- On the other hand, there are a number of real-time indications of threats and violent conduct by the interrogators towards the respondent, and this arises mainly from the exchange between him and the informant. Thus, for example, on July 17, 1999, the day after the respondent's arrest, the following exchanges took place between him and the informant (emphases added – Y.A.):
Voiced: Under pressure. Did they beat you?
Answers: A little, not serious... For much worse. I don't... In the end... Oh, someone gave me some... on the eye, and a few blows to the chest. Not something serious. They said, "We're still fine, but if we bring you to those who are looking for you, there's where you'll eat."
And the next day, July 18, 1999:
Voicer: Are you as if you're silent now?
Answer: No. I try to talk as little as possible. You can't be silent there. I repeat what I said. There they slap here, slap there.
On 20 July 1999, during the hearing on the second extension of his detention, the court turned to the respondent and asked him whether he had been beaten by a police officer during the interrogation. The respondent's response was that there were three policemen in the room, one of whom kicked him from behind.
Five days later, on 25 July 1999, after the police confronted the respondent with statements he had made to one of the informants, the respondent returned to his cell, where another informant was waiting for him:
Speaker: How can a person sit with you for two days, you barely got to know him and you already talk to him, don't you understand?
Answer: I was excited, I was scared, I was beaten, I had to talk to someone, not that I said that much, but enough, here you issue a sentence and there a sentence...
An allegation of violence and threats by the police, which is based on the exchange between the respondent and the informants, was also raised in an appeal filed by the respondent against the District Court's decision to detain him until the end of the proceedings.
- In contrast to these words, the respondent's arguments Severe abuse experienced by the investigators, were first raised by him only in the framework of the request he submitted according to the Article 80 to the Penal Law, more than four years after the cancellation of the indictment against him. These claims were vigorously denied by the police in their testimony in the trial court. Indeed, the court found the testimony of the police officers to be unreliable on many issues related to the investigation, but refrained from establishing findings of fact regarding the allegation of violence and severe abuse.
Considering that the respondent's allegations of violence and abuse are severe deviating from his real-time statements to the informants ("Nothing serious...slap here, slap there..."); Given that he refrained from making this argument in the detention hearings; Considering that in an appeal to the Supreme Court, he claimed violence on the part of the police based solely on the statements made to the informants; In view of the fact that he did not file a complaint with the Department for the Investigation of Police in real time, and not even in the following six years, in light of all this, I do not believe that the respondent's only testimony on this point should be accepted.
- In conclusion, a shutdown Trial Court Refrains from Establishing a Factual Finding With regard to the respondent's claims of severe and cruel abuse and his compulsion to masturbate in front of the interrogators. In view of the considerable delay and the fact that these claims were first raised only about six years after the cancellation of the indictment, in the framework of the tort claim, the respondent did not lift the burden of proving his claims. On the other hand, the respondent's words that were said should be accepted informants in real time, which indicate that violence and threats were used against him by the police. This conduct is of great severity, and must be condemned in its entirety. No matter how difficult the work of the investigators, one should not accept a situation in which police beat a suspect or threaten him with violence, and there is no need to understand the consequences that may result from such conduct in everything related to revealing the truth and incriminating the innocent. The case before us illustrates where the overzealous eagerness of investigators in unraveling the affair can lead, no matter how difficult, and it is to be hoped that the lessons have been learned and will be learned by those involved in the work.
Interim Summary
- We began with the respondent's claim, and rejected the argument that the state's negligence – in presenting things incorrectly or falsely by the investigators and in the failures of the investigation – led to the respondent's detention for days and his detention until the end of the proceedings. To this end, we examined the entire corpus of evidence in real time and found that the investigative concept was reasonable and that there was no causal connection between the negligence attributed to the prosecution and the State Attorney's Office and the courts' decisions to extend the respondent's detention and detain him until the end of the proceedings. Therefore, the State's appeal on this point is to be accepted.
From there, we turned to the second head of the respondent's claim, and found that his claims that the police interrogators used violence and threats against him should be accepted, but we rejected the suppressed allegations of abuse and severe violence, and the claim that the interrogators forced the respondent to masturbate before their eyes. Therefore, the state's appeal is to be partially accepted.
- 99. We could have ended our march at this point, and turned to examining the extent of the damage. However, our work would not be complete without reference to the conduct of the police in this case, which was criticized by the trial court. As we shall see below, the improper conduct of the police has implications for the issue of compensation for the respondent and for the distinction between the proceeding conducted by the respondent in the framework of the Section 80(a) to the Penal Law and his tort claim, and I will discuss this later.
However, first, as noted, a few comments on the conduct of the police.