NYC--A Cop Exonerated Is Not A Cop Without Guilt

Michael Mineo lost his case against Richard Kern, the cop pictured at left.The jury deliberated for under 3 days before deciding that Mineo’s case did not defeat that of the defense. The cop defense brought out the points that Michael Mineo was a member of a street gang and smoked pot regularly. They also accentuated the facts that Richard Kern and his two fellows, Andrew Morales and Alex Cruz, accused of covering the wrongdoings of Kern, were brought up in catholic schools, were outstanding family men, and were generally good-doobees.

That caused the jury to find reasonable doubt in Mineo’s story and they decided against him. A civil suit is still pending, and will not be affected by the outcome of this trial, but even with a victory at the civil level, Richard Kern will have his life go on without change, except to say he “won”. He has been in at least two other lawsuits, one of which was dismissed, and the other settled for $50K.

Tell me, did Michael Mineo injure his own anus, resulting in an internal infection and requiring a 2-3 day stay in hospital? (Cops said Mineo had a pre-existing condition.) Did Michael Mineo secretly plant his rectum’s DNA on Richard Kern’s nightstick to make the cop look guilty of sodomy? (Cops say it isn’t explainable.) And what explains the hole in the anal area of the boxer shorts? Did Michael Mineo put it there before going out in expectation of an encounter with the police baton? (Cops say it must have been there before.) With that, the jury found reasonable doubt in Michael Mineo’s case.

There is a cloud hanging over the heads of otherwise well-meaning citizens when they enter the jury box to hear a case. Is it cop retribution? Simple gullibility in court? Could it be that cops never lie, or a belief that if citizens don’t lie for cops, the cops won’t lie for a citizen when needed? Something in jury instructions? Or is it the total failure of the citizen’s lawyer to choose from the jury pool to his client’s advantage? All wrong-headed, but all very possible.

When these cases continue to favor the police, (Louima, Bell, and others), they don’t just undermine the confidence in the police department, they don’t just undermine the confidence in the judicial system, they undermine the citizen’s confidence in fellow citizens. Cops meanwhile, further divide us from our sense of justice and the desire for equal freedom in our country. This fallout must be brought to a stop with a citizen-controlled, decision-making body with singular authority to hire and fire.

Richard Kern said he wants to

“get back on the street and do what I love to do: protect the people of Brooklyn.”

He doesn’t get any wrongdoing. It is one thing for a judge to not find wrongdoing in a legal sense, but this guy thinks there was actually nothing wrong with shoving a nightstick into Michael Mineo sufficient to cause anal injury and collect identifiable DNA on it. Does he expect to reap applause from passersby when patrolling the streets of Brooklyn from now on? “Horray Kern! You really showed that guy!” Oh, please….

His buddy, Andrew Morales, is no more in touch than he is:

“Morales, one of the officers acquitted of hindering prosecution, thanked his family for supporting him during the trial."It was very hard sitting there listening to all the lies," Morales said.””

This, coming from a person in a profession that relies heavily on lying to do daily business. Hmmm…

Out of touch. Out of contact with reality. Thinking police are above the law.

This happened because of Academy training, (“You are always right, so you must always win”), police union support, (“We are behind you, Brother, no matter what, so don’t worry”), and previous jury decisions, (“Cop lawyers will do everything to convince those fools to convict their own again. You are as good as exonerated.”). That is the cop’s explanation. What’s ours?