Alberto Ramos - Perjury / False Accusation

Ramos, Albert(o); child sex abuse; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, child sex abuse hysteria, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

Suggestibility issues

[729:678]; 1st Dept. 8/16/01; civil suit

"The [NYPD] assigned Detective Martin Roos to investigate this matter... [H]is report did not note [two witnesses'] exculpatory statements."

N4 [20] "The prosecutor appears to have either misled or falsely argued to the jury that it was the alleged sex act by the accused that enabled the child to explain what occurred during the crime. However, undisclosed files showed the child knew about sexual contact before and acted it out before the alleged crime. Further, when the prosecution witnesses changed their stories,* the prosecutor did not inform the defense of the change and the defense could not deal with the changes because the defense did not have the [21] witnesses' prior statements. Finally, it was not disclosed to the defense that the child's own acts could have caused the injury she sustained."

[* In Nickel's case, 'Arthur' changed his stories, too.]

[25] "Mr. Ramos was charged with the sexual abuse of a child. Several exculpatory documents in the [DA's] file were never given to the defense. These documents cast doubt on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the child comlainant, her mother, grandmother, and teacher, and supported the defense contention that no act of sexual abuse occurred. These documents showed that the child masturbated, watched sexually explicit movies, and placed dolls in sexual positions -- all before the date of the alleged incident. The information rebutted the testimony about the knowledge of the child about sexual contact and explained the presence of her symptoms."

R18 [544] "Ramos was a criminal defendant who was unjustly convicted of a rape in 1985, freed upon discovery of Brady violations in 1992, and recovered a $5 million civil rights settlement in 2003.

"Ramos was a twenty-year-old college student and part-time childcare worker when he was arrested on September 6, 1984, and charged with raping a five-year-old girl in a Bronx day care center. His arrest was the latest in a series of highly publicized day care center sexual abuse cases brought by then-[DA] Mario Merola, a politically ambitious [545] prosecutor. In May 1985, Ramos's case became the first of the Merola prosecutions to come to trial.

"The prosecution's case was based upon the child's sworn testimony that she had been raped in a classroom bathroom while the other children were napping. For 'corroboration' the [prosecution] relied on a doctor's testimony that the child's mere ability to describe sexual intercourse indicated that she had experienced it, as well as the doctor's observation that the child had a vaginal irritation or rash."

"[The trial and sentencing] judge, expressing frustration that he could not sentence Ramos to life in prison, meted out the maximum sentence of eight and one-third to twenty-five years. Ramos's direct appeal and motion to vacate his conviction were denied. Because he continued to deny his guilt, Ramos was likely to serve two-thirds, if not the entirety, of his maximum sentence. Meanwhile the everyday reality of his punishment was brutal: as a convited child rapist, he was subject to constant physical, sexual, and verbal abuse."**

[* Nickel's trial/sentencing judge -- Paul Czajka -- gave him the maximum possible sentence as well.]

[** Nickel too was subject to a lot of abuse. For that meted out by 'correctional' officers, see Department of Corruptions section of this site.]

"Seven years into Ramos's hellish incarceration, fate intervened. The alleged victim's mother had brought a civil lawsuit against the New York City-funded day care center against Ramos. The City's private [547] insurance carrier, fearing a massive judgment, settled, but a defense investigator, believing Ramos to be innocent, obtained permission to share his investigative discoveries with Ramos and his mother. They, in turn, hired the author's law firm. Based largely upon the investigator's records, Ramos moved for a new trial, and an evidentiary hearing was held."

[If not for the alleged victim's mother's lawsuit against the city, Ramos may never have been exonerated. This could be why 'Arthur's mother did not file a civil suit against Nickel ; perhaps she was advised that doing so could jeopardize the convictions against him. As discussed in the Injustice System section of this cite, bizarrely, evidentiary discovery rights are far broader in civil than criminal cases.]

"The court found in its decision that the trial prosecutor had assured defense counsel that she would obtain and disclose all relevant social service and day care records, but had then failed to do so. Before or during trial, [ADA] Diana Farrell did obtain numerous documents and interviewed teachers and administrators, but she did not disclose the following information that was in her actual or constructive possession:

(1) The child initially denied repeatedly that anyting had happened other than he 'taped my mouth' before finally accusing Ramos;

(2) Prior to the alleged rape, the child had described watching sexually explicit programs on television, would use dolls to simulate sex during show and tell in school, was described by her teachers as 'sexually wiser' than the other children and street smart, and would expose herself;

(3) The child used to masturbate on a regular basis in school, thereby explaining her vaginal irritation;

"In vacating Ramos's conviction, the court issued a scathing opinion crediting the defendant's witnesses over the sometimes contrary testimony of the trial prosecutor's.

"Shortly after the trial court issued its decision vacating Ramos's conviction, Ramos's prosecutor received a notice from the Department Disciplinary Committee of the New York Supreme Court...of a secret...disciplinary inquiry...Under New York State Judiciary Law, the conduct of such an investigation -- even its very existence -- is confidential unless the Disciplinary Committee finds that that the attorney should be publicly reprimanded.

"After learning of the Disciplinary Committee's investigation, Ramos's prosecutor sat down with Counsel to the [DA]...[548] and together they prepared a letter defending her conduct...At no time did the Committee afford Ramos or his counsel notice of the prosecutor's contentions or any opportunity to provide any materials or arguments concerning whether she had committed ethical violations."

G19 [724] "One would naturally expect that a prosecutor who abetted the conviction of an innocent person by suppressing exculpatpry evidence would be a prime candidate for severe disciplinary action. Such is not the case, as too many examples prove. For example, there is absolutely no question that the prosecutor in People v. Ramos deliberately withheld exculpatry evidence from the defendant that resulted in wrongful conviction and imprisonment for seven years of an innocent man. The appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction for numerous Brady violations, and excoriated the prosecutor for her misconduct. The disciplinary committee conducted an investigation after the reversal by the appellate court and closed its investigation without imposing discipline. Interestingly, during the discovery process in a civil rights action brought against the city, it was revealed that the same [DA's] Office had been cited seventy-two times from 1975-1996 [725] for misconduct, including the reversal of eighteen cases for suppressing exculpatory evidence."

NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"The girl testified that Ramos took her into a bathroom during naptime, put tape over her mouth* and raped her, although doctors found no evidence of penetration."

[* As noted above, the 'tape-over-the-mouth' story is actually true. Thus, like 'Arthur' in the Nickel case (see Day One of annotated trial transcript), this alleged victim weaved accurate information into an otherwise false story of sexual abuse.]

"When the jury found him guilty on May 20, 1985, Ramos shouted, 'I want to die! Kill me! Kill me!'"

"Among other potentially excupatory information not turned over to the defense prior to trial,] the girl...had made a questionable allegation of sexual abuse against a 5-year-old boy. Other documents withheld included statements by the girl that Ramos had done nothing.

"Further, the prosecution had not turned over a sign-in log at the school for the day that the girl's grandmother said she came to pick her up. The grandmother said the incident occurred that day and the girl was crying. The log showed the woman was not in the building that day."

"Ramos filed a civil rights lawsuit seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction. In December 2003, the City of New York agreed to settle the lawsuit for $5 million."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]