Ronald Pondexter - Mistaken ID / Perjury / False Accusation

Pondexter, Ronald; murder; NRE: mistaken witness identification, perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

[645:759]; Court of Appeals 6/13/96; reversed, due to trial Court's refusal to explore whether subsequently privately recanting witness had essentially refused to (re-)testify

"[Pondexter's] murder conviction after jury trial arose out of a botched robbery committed by him [???] and an accomplice. After the two stole money at gunpoint from the two male victims, [Pondexter] shot and killed one of the men when the victim refused to give [him] his house keys. The other victim survived and testified, as did a second witness, Sharon Valdez, who claimed at trial to have seen the entire incident from her window overlooking the street.

"During [jury selection], the Judge asked [Pondexter] if he wished to waive his right to be present at sidebars. [Pondexter], through counsel, initially indicated that he wanted to be present. The [Judge] then stated that, 'if he's brought up to the bench there'll be a number of court officers surrounding him at all times.'* Defense counsel suggested that the Court instead 'send the jury out,' but the Trial Judge replied that 'I can't send 60 people out every time somebody wants to come up to me.' After discussing the case further with his lawyer, [he] signed a written waiver."

[* There is no indication in the record of what basis/justification this judge would have had for making such an assertion; thus, pro-prosecution bias seems to have been at play here.]

"The day after Valdez testified and was cross-examined, defense counsel told the court in camera [i.e., privately, in the judge's chambers] that he had spoken to Valdez...after her testimony. Valdez told defense counsel privately -- in sharp contrast to her incriminating testimony against [Pondexter] -- that she had been asleep on the night of the incident, and did not see anything that occurred ...On the following day, Valdez appeared in court with a court-appointed attorney. Both her attorney and Valdez indicated that she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to any further questions.

"The trial court ruled that Valdez had a basis to assert the Fifth Amendment and denied defense cousel's request to have her assert the privilege under oath in the presence of the jury.* Defense counsel then requested that Valdez's testimony be stricken from the record. The trial court, however, denied the requested relief without comment or further inquiry."

[* Yet more evidence of judicial bias.]

"Striking a witness's testimony is 'the most drastic relief' available when a witness refuses further cross-examination under a claim of self-incrimination, and a court should only invoke it when there are no less drastic alternatives...But a trial court has an obligation to weigh the options, and the threshold inquiry and exercise were not undertaken and fulfilled here. When the court is faced with a recantation of the crux of a key witness's testimony....the court must at least explore whether the witness has essentially 'refused to testify...'"

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"In March 1992, two men were robbed at gunpoint in the vestibule of an apartment building in Brooklyn...When one of them refused to turn over his wallet and watch, the gunman shot both men. The man who resisted died. The other victim survived, but he was so drunk that he could not describe the robber.

"In April 1992, 22-year-old Ronald Pondexter was arrested and charged with second-degee murder, attempted murder, robbery and attempted robbery.

"He went on trial in Kings County...in February 1993. The surviving victim -- despite his initial claim of being unable to recall his assailant -- identified Pondexter as the gunman. The prosecution also called 19-year-old Sharon Valdez, a resident of the building where the crime occurred. She testified that she heard the gunshots and looked out her window to see Pondexter leaving the vestibule with a gun in his hand.

"In Pondexter's defense, attorney Michel Baum called Valdez's mother, Shirley Hudson, who testified that she was awakened by the gunshots and went to check on her children -- as she always did when she heard gunfire. Hudson testified that Sharon was asleep in her bed.

"Before the case was concluded, Valdez reached out to Baum and said she had lied -- that in fact she had not seen Pondexter. Valdez said that Detective Louis Scarcella had shown her Pondexter's photograph and persuaded her that he was the gunman and coerced her to identify Pondexter.

"Baum sought to call Valdez to the witness stand to recant her testimony in court. The judge apointed an attorney for Valdez and when she came to court, she said she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to any questions. Baum asked that Valdez be required to assert the privilege in front of the jury, but the motion was denied. The judge also denied Baum's request that Valdez's testimony identifying Pondexter be stricken from the record.

"On February 24, 1993, the jury convicted Pondexter of all the charges and he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

"In June 1996, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial. The appeals court held that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper inquiry to determine whether Valdez's testimony should be stricken in light of her refusal to answer questions about her recantation.

"'When the court is faced with a recantation of the crux of a key witness's testimony under the circumstances as they evolved in this case, the court must at least explore whether that witness had essentially "refused to testify on questions of matters so closely related to the commission of the crime that the entire testimony of the witness should be stricken,"' the Court of Appeals held -- but no such inquiry was conducted.

"In May 1997, Pondexter went on trial a second time. Valdez did not testify -- only the surviving robbery victim. A jury acquitted Pondexter and he was released.

"In March 2013, Detective Scarcella came under scrutiny for coercing false testimony from witnesses in the conviction of David Ranta, who had been wrongfully convicted of a 1990 murder in Brooklyn.

"A few months after Ranta was exonerated, The New York Times published an article accusing Scarcella, who retired in 1999, of a variety of misconduct in many investigations: fabricating evidence, coercing witnesses and concealing evidence of defendants' innocence. The article reported that one witness, Teresa Gomez, a crack addict, had testified as an eyewitness in six separate murder cases. The report prompted the Brooklyn Conviction Integrity Unit to re-investigate 57 cases in which Scarcella was involved. The inquiry was later expanded to more than 70 cases."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]