John Manfredi - Police Misconduct

Manfredi, John ; bribery, theft, conspiracy; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, police officer misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence

[560:679]; 2nd Dept. 10/1/90; affirmed

"[Manfredi]...and numerous other coconspirators were inspectors and managerial employees of the New York City Board of Educarion's Bureau of Maintenance...The evidence at trial revealed that before 1977 an ad hoc system of bribery and extortion existed in awarding contracts...At a meeting in early 1977...a group of inspectors and managers...including [Manfredi] [???] formalized the bribery system."

NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley:)

"In May 1987, the [Brooklyn DA's] Office charged 14 current or former employees of the New York City Board of Education with taking 'tens of millions of dollars' in bribes from school-maintenance contractors over a nine-year period, beginning in 1977.

"The defendants were accused of demanding kickbacks ranging from two percent to 10 percent of some of the $84 million in maintenance and repair contracts authorized by the board each year.

"Among those charged was 48-year-old John Manfredi, a Board of Education area manager who was accused of shaking down Daniel Sherman, the owner of an insect and rodent extermination company, one of the many companies that made up the $84 million worth of yearly contracts. Manfredi was charged with grand larceny, receiving bribes, and conspiracy.

"The prosecution claimed that in 1977 some Board of Education building-maintenance inspectors, who were responsible for determining whether contractors were fulfilling their contracts, met secretly and decided to demand two percent of the original contract price, 10 percent of additional work during the performance of a contract and 10 percent of emergency jobs.

"By the time Manfredi went on trial in [County Court] in March 1989, the number of Board of Education employees charged with taking bribes had grown to 26 and 13 of them had pled guilty.

"The primary witness against Manfredi was Sherman, who testified that Manfredi demanded bribes to make sure Sherman could keep his extermination contract. Sherman said that Manfredi terminated his contract when Sherman balked at paying the bribes, and that his company had been forced out of business because of the loss of the contract. Sherman claimed he reported it to the FBI, which turned the investigation over to Kings County authorities.

"Manfredi testified in his own defense and denied shaking down Sherman. Manfredi told the jury that he told his superiors that Sherman failed to perform required work and falsely billed for work that was not done. Manfredi said that upper management terminated Sherman's contract following his report.

"On April 4, 1989, the jury convicted Manfredi of bribery, larceny and conspiracy He was sentenced to two to six years in prison. Manfredi spent five days in custody before he was released on bond pending appeal. After his appeal was denied, Manfredi entered prison in January 1991.

"Prior to Manfredi's trial, Sherman filed a federal lawsuit against the New York Board of Education, Manfredi and numerous other Board employees seeking damages for the loss of his business.

"In January 1992, the lawsuit went on trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sherman lost on all his claims in March 1992. Prior to the trial, Manfredi was dismissed as a defendant in the case.

"After Manfredi was paroled in January 1993, he began researching the civil suit and learned that part of the evidence in the case was a report of an internal investigation conducted by the Board of Education's Inspector General after Manfredi was charged in 1986. That report documented $26,000 in overcharges submitted by Sherman -- precisely what Manfredi had claimed in his defense.

"The Board of Education's investigation of Sherman for the civil lawsuit also uncovered evidence that Sherman's company did still exist and that he remained a part owner. Sherman, however, concealed his interest in the company because he was divorcing his wife and did not want the value of his shares to be considered in the divorce settlement.

"Most significant, however, was the discovery that Sherman voluntarily made a tape recording of allegations of corruption by Board of Education employees which he submitted to the FBI prior to the [DA's] investigation. In that tape, Sherman specifically said that Manfredi had not demanded any money from him and that he had not paid any money to Manfredi.

"Armed with this evidence of [Daniel] Sherman's perjury and the prosecution's failure to dislose compelling evidence of innocence, Manfredi filed a motion in the fall of 1993 seeking to vacate his convictions. In January 1994, the trial judge ordered a hearing on Manfredi's claim that the prosecution had withheld evidence of his innocence.

"On August 18, 1994, the [Brooklyn DA's] Office conceded that the evidence should have been disclosed to Manfredi and asked that the convictions be vacated. [County] Court Justice Francis Egitto granted the motion and the charges were then dismissed.

"In 1995, Manfredi filed a claim for compensation with the New York Court of Claims, but the claim was denied."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]