Courts and Law Brooklyn Boro

One detective’s history of providing false evidence gives grounds for Brooklyn defendant’s new trial

April 16, 2015 By Charisma L. Troiano, Esq. Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice ShawnDya Simpson. Eagle photo by Jennifer MacFarlane
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice ShawnDya Simpson. Eagle photo by Jennifer MacFarlane
Share this:

A new trial has been granted for Brooklyn criminal defendant Rosean Hargrove, who has been in prison for close to 23 years — held on a crime he says he did not commit. On Tuesday, Hargrove was released from custody and into the arms of Shirley Hargrove (his mother), Monique Hargrove (his sister) and a number of supporters.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice ShawnDya Simpson found serious issues concerning the credibility of the evidence presented against Hargrove as well as the tactics used by the then-investigating detective: the embattled Louis Scarcella. Simpson ordered a new trial in favor of Hargrove’s 440.10 motion to vacate his 1992 conviction for the murder of Ronald Neischer and assault of Robert Crosson.

The primary basis for Hargrove’s demand for a new trial was unreliability of the sole eyewitness’ testimony and the failure of the New York City Police Department and investigators for the Kings County District Attorney’s Office to test key pieces of evidence. In addition, the limited evidence from the crime scene that was tested did not match Hargrove or his co-defendant, John Dwayne Bunn.

Subscribe to our newsletters

Bunn was released on parole in 2006.

Hearings on the 440.10 motion were held in September 2014. The surviving victim and sole eyewitness, Crosson, testified at the hearing. Also on the defense witness list were Scarcella, the original prosecutor and a member of the current Conviction Review Unit (CRU) who reviewed Hargrove’s case.

But it was Scarcella’s tactics in other cases of wrongful conviction that likely led Simpson to the conclusion that unreliable evidence may have been used to secure Hargrove’s conviction.

Judge Simpson identified five Brooklyn cases of wrongful conviction tied to Scarcella — all of which involve an issue of eyewitness testimony.

“It has been established that the cases of David Ranta, Derrick Hamilton, Robert Hill, Alvena Jennette and Darryl Austin were comprised by the intentional acts of Detective Scarcella, which lead to the extinguishment of the judgment and sentence in those cases by the decision of the District Attorney’s Office,” Simpson wrote. “In each of those cases, Detective Scarcella procured identification testimony that was false and was predominantly the basis for their conviction.”

On Aug. 13, 1991, Neisher and Crosson — both probation corrections officers — were shot while sitting in a car in the Kingsborough housing projects of Brooklyn. According to Crosson’s testimony at last year’s hearing, he did not remember the initial description of the assailants he provided to police. Crosson did note that the car thieves and shooters were “light-skinned” black males in their twenties. At the time of the shooting, Hargrove and Bunn were 17 and 14 years of age, respectively. And as Simpson pointed out in her ruling, “[n]one of the defendants may be accurately described as “light skinned black males.”

Court papers do not indicate exactly how Detective Scarcella came upon Hargrove and Bunn as suspects, other than to note that the former Brooklyn detective received an anonymous call. At a pretrial hearing on the case, Scarcella testified that he “went to a specific apartment, although the anonymous call received did not indicate one and stated that he simply got lucky in spotting the [Hargrove],” Simpson recalled in Tuesday’s ruling.  

The above-mentioned cases were “investigated by Scarcella and prosecuted contemporaneously” with Hargrove’s case, Simpson noted, pointing to a possible pattern.

Simpson also expressed frustration that, for example, ballistics and body fluid evidence recovered from the 1991 crime scene were not tested at the time of the investigation or any time since. “In 23-plus years, the ballistics have not been tested. In 23-plus years, the serology [body fluid] materials have not been tested,” Simpson stated.  

It appears from court papers that Hargrove’s defense has not been able conduct its own tests as the evidence “cannot now be located and may have been destroyed.”

The only evidence the prosecution relied on, Simpson observed, to convict Hargrove was that eyewitness testimony of surviving victim Crosson —testimony that could have been supported or contradicted, had the evidence available been tested.

The limited evidence that was made available, including fingerprints from the scene as well as the stolen vehicle, do not match Hargrove.  

“The scant evidence that convicted the defendant makes the new evidence of Detective Scarcella’s wrongdoing significant,” added Simpson. 

While the Brooklyn DA’s CRU is still investigating Hargrove’s case, Simpson did point out the fast nature of Hargrove’s arrest and trial. Hargrove was arrested one day after the shooting. Hargrove’s murder trial lasted only two days.

At the September hearing on the case, the trial prosecutor testified that “at the commencement of [Hargrove’s 1992] trial, he indicated to the court that he was going to start his case about 10:30 a.m. and complete it that same day in the early afternoon.”

“It appeared to be a summarily tried case, with missing evidence and a rushed process,” Simpson declared.

Simpson’s ruling on Tuesday did not address Hargrove’s claims of actual innocence or ineffective counsel. In addition, Hargrove raised a question as to Crosson’s alleged illegal activity that may have compromised his testimony. Simpson did not make a ruling on that issue.

The DA’s CRU continues to investigate Hargrove’s case, and no final report or decision has been made as to whether or not the office will support an exoneration or motion to vacate.

“We’re reviewing Judge Simpson’s decision before determining what, if any, action we will take,” said Mark Hale, chief of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s CRU. “Judge Simpson did not find him actually innocent in her ruling. We are reviewing the balance of her decision.”

Simpson noted that the District Attorney’s Office produced one witness during the September 2014 hearing on the case.

 


Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Leave a Comment