Yet another example serving to illustrate why we must put an end to labeling, categorizing, classifying those employed in certain job categories as being " heroes". Police, Fire, we in Nursing, Teaching-the 'noble' professions. Stopping w/the hero-izing is a must, as only then
can we break the pensions/culture of entitlement.

Most lawyers I've met know cops lie. I've even had two different lawyers who worked for the gov and worked with cops tell me that copes steal evidence.

I've met one or two judges and they don't seem deluded. Most of them MUST suspect that cops lie.

So how can ANYONE trust what a cop says when he's on the witness stand?

I suspect that there's some bug in our monkey wiring - we see a man, wearing the symbols of authority, in a setting that reeks of authority. There's a ritual of swearing in, and even if it's an exercise that modern man doesn't put nearly as much trust in as a medieval would put in swearing on a bible, there's still symbolic weight.

...and then, amongst all the symbol and ritual and dark wood and black robes and dark blue martial police uniforms, we hear a practiced baritone voice.

...and our monkey brains cream their collective panties, and treat the lies as truth.

Grr.

Evolution is really good for coming up with novel solutions and tuning an immune system, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect for every aspect of living in a large bureaucratic society.

NEVER talk to cops without your lawyer present… NEVER!

My wiring is a little different. I dated a cop when I was 20. He was nuts. Padded room kind of nuts but I didn't get the full picture until I was in too deep.
The only thing that saved me I think is that predators smell fear and I puffed up and bluffed my way out of the victims position. He ended up committing suicide but that experience left me with a clear vision of what motivates one to that profession.
A need for power over people. Having been bullied or having no sense of self up to that point. There does seem to be a difference though with sheriff's and deputies vs city cops and state patrol. The elected (sheriff) positions tend to be a little less psycho.
Still not trusting any of them.

There are really two types of this behavior.

One is what you might call the 'formulaic' lying, usually after the fact, and usually to create the necessary fact pattern and Probable Cause/Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for what followed - the stop, the questions, the answers, the arrest, the warrant. This is the repetitive stuff you see on every day - I smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage, he made a furtive movement as if to conceal something, he crossed the center line and failed to yield at a stop sign, and so forth. Much of this is so repetitive precisely because so many cases are just exactly like that and it's usually more than 90% true - but that doesn't mean that judges shouldn't question it. However, precisely becasue it has become so formulaic, most judges accept it without question. This is a bad trend.

The other is what we see here - what appears to amount to the wholesale invention of testimony. While it's more outrageous, it's also (perhaps) unfair to expect judges to especially question it. It's only when it becomes a way of life, as it apparently did here, that it should raise red flags. But because judges are actually inured to this sort of repetition, I suspect they don't pick up on it nearly as soon as they should.

I would also like to see officers made to give evidence in street clothes, without the uniform and the accoutrements that inspire special respect.

Many attorneys are most-reluctant to do anything to impugn the testimony of a police officer, and many judges are far-too accepting of police testimony, especially in more-trivial cases. Many elected judges rely on the support of police unions, for which they should be ashamed, but aren't. Just as the reputation of other witnesses can be used to challenge their testimony, the prior record of an officer should be available to challenge them too. Oftentimes, an officer's past actions are broadcast if they are favourable to his reputation - so many letters of commendation, so many drowning infants saved - but past misdeeds are often hidden from view. Thank the police unions for that.

The real answer, of course, is to record everything. No recording = not admissible. No exceptions. It would be relatively-easy to do. Why do you suppose police departments and police officers fight this tooth-and-nail in so many places?

llatyer,

llamas

Things like this are a big reason why I worry about the NSAs of this government monitoring my private communications. When someone high in the chain of command is desperate for an arrest and conviction, an investigator like this can make just about anything happen. Some smidgen of an email or Google search kindasorta matches one of their nebulous search criteria, and WHAMMO they have a "suspect in custody."

Bad neighborhood?

Hell, I don't know the neighborhood that would get you believed over a police officer on the stand....

My personal favorite is the speeding ticket issued in Chicago for over 200MPH - on a 600 Honda CBR sportbike.
That defies the laws of physics, but it didn't matter to the officer.
The bike would need another ~150 horsepower, and quite a bit more room, to reach that speed.

I was, some years back, on a jury for a criminal case. In selecting the jury from the jury pool, some of the questions asked of all 40ish potential jurors was something akin to:

"Do you believe police officers are more honest than non police officers?"

"Do you believe police officers have better memories than non-officers?"

Mind, this case wasn't murder or anything, but it was quite a bit more ominous than a traffic violation. The charges included possession of a defaced firearm, and whatever technical name the jurisdiction had for firing a gun at a cop.

While I cannot be certain, I do think a fair trial was had... mainly because when everyone was going on all about very subjective things (e.g. "he looked mean") I insisted we discuss it like a math proof: assume it's not true (the charges), then can we explain what we can reasonably be confident in (like, evidence from his clothes, the physical layout of the area, etc.). Also, that jives with the whole presumption of innocence thing we're supposed to do here.

I have to say the firearms expert was the best. He looked like some old biker dude and, given his gun knowledge, I still picture him preparing for the apocalypse with an underground bunker.

"...Mr. Scarcella fabricated evidence, laying the groundwork for cases to be dismissed and millions to be paid in wrongful conviction lawsuits."

As if that is that is the most tragic consequence of this whole business and not the fact that dozens of people may have spent time in prison for crimes they didn't commit. The penalty for falsely accusing an innocent person should be the same as the penalty for the crime of which the innocent person was falsely accused. I don't see why Louis Scarcella shouldn't spend at least 20 years in prison.