Skip to main content

Former New York Correctional Officer Convicted of Assaulting Inmate, Making False Statements to FBI

WASHINGTON – A former correctional officer from Cohoes, N.Y., was convicted following a jury trial in Albany, N.Y., of violating the civil rights of an inmate while working at the Rensselaer County Correctional Facility (RCCF), and making false statements to the FBI regarding the incident, the Department of Justice announced today.

Following trial before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe, the jury found that in January 2009, Keith Ronald Hancock Jr., 37, while employed as a correctional officer at the RCCF in Troy, N.Y., assaulted an inmate and made a false statement to the FBI during the investigation of the incident. At trial, the jury heard evidence that Hancock struck an inmate on multiple occasions while the inmate was handcuffed behind the back and under the control of other correctional officers. After the incident, Hancock prepared an incident report in which he failed to report his uses of force or provide any justification for them. Thereafter, during the course of the federal investigation, Hancock falsely denied his conduct.

“Corrections officers who abuse their authority and violate the rights of inmates under their supervision do a disservice to all officers who take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez. “The Civil Rights Division will aggressively prosecute these abuses of official authority, wherever they occur.”

“Conduct such as the defendant’s has no place in our correctional institutions, or in our society,” said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York Richard S. Hartunian. “Prosecutions such as this send an important message that such conduct cannot and will not be tolerated.”

The defendant’s conviction for violating the inmate’s civil rights carries a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both. The conviction for making a false statement to the FBI carries a maximum statutory penalty of up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both. Sentencing is scheduled for July 12, 2011.

The investigation in this matter was conducted by the Albany Division of the FBI, with the assistance of the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office. The case was prosecuted by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York.

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...