Skip to main content

Two Former San Juan Municipal Police Officers Sentenced for Using Excessive Force Resulting in Death

WASHINGTON – Two former San Juan, Puerto Rico, Municipal Police Officers, Elias Perocier Morales and Eliezer Rivera Gonzalez, were sentenced yesterday in federal court for using excessive force that resulted in the death of Jose Antonio Rivera Robles, the Justice Department announced.

Perocier Morales received a sentence of 10 years in prison. Rivera Gonzalez received a sentence of six and a half years in prison.

Both Perocier Morales and Rivera Gonzalez pleaded guilty in June 2009. In the plea proceedings and court documents, Perocier Morales admitted that on July 20, 2003, in the course of arresting Rivera Robles, he punched his prisoner repeatedly in the face while Rivera Robles was handcuffed and incapable of defending himself. He also admitted to later kicking Rivera Robles hard when he appeared unconscious. Rivera Gonzalez admitted to kicking Rivera Robles extremely hard when he was lying face down toward the ground, in no way posing a threat to anyone. Both men admitted that their actions, together with the actions of their fellow officers, resulted in Rivera Robles’s death.

On Aug. 13, 2009, three other officers were convicted, following trial, of civil rights violations arising out of the fatal assault, and one other officer was convicted of obstruction-related offenses. Vidal Maldonado, Juan Morales Rosado, Carlos Pagan Ferrer and Jose Pacheco Cruz will be sentenced on their convictions at a later date.

"Every person has the right to expect that they will be safe when in the custody of law enforcement officers. Today’s sentence reflects the damage done to the public trust when law enforcement officers engage in such egregious misconduct," Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said. "The Civil Rights Division will continue to aggressively prosecute officers who abuse their power in this manner."

Special Agent Louis Rivera of the FBI’s San Juan Office investigated this matter. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Antonio Bazan, Special Litigation Counsel Gerard Hogan and Trial Attorney Avner Shapiro of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more