what is right and fair under the law, and I challenge others to do the same…
