-------From the article--------
The trial of a former narcotics detective for the New York Police Department who was accused of using false evidence to build criminal cases ended abruptly on Tuesday after a judge found that prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence to the detective’s lawyers.
The dismissal of the charges against the detective, Joseph Franco, a 20-year veteran who became a symbol of police misconduct, dealt a major blow to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The agency immediately removed the prosecutor handling the case, Stephanie Minogue, from her position as the deputy chief of its Police Accountability Unit.
Mr. Franco had been charged in 2019 with 16 criminal counts, including perjury and official misconduct. Prosecutors said that he had lied about witnessing drug transactions that he could not have seen. In Manhattan, more than 100 convictions were vacated based on his involvement in the investigations, as were more than 130 in the Bronx and another 90 in Brooklyn.
The prosecution of Mr. Franco was cut short when Ms. Minogue’s team failed in three instances to hand over evidence to the former detective’s lawyer, a major ethical violation. The case was dismissed with prejudice: The office will not be able to prosecute Mr. Franco for the same crimes again.
A lawyer for Mr. Franco, Howard Tanner, said in a statement that his client was relieved at the outcome but asked, “How does he get his reputation back?”
“A decorated police officer who honorably served this city for 20 years, he never did anything wrong,” Mr. Tanner said. “This case was baseless and driven from the start by an anti-police agenda in the Manhattan D.A.’s office
He added that prosecutors had repeatedly withheld and destroyed evidence, and that they had misrepresented facts.
In a statement, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, Doug Cohen, announced Ms. Minogue’s removal, saying, “New Yorkers must know that law enforcement, including prosecutors, are acting with the utmost integrity. We hold ourselves accountable to that standard.”
Mr. Cohen’s statement said that prosecutors had consented to a motion from Mr. Franco’s lawyer to dismiss the case, which was immediately sealed. He added that the office’s Post-Conviction Justice Unit, which reviews wrongful convictions, would continue to scrutinize cases in which Mr. Franco was involved.
The office said that it would analyze what had gone wrong in the case against Mr. Franco, though it did not immediately say whether that would involve a review of other cases in which Ms. Minogue was involved, such as the successful convictions in March of two officers who stole money during a periodic “integrity test” that the Police Department conducts. She remains employed by the office.
The trial’s abrupt ending was an embarrassment for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who campaigned on improving police accountability. Mr. Franco’s trial, which began two weeks ago, was the most serious proceeding against a police officer that Mr. Bragg had overseen.

Useless ass DAs office, what's new?

Feels purposefully negligent

Wow, that's really embarrassing for the DA's office. They must have been pretty substantial and unambiguous Brady violations for the office to consent to dismissal with prejudice.

So prosecutorial incompetence let a bad cop go. Fortunately he’s retired and won’t be back on the street. But it’s a shame for those people wrongfully charged that he gets away with it.

[deleted]

We all mess up sometimes, amirite?

Discovery reforms strikes again...that and covid backlog overburdened the DA office. Letting more perps out in name of reform.

Seems very convenient

I'm surprised but not really surprised. It's the same justice system investigates itself and finds no wrongdoing. The same system that fucked up handling Epstein gives me no confidence that they can handle prosecuting a case of a crooked cop. Wouldn't even be surprised if this was bungled on purpose because it would expose a lot more cops that are like Joseph Franco. And it's a case dismissed with prejudice which I find hilarious. This guy fucked over so many people with bullshit evidence but because of a prosecution that didn't hand over all evidence, he walks free. This is a joke.

I get the sense from the limited information available that this was an actual Brady issue (that is, exculpatory material not being turned over), as opposed to an issue with the discovery reforms. I guess one could argue that the Brady material was missed because of the burdens of the new discovery requirements, but that seems speculative at best.

and we will never know bc case is now sealed. public deserves to know what this discovery violation was

Almost as if by design. So strange. People want to see real justice, not lawyers and officials playing games.

I highly doubt it was purposeful -- why would a prosecutor from the Police Accountability Unit purposefully screw up a case, at the expense of her own career, to protect a cop? Seems much more like an inadvertent error.

Doesn't make the outcome any better, of course.

Oh wow i’m sure the DA is just sooooo angry at their own “mistake”

Try again.

Why wouldn't they simply drop the charges if they had exculpatory evidence?

“Exculpatory evidence” doesn’t necessarily mean definitive evidence of innocence. It means anything that could conceivably be taken as harming the prosecution’s case. The existence of any exculpatory evidence at all doesn’t mean that the case should have been brought or should be dropped.

Understood.

And they indeed dropped some of the charges. So it may have not been just one or another violation.

>The juror said that problems with evidence being withheld had come to light on Thursday, and that Mr. Tanner had asked for extra time to examine the new material. Shortly thereafter, jurors were told that a witness, Tameeka Baker, who was arrested by Mr. Franco in 2017, was no longer a part of the case and that charges related to her arrest were being dropped.

The seems more like a discovery obligation issue. It doesn’t matter if the evidence was exculpatory, if the DA failed to turn it over in the time prescribed by law. Most DAs won’t consent to these dismissals unless whatever was failed to turned over was egregious and late, usually you make some argument. Halfway through a trial seems really late to be turning stuff over if you’ve had it in your possession.

Yeh, she lost her position and her reputation took a hit, no way this was purposeful, most likely just an egregious avoidable error. He was indicted in 18/19, no reason to be turning things over in 2023.

I didn’t get a sense this was Brady, the article mentioned phone records and other materials. I think this is stuff that should’ve have been turned over years ago but wasn’t. The fact it was done mid trial probably led to the dismissal, as at that point you have double jeopardy concerns and a plethora of other appealable issues. I think this was the discovery reform at play, but a situation where the DAs office didn’t have a rebuttal argument to make. 2 weeks into trial on a 4/5 year old indictment is very late to be turning things over.

This is a BIG fuck up though. Failing to turn over something so substantial that instead of arguing for an adverse inference, a delay in trial, preclusion of evidence, or hell, even a mistrial, you consent to dismissal with prejudice??

Yikes.

I'm just leaning into the username here.