Jeffrey Blake - Perjury / Police Misconduct

Blake, Jeffrey; murder; NRE: perjury/false accusation, police officer misconduct, withheld exculatory evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

[631:430]; 2nd Dept. 9/25/95; affirmed

"[W]e are satisified that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence..."

M12 [189] "Jeffrey Blake was a young Brooklyn man convicted of murder...in the early 1990s based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Dana Garner. At the outset of the Blake case, prosecutors failed to disclose information casting doubt on the witness' credibility. Years later, due to a painstaking re-investigation of the case by Michelle Fox, the Legal Aid Society [160] lawyer assigned to handle Blake's direct appeal, Garner recanted entirely and the person with whom he had previously claimed to be standing at the time of the incident denied seeing the shooting. The local [DA's] office was initially hesitant to set aside the conviction until a New York Times columnist joined in Fox's efforts by writing a series of articles, scathing in their depiction of the county prosecutor's office. It was only in response to this media coverage that the prosecution eventually agreed that the conviction should be set aside, and Blake was finally released upon the motion of the [DA] after eight years' imprisonment."

[4] "At trial, Garner's cousin, Otis Gary, with whom Garner lived in New York, said that Garner had been in North Carolina the day of the shootings (which were on their block). However, the Court precluded the defense from attacking Garner's reliability by showing that Garner learned of the shooting from Gary. Thus, the defense was prevented from rebutting the D.A.'s argument that Garner's knowledge could only have come from being an eyewitness. "After [Blake's] conviction, in a pre-sentence report...a probation officer reported that the trial prosecutor had told her two things about Garner that were not in the trial record. First, he told her that Garner had informed against [Blake] only after he was arrested on another case. Second, he told her that Garner had formerly been a drug-selling associate of [Blake], and could have been biased against [Blake] because [Blake] had refused to pay ransom when Garner was kidnapped by a rival drug gang.

"The defense, upon learning of the probation officer's report, immediately moved for a mistrial, or, alternatively, for a fact-finding hearing on this potential exculpatory evidence. At the hearing, the Probation Officer testified under oath that the trial prosecutor had told her about [5] Garner's prior arrest, and his kidnapping. The trial prosecutor, who also testified, denied telling her these things.

"Other exculpatory evidence was also revealed at the hearing. A detective divulged at the hearing that Garner also claimed to be a witness to a number of other homicides in the area including a street shooting a week after this one, and that Garner was a frequent police informant. In order to resolve the conflict between the Probation Officer and the A.D.A., and to explore whether Garner was an interested witness with a motive to falsify his testimony, and/or a professional informant, the defense demanded to call Garner himself as a witness. The court refused to allow Garner to testify, and promptly entered findings of fact declaring the probation officer incredible and the prosecutor credible. The court then denied the defense motion to set aside the verdict."

[There seems to be little reason why this judge would (reflexively?) credit the prosecutor over the probation officer, other than that he was simply a pro-prosecution judge who did not want to upset the verdict of conviction. Clearly, the prosecutor had a motive to lie here, in order to protect the conviction. On the other hand, the probation officer had absolutely no apparent motive to lie; indeed, such persons are generally known as being very pro-prosecution themselves. Having ordered this hearing, this 'judge' simply did not like the evidence it produced.]

[7] "Although Garner was present when the police were on the scene investigating the shooting, he did not tell the officers he had witnessed the shooting..."

[9] "Garner's description of the shooting was impeached by his Grand Jury testimony. Garner had testified in the Grand Jury that Drake Hilbert and a man named Dwayne were with [Blake], and had guns that afternoon, and that Drake had pulled his weapon and pointed it at people on the street... At trial, Garner's memory failed him. He claimed he couldn't recall if either Drake or Dwayne was there..."

"On the day before his trial testimony, he had attempted to recant his trial testimony in the [DA's] office. [FN3: In describing this encounter to the court out of the presence of the jury, the prosecutor said Garner 'stuck to [his] story' ...When challenged by defense counsel, the prosecutor said Garner had 'wavered,' saying he was 'under pressure'...] Also, about 2 hours prior to testifying, he told the A.D.A. he could not recall whether [Blake] was involved in the shooting...The first recantation came about when his cousin, Otis Gary, challenged his truthfulness as they sat with the prosecutor...After a further meeting with the prosecutor, Garner disclaimed his recantation and took the stand and inculpated [Blake]...Garner... [10] had testified for the [DA's] office on another case about a month previously ...He had also testified against men who kidnapped him while he was selling drugs; the kidnappers were subsequently convicted..."

[13] "Robert Rosenbluth was a former police officer who ran a religious articles store...in Bedford-Stuyvesant...[Blake's] mother was a customer of his; at her request, he hired [Blake] for an off-the-books job as a stock person in June 1990...[Blake's] hours were 10:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with a 45-minute lunch break from 1:15 to 2:00 p.m....Although there was no time clock for employees to punch, Rosenbluth was sure that on June 18, 1990, [Blake] was at lunch from 1:15 to 2:00 p.m., because he was a relatively new employee, and Rosenbluth monitored his comings and goings more carefully for that reason...When [Blake] returned to work that afternoon, Rosenbluth noticed nothing unusual about his appearance...When [Blake] was arrested the following week, Rosenbluth contacted the precinct, and the [DA's] office, and testified in the Grand Jury on [Blake's] behalf..."

[ADA Anthony Catalano prosecuted this case.]

"[According to the probation officer, ADA] Catalano stated that Garner had been waiting for an opportunity to get back at Blake."

[26] "According to Detective Brew's testimony, Garner wandered the streets of Brooklyn happening upon numerous murders, then helping the police solve these murders and testifying for the prosecution. Garner neither expected nor received any favors from the police in return for his civic-minded behavior."

from NRE synopsis (by Stephanie Denzel):

"In June 1990, a man fired a machine gun into a car in Brooklyn...killing the two men inside, 24-year-old Everton Denny and 19-year-old Kenneth Felix.

"A few days later, Dana Garner came forward, saying he saw Jeffrey Blake fire into the passenger side of the car.

"Blake said he was on his lunch break at the time of the shootings. His sister testified that he ate lunch at her apartment, and co-workers testfied that he returned to work at 2 p.m., only 15 minutes after the shooting. Forensic evidence indicated that most of the bullets were fired into the driver's side of the car, not the passenger's side.

"The prosecution's case relied heavily on Garner's testimony.

"Blake's criminal defense counsel, Howard Kirsch, told the jury in closing argument that Garner was a liar. Kirsch said Garner was an admitted drug dealer who had been arrested and convicted in North Carolina several times and that he was a convicted felon who was serving time in prison in North Carolina, and that he had gone to a mental institution for an evaluation to see if he was telling the truth."

[Blake is then convicted.]

"In 1993, Garner recanted his testimony to defense investigators. Later, as a witness at Blake's appeal, he invoked his privilege against self incrimination and refused to testify. Defense investigators tracked down the woman who had been Garner's girlfriend at the time of the crime and who he claimed had also witnessed the killings. The defense discovered evidence that Garner was not even in New York on the day of the shooting."

"Two other cases in Brooklyn were subsequently set aside after Garner admitted he had testified falsely. In 1999, the convictions of Timothy Crosby for assault and criminal possession of a weapon were vacated, the charges were dismissed and he was released. In 2003, Ruben Ortega's murder conviction was vacated. Ortega pled guilty and was released.

"Blake filed a federal wrongful conviction lawsuit, and during Garner's deposition, he testified that police fed him the details of the double murder and pressured him to implicate Blake. Garner also testified that when he viewed a lineup, police directed him to Blake so he could pick him out. The lawsuit was settled in 2007 for $1.2 million. Blake also received $1.25 million in compensation from the State of New York."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]