Home invasion

max_weisenfeld said:

Don't read the comments

To be honest, they weren't as bad as I expected.  Granted it isn't exactly a high bar over at NJ.com, but still.

Well, this is no good:

""Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind," Branham [the jury foremnan] said. He said the police who testified were "very bias" against Custis.
During the trial, Custis' attorney, John McMahon of the Public Defender's Office argued Custis was arrested because of the police officers' bias, largely because the first police detective to arrive at the house after the attack was recorded on the same nanny cam referring to the then unknown attack with obscenities and racial slurs."

Separate issue, and thankfully the jury was wise enough to recognize that.

I'd be "bias" against a guy caught on tape throwing a woman down the basement stairs too.  In front of her toddler.  

Biased enough to charge any Black male with the crime, and possibly tamper with evidence to get the conviction?

nah, just the one on tape doing it.

Robert_Casotto said:

nah, just the one on tape doing it.

+1 

And in case that wasn't enough, the four that ID'ed him oughta be.

The concern is that the bias of the police department against [racial slur used by the officer] could result in incorrect identification of the person on the tape (or if there was no nannycam, then incorrect identification based on other evidence), and improper handling of the evidence.

Which is why the quote in the article is relevant.  Here is is again, with a bit more context:

Moments later outside the courthouse, jury foreman Jerome Branham praised four women who identified Custis from the "nanny cam" video.
The case, Branham said, "was sealed for me when the four women testified."

"Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind," Branham said. He said the police who testified were "very bias" against Custis.

During the trial, Custis' attorney, John McMahon of the Public Defender's Office argued Custis was arrested because of the police officers' bias, largely because the first police detective to arrive at the house after the attack was recorded on the same nanny cam referring to the then unknown attack with obscenities and racial slurs.

Does it make sense now?

From what I have read, and maybe not everything has been published the slur was monkey. Not nice and not acceptable from a police officer, but not exactly an off the scale slur.

Zoinks -- You can try to convince yourself that the Millburn officers are mildly racist enough that all can stay sparkly fresh in your world, but the jury foreman said:

"Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind,"

sprout said:

The concern is that the bias of the police department against [racial slur used by the officer] could result in incorrect identification of the person on the tape (or if there was no nannycam, then incorrect identification based on other evidence), and improper handling of the evidence.

Which is why the quote in the article is relevant.  Here is is again, with a bit more context:

Moments later outside the courthouse, jury foreman Jerome Branham praised four women who identified Custis from the "nanny cam" video.
The case, Branham said, "was sealed for me when the four women testified."

"Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind," Branham said. He said the police who testified were "very bias" against Custis.

During the trial, Custis' attorney, John McMahon of the Public Defender's Office argued Custis was arrested because of the police officers' bias, largely because the first police detective to arrive at the house after the attack was recorded on the same nanny cam referring to the then unknown attack with obscenities and racial slurs.

Does it make sense now?

No.  Reality is, the PD could have been the most racist known to man and it would not have mattered--I assume this is only all or part of whatever shred of a defense strategy his lawyer had.  That the cam existed and that the man was identified by four women are the ONLY things that mattered.  How anyone can argue any impact of any bias when they CLEARLY arrested the right guy who was CLEARLY being filmed in the act and who was CLEARLY identified by no less than four different people, is beyond me.  He was arrested because he was black, and what?  They just got lucky?  Please.

ctrzaska said:

 
Does it make sense now?

No.  Reality is, the PD could have been the most racist known to man and it would not have mattered--I assume this is only all or part of whatever shred of a defense strategy his lawyer had.  That the cam existed and that the man was identified by four women are the ONLY things that mattered.  How one can argue any impact of any bias when they CLEARLY arrested the right guy who was CLEARLY being filmed in the act and who was CLEARLY identified by no less than four different people, is beyond me.

But that's exactly what the guy is saying: Good thing the cam existed and the women ID'd him, because otherwise we would only have had the cop's testimony, which doesn't seem trustworthy. 

The defense attorney played the only card he had, knowing that in Essex County, NJ that card is often a trump card.

There were other videos of him from the general locality around the same time. The jury examined those videos and the nanny-cam one several times.

In other words, without the Nanny cam video, this guy would be coming to a theater near you (the royal you).

There would have been plenty of physical evidence in the house to convict him, but the jury may have been skeptical because of the prejudicial police language;  and more than one person at least might have resulted in a hung jury or  worse on the possibility that the police might have planted the evidence and couldn't be trusted.

Without the nannycam no one would have known about the prejudicial police language.

Good point, of course!  So in that case one would think that there would have been more than enough to convict.

The detective is now useless as a presenting witness in future cases that involve minorities.

sprout said:

The concern is that the bias of the police department against [racial slur used by the officer] could result in incorrect identification of the person on the tape (or if there was no nannycam, then incorrect identification based on other evidence), and improper handling of the evidence.

Which is why the quote in the article is relevant.  Here is is again, with a bit more context:

Moments later outside the courthouse, jury foreman Jerome Branham praised four women who identified Custis from the "nanny cam" video.
The case, Branham said, "was sealed for me when the four women testified."

"Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind," Branham said. He said the police who testified were "very bias" against Custis.

During the trial, Custis' attorney, John McMahon of the Public Defender's Office argued Custis was arrested because of the police officers' bias, largely because the first police detective to arrive at the house after the attack was recorded on the same nanny cam referring to the then unknown attack with obscenities and racial slurs.

Does it make sense now?

Well of course the PD was  'very bias against Custis'.  We all should be biased against him.   It would have been more appropriate to say the PD was biased against black people. That is the issue they need to correct. 

bramzzoinks said:

From what I have read, and maybe not everything has been published the slur was monkey. Not nice and not acceptable from a police officer, but not exactly an off the scale slur.

That's a slur and much more than "not nice."

sprout said:

The concern is that the bias of the police department against [racial slur used by the officer] could result in incorrect identification of the person on the tape (or if there was no nannycam, then incorrect identification based on other evidence), and improper handling of the evidence.

Which is why the quote in the article is relevant.  Here is is again, with a bit more context:

Moments later outside the courthouse, jury foreman Jerome Branham praised four women who identified Custis from the "nanny cam" video.
The case, Branham said, "was sealed for me when the four women testified."

"Thank God for the Nanny cam, because the Millburn police left some questions in my mind," Branham said. He said the police who testified were "very bias" against Custis.

During the trial, Custis' attorney, John McMahon of the Public Defender's Office argued Custis was arrested because of the police officers' bias, largely because the first police detective to arrive at the house after the attack was recorded on the same nanny cam referring to the then unknown attack with obscenities and racial slurs.

Does it make sense now?

I think that the main concern was that the officer's incredibly offensive language might cause a man who was clearly guilty beyond even the shadow of a doubt to be put back on the street where, sooner or later, he would kill someone. 

The fact that a scumbag with this guy's criminal record was on the street in the first place is a crime against commonsense.  He should have been put away for life years ago.  

Klinker said:

I think that the main concern was that the officer's incredibly offensive language might cause a man who was clearly guilty beyond even the shadow of a doubt to be put back on the street where, sooner or later, he would kill someone. 

That's not the concern I interpreted from the jury foreman's statement that "the Millburn police left some questions in my mind" (which indicates that there could have been a big shadow of a doubt without the nanny cam).  But I can see how that could be another concern.

bramzzoinks said:

From what I have read, and maybe not everything has been published the slur was monkey. Not nice and not acceptable from a police officer, but not exactly an off the scale slur.

Of course it is.   Pig.   

Can't imagine killing a Silver Back Gorilla to save this Cercopithecinae.

Shawn Custis has been sentenced to life in prison.  The video of the attack is at this link.  

http://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/s/fsxnn/breaking-essex-county-nanny-cam-attacker-goes-to-jail-for-life-video?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=police%20%26%20fire&utm_campaign=alert

The Patch needs to do some fact checking. They state that the victim was a nanny. 

At any rate it's the best possible outcome.

I don't ever want to see that video again.

I wonder what the parole terms are, if any?

Great result.

DottyParker said:

Shawn Custis has been sentenced to life in prison.  The video of the attack is at this link.  




http://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/s/fsxnn/breaking-essex-county-nanny-cam-attacker-goes-to-jail-for-life-video?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=police%20%26%20fire&utm_campaign=alert