Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Off-duty “Road Rage” Cop lawyer: Grand Jury given “materially false and misleading testimony”

    Off-duty “Road Rage” Cop lawyer: Grand Jury given “materially false and misleading testimony”

    Walker defense attorney seeks dismissal of first degree murder indictment of Walker

    The lawyer representing New Jersey Detective Joseph Walker, awaiting trial for first degree murder in the Maryland shooting death of Joseph Dean Harvey Jr., has filed a motion to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that “the assistant state’s attorney and the Maryland state trooper, who led the investigation, presented materially false and misleading testimony to the grand jury,” according to a report by WMAR, the Baltimore, MD affiliate of ABC.  

    Defense attorney Michael T. Cornacchia provided several detailed examples to illustrate his claim, including:

    • The Maryland State Trooper told the grand jury that Walker did not make any statements.  In fact, claims Cornacchia, Walker told a responding officer that he had feared for both his own life and that of his family.
    • The Trooper testified that none of Harvey’s gun shot wounds were caused at close range, but he failed to tell the grand jury that Harvey’s body was found only six feet from Walker’s Kia minivan, the position from which Walker fired the shots.
    • The Trooper also failed to disclose to the grand jury that Harvey crossed 158 feet to reach Walker, during which Walker held fire until he had no other choice.
    • The assistant state attorney and the MD Trooper also told the grand jury that “after the first shot, all witnesses who have provided statements indicated Harvey was standing still and had his hands up.” In fact, Cornacchia claims, five of the witnesses did not see the shooting at all and did not say Harvey had stopped after the first shot.
    • In addition, one of the only two witnesses who actually saw the shooting provided an inconsistent statement that itself was contradicted by the second witness of the shooting.
    • In addition, although the Trooper testified that Harvey “had lunch”  before the shooting, no mention was made of the fact that Harvey had been drinking for four hours and was legally intoxicated when shot.

    Defense attorney Cornacchia also claims additional critical facts were withheld from the grand jury.

    Cornaccia also filed a second motion seeking to admit into evidence a passing polygraph in which Walker stated he acted in self-defense in shooting Harvey.

    With Walker’s trial scheduled for May 21, and Maryland’s institutional contempt for armed guns in general and armed self-defense in particular, it seems unlikely that the motion to dismiss charges would be granted.

    I’m not sufficiently familiar with Maryland’s evidentiary rules to guess at the prospects for a polygraph being admitted.  In most jurisdictions they are not, and in any case the polygraph could at best evidence Walker’s belief that he acted in lawful self-defense.  I personally get letters with unfortunate frequency written by people serving long prison terms who also honestly believe that they acted in lawful self-defense.  It doesn’t matter if you think you acted in lawful self-defense, it matters if you actually did.  Here, the polygraph could have relevancy only to Walker’s subjective reasonable belief that he necessarily acted in lawful self-defense, and it seems likely that other evidence will be sufficient on that point.

    But we’ll keep an eye on it, right here at Legal Insurrection.

    –-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


    Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog, Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), Barnes & Noble (paperback and Nook), and elsewhere.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     1 
     
     0
    Richard Aubrey | February 27, 2014 at 6:47 am

    Tom Swift.
    I get that. Problem is, at what point did the cop discern he had a problem; ie. when did “fat” turn to “tough” in his perception.
    And, to reference somebody’s perceptive question; why does getting into your car when the other guy has a car, too, and no compunction about using it as an instrument of assault mean you’ve got a successful avenue of retreat?


     
     0 
     
     2
    Gremlin1974 | February 27, 2014 at 11:48 am

    Ok, here is my problem. Harvey was found 6 feet in front of the van, but according to the numbers I have seen had already crossed 152 feet just to get that close. Why didn’t Walker just get in his car and go when the guy was over the 100 foot mark or so?

    I have a hard time believing self defense in a case like that, even if it was a SYG state. It just feels wrong to me.


       
       1 
       
       0
      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      I don’t have trouble with that because a really fit guy can run that in 4-5 seconds. What I have some trouble with is Pidel statement that Walker reached into the van to get the gun. But then it’s the guys friend saying this.

      Walker could for example have been looking at the undercarriage when he realized that Harvey was approaching. He thinks “I’ll show him my badge and gun and he goes away”. He realizes that the guy is not going away, and at that time the guy is about 6 feet away.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend