It is never a good idea to lie under oath. Besides misleading the judge or jury, perjury can cause a person to be charged with a felony. Although lawyers receive a bad rap about truthfulness, it is the duty of every trial attorney to correct or reveal perjured testimony.
Wayne County, Michigan is named after Revolutionary War general “Mad Anthony” Wayne. It contains the city of Detroit and a small town called Inkster, which covers an area of 6 square miles and has a population of about 30 thousand. Inkster was the home of the model for the Rosie the RIveter posters in World War 2, and of The Marvelettes (who sang “Please Mr. Postman”).
Inkster is also the scene for some bizarre occurrences during drug distribution trials of Alexander Aceval and Ricardo Pena, where the prosecutor and police involved in the case served jail time and the trial Judge is currently facing a felony trial for her actions in the cases.
Aceval and Pena were involved in the transportation of about a hundred pounds of cocaine. They have been convicted for this offense (after the original trials) in plea arrangements, but the original trials led to the legal problems for the police, prosecutors and judge.
During pretrial motions, the Judge ordered that the identity of a confidential informant would not be revealed to the defense attorneys. The informant, Chad Povish, was directly involved in the transportation of the cocaine and alerted Inkster police officer Robert McArthur about it, which led to the arrest of Aceval and Pena.
Apparently the police who showed up did not witness the transaction and loading of the cocaine into duffel bags in the trunk of a car. Povish would be required to testify at trial, and the police and prosecutors did not want to let the jury know that Povish was a paid confidential informant.
Now this begs the question regarding why would the Judge have allowed the prosecution to hide the identity of a confidential informant when that informant was paid for his services. In an unusual arrangement with police, Povish had been acting as an informant for many months. His payment was 10% of any property that was confiscated as a result of the convictions, also known as forfeiture. Sometimes Povish would receive cash, sometimes he would receive automobiles which he sold. Presumably Povish stood to gain about $100,000 for his services in the case.
Why did the Judge allow this to remain hidden from the jury? Povish was obviously biased, in that he had a financial interest in the outcome of the case. This is something the jury should have been aware of to allow them to weigh the truthfulness of his testimony.
At trial the defense lawyers were asking questions of officers McArthur and Rechtzigel on cross examination that could potentially lead to the identification of Povish as an informant. Povish testified at the trial but did not reveal that he was the informant. Prosecutor Karen Plant had instructed the officers to lie instead of revealing that Povish was the informant. McArthur and Rechtzigel did in fact lie under oath, during cross examination and even under the direct examination of Plant herself. Plant had a duty to the Court at that time to take actions to correct the perjury, but did not do so.
Then, in response to a motion by defense counsel to determine whether or not an informant existed at all, Plant met with Judge Waterstone in an ex parte proceeding, where Plant explained that the officers had lied under oath to protect the identity of the informant. The Judge took no action to correct this perjury and allowed the jury to reach a verdict without this knowledge. The jury hung on other issues, however.
Now it is a fundamental principle of justice that the Judge and Lawyers can not knowingly allow perjured testimony to be presented to the jury. Both the prosecutor and Judge failed in their duty to prevent perjured testimony. Additionally, it is very suspicious that their was also the fact that the informant was being paid, which could very well be the actual reason the prosecutor did not want the identity revealed in the first place.
Now, because of their perjury and miscarriage of justice, both officers are off the police force and have served jail time for their perjury. They accepted plea deals for misdemeanors instead of felony convictions for perjury. The prosecutor Karen Plant was convicted of a felony, served six months in jail, had her law license suspended and is facing disbarment. The Judge faces a felony charge herself, and has retired from the bench. The informant, Chad Povish, has been revealed to the world to have been an informant. The fact that he is still alive and has not been attacked or otherwise in the five years since he was identified in the press as the informant is pretty good proof that revelation of his identity did not present a danger to him.
Ultimately the moral of this story is that there is no place for perjury in a courtroom. It perverts and distorts the legal process, and opens the door for felony charges against the perjurer. It raises the question of how often does perjury occur and is never revealed? When the perjury is encouraged and perpetrated by the prosecution and police it reaches a higher level of criminality, as a person’s freedom is at stake and every person deserves a fair trial.
http://metrotimes.com/news/circle-of-lies-1.1134801
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/05-10/140775/140775-Index.html
http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12776
http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9328