Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE STATEMENT ON VERDICT IN TRIAL OF NYPD OFFICERS FRANKLIN MATA AND KENNETH MORENO

New York City Police Officers Franklin Mata and Kenneth Moreno were each found guilty of three counts of Official Misconduct. During a trial before a jury in New York State Supreme Court, it was established that Officer Kenneth Moreno and Officer Franklin Mata engaged in acts of official misconduct for reentering the apartment of an intoxicated woman whom they were called to assist. They are expected to be sentenced on June 28, 2011.

“We respect the jury’s verdict, which acknowledges that the defendants’ actions that night not only violated the law, they violated the victim’s rights, and the public’s trust,” said District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. “I thank our prosecutors, Coleen Balbert and Randolph Clarke, Jr., who worked tirelessly on this case. I also commend the bravery of the victim in coming forward, and in persevering through an often grueling and very public 9-week trial. ”

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorneys Coleen Balbert, Deputy Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit, and Randolph Clarke, Jr., for prosecuting the case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Lisa Friel, Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit. Investigator Edward Tacchi, Investigative Analyst Inn-Young Park, and Trial Preparation Assistants Jamie Whittenburg and Chelsey Luger also provided valuable assistance over the course of the investigation and trial.



Defendant Information:



FRANKLIN MATA, D.O.B. 4/19/82

Bronx, NY

Convicted:

Official Misconduct, a class A misdemeanor, three counts



KENNETH MORENO, D.O.B. 12/25/67

Brooklyn, NY

Convicted:

Official Misconduct, a class A misdemeanor, three counts



A class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail.
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