Thursday, February 8, 2018

Long ago but not very far away --- This blog said that there were several miscarriages of justice involved in the conviction of John Giuca for the murder of suburban footballer Mark Fisher


Yesterday,  a New York State Appellate Court agreed about one of those miscarriages of justice ---  And it overturned Guica’s conviction because of errors by a reviewing judge in not finding probable prosecutorial misconduct in the case, and not finding that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury about what the DA had done….


A lot remains to be done before there is any semblance of justice in this case  ---  a spokesperson for the current DA even suggested that the DA might attempt to re-try Giuca for the same crime, in spite of the stink permeating the Brooklyn DA’s Office from the prosecutors’ abuses before and during the first trial



The New York Post’s coverage of the Appellate Division  ---  Second Department’s negation of the results of the trial of John Giuca barely scratched the surface of what was wrong with the investigation leading up to and then the actual prosecution of Giuca.   The appellate court implied that the conviction might well have been based on fabricated evidence,  which was made necessary because of the uproar over the non-progress on the case following botched investigations by the police and then the Brooklyn DA’s Office.  If you want to look at what the NY Post reporter,  Emily Saul,  did say…   (See  Court overturns conviction of ‘Grid Kid’ killer  by Emily Saul,  2/8/18,  NY Post/ Metro   [https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/court-overturns-conviction-of-grid-kid-killer/]).


MY COVERAGE OF THIS STORY GAVE MUCH MORE FLAVOR TO THIS VERY SAD TALE  ---  THESE POSTS ALSO >>> NAMES NAMES  ---  AND  ---  GIVES LOTS OF DETAIL TO YOU >>> BY THE NUMBERS

The following are some of the instances wherein I covered the John Giuca case on this blog,  sometimes tying it in closely to efforts to keep DA Hynes in office by specific Brooklyn GOP and Conservative Party operators  (It's a regular who’s who of the “Usual Suspects”.....):   >>>  “Brooklyn GOP Wilson-Pakula to Hynes in 2005 at Center of Appeal of MURDER CONVICTION in 2003 killing”  by  Galewyn Massey,  1/31/14,  The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead/  Post and Comments   [https://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/01/brooklyn-gop-wilson-pakula-to-hynes-in.html];  >>>  “Brooklyn GOP Wilson-Pakula to Hynes in 2005 at Center of Appeal of MURDER CONVICTION in 2003 killing”  by  Galewyn Massey,  1/31/14,  The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead/  Post and Comments   [https://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/01/brooklyn-gop-wilson-pakula-to-hynes-in.html].;   >>>  “Old Brooklyn Murder Case Looks Like More Trouble for GOP and Conservative Activists and Leaders who were around a few years ago”   by Galewyn Massey,  2/26/14,  The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead/  Post and Comments   [http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/02/old-brooklyn-murder-case-looks-like.html];  >>>  “The Big House With Big Secrets: 1306 Albemarle Road”  by Galewyn Massey,  9/27/14,  The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead/  Post and Comments   [http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-big-house-with-big-secrets-1306.html];   >>>  “EXTRA, EXTRA --- "There's no business like show business..." for Hynes-Thompson carry-over Brooklyn ADA Nicolazzi”  by Galewyn Massey,   11/28/14,  The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead/  Post and Comments   [http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/11/extra-extra-theres-no-business-like.html].

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why did Angel diPietro need the top criminal lawyer around to represent her in a case, in which she was supposedly only a witness?

Even though she always was in very deep in the case involving the murder of Mark Fisher, Angel diPietro was admitted to the NYS Bar to practice law, and even hired by the Brooklyn DA's Office, while John Giuca spent most of his young adult life in prison.

And why did Mark Fisher's parents sue her?

Anonymous said...

What did Susan Cleary know, and when did she know it?

Anonymous said...

Was anything Hynes did legit?

Anonymous said...

Isn't the ADA during the trial and who did John Giuca dirty with the phony jailhouse witness a friend of Artie Aidala? And didn't she get a H-Y-O-O-O-J huge raise from Hynes right after the Giuca trial?

Anonymous said...

Is Arthur "The Grinning Idiot" Aidala still trying to get an appointment from Trump?

Galewyn Massey said...

RESPONSE: THE "TRY TO STAY FOCUSED HERE....." EDITION

TO: "ANONYMOUS SAID... AT 8:10 AM"

NORMALLY, I DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE WANT TO POKE A LITTLE FUN AT THE SLOW-WALKING, LOUD-TALKING CUE-BALL OF SATURDAY BRUNCH AND WORK NIGHTS OUT IN BAY RIDGE --- BUT ARTIE AIDALA DID HAVE A HAND IN THIS WHOLE THING

He wound up defending the character who allegedly supplied the gun to Giuca --- who a NY State Appellate Court has just said was wrongly convicted of that crime..... One wonders how Aidala's client wound-up doing, after becoming very cooperative with Artie A's best bud, Ole Charlie Joe Jarhead..... (See more about "Artie" and his client, Jessie Wenzel's, connection to the Fisher-Giuca Case in this earlier post by YKW: "The Curious Cases of Arthur Aidala, 'Joe' Hynes and Marty Golden — Part 3*" by Galewyn Massey, 9/14/14, The Brooklyn Independent GOP Fountainhead [http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-curious-cases-of-arthur-aidala-joe_14.html]).

Anonymous said...

Gail, didn't you have a "14th Floor" informant of your own; and for a while didn't you refer to her as your "BEST BSI"?

We know that she was "bad news" for Hynes, but also, rumor has it that she was "bad news" for you too. What happened?

Anonymous said...

to 1:49 that girl sounds like lots of bad news

Anonymous said...

Arthur "Fredo" Aidala is a bit player in most of the scams Hynes ran.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE AND BACKFILL: THE "MOMA BEAR" EDITION

NY POST FOLLOWS-UP ITS FIRST-DAY'S REPORT ON THE APPELLATE COURT'S SETTING ASIDE OF JOHN GIUCA'S GUILTY VERDICT >>> WITH A MOTHER'S ANGRY LASHING-OUT AT DISGRACED FORMER DA CHARLES HYNES AND HIS FORMERLY "UNDEFEATED" ASSISTANT DA, ANNA-SIGGA NICOLAZZI

JOHN GIUCA'S MOM SAYS HYNES' PROSECUTION OF HER SON WAS BASED ON >>> RACE AND ELECTION-YEAR POLITICS IN A "PREDOMINANTLY BLACK BROOKLYN" <<<


John Giuca's mom, Doreen Giuliano, whose strong support of her son's defense against the trumped-up charge of murder brought by former DA Hynes and his team of unscrupulous underlings finally led to the overturning of the wrongfully-gotten guilty verdict against her son; claims that election-year politics alone motivated the former DA, who was running scared in 2005 -- and that what scared him was the racial makeup of Brooklyn (See "Mother says ex-DA framed her now-vindicated son for murder" by Gabrielle Fonrouge, Emily Saul & Laura Italiano, 2/8/18, NY Post/ Metro [https://nypost.com/2018/02/08/mother-says-ex-da-framed-her-now-vindicated-son-for-murder/]).

According to the remarks quoted in the NY Post article, John Giuca's mom said this: ".... 'It wasn’t about Charles Hynes doing the right thing,' [Doreen] Giuliano said from the doorstep of her Prospect Park South home.... 'It was about black and white.... It was an election year, and we are predominantly a black [borough], Brooklyn.... And in an election year, you just put away the black kids? You’re not getting the black vote.... Charles Hynes took my son [who is white] for the election of 2005.'... ”

Anonymous said...

Hynes mixing justice and politics. I'm shocked !! Shocked !!!

Anonymous said...

The Fisher kid was found dead on Susan Clearys doorstep. Gee maybe her hoodlum son Albert had something to do with it?

Anonymous said...

Wasn't there evidence that somebody left-handed had hit Mark Fisher before he was shot and killed, and that neither John Giuca nor Guica's codefendant were left-handed?

Anonymous said...

Did Hynes have republican line in 2005?

Anonymous said...

Sure did! Check for yourself.

Galewyn Massey said...

BACKFILL: THE “SIGN OF THE TIMES” EDITION

NY TIMES REPORT CONTAINS CLEARER STATEMENT OF SOME OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S REASONS FOR OVERTURNING GUICA TRIAL FINDINGS

According to the reporting of Timesman Alan Feuer, “…. In a terse, five-page ruling on Wednesday, the Second Judicial Department Appeals Court agreed with the defense lawyers, saying the Brooklyn district attorney’s office had indeed failed to turn over crucial evidence and had never corrected ‘the knowingly false or mistaken material testimony of a prosecution witness.’…” (See “New Trial Ordered in Brooklyn in 2003 Slaying of College Student” by Alan Feuer, 2/7/18, NY Times/ NY/ Region [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/nyregion/brooklyn-fairfield-murder-conviction-overturned.html]).

Anonymous said...

For almost a year after Mark Fisher's late night-morning out on the town way back on 10/11 or 10/12, 2003, nobody seemed to have pushed very hard on any of the suspects or material witnesses in the case, because almost everybody was "lawyered-up." Then the victims family and the city-wide press hit the roof over the non-progress in the case by the NYPD and the Brooklyn DA; only then did things move at what suddenly seemed like a lightning pace. Even so, it still took almost two years after the Fisher murder before the first trial of any suspect began.

It was only after the heat finally was put on the cops and the Brooklyn DA's Office that any real heat was put on the whole crew of suspects and or material witnesses.

And guess what, the folks with the best lawyers made the best deals for their clients; and budda-bing, budda-boom, those who were top suspects in the Mark Fisher murder case suddenly became the top prosecution witnesses against a couple of the most likely patsies, John Giuca and Antonio Russo.

Look for who had the best lawyers, and that's where a "brand new" investigation needs to begin all over again.

Galewyn Massey said...

WAY-WAY – BACKFILL: THE “TAKING A TRIP IN OUR >>> ‘WAY-WAY-BACK-MACHINE’ <<<” EDITION [CONTINUED FROM IMMEDIATELY ABOVE]


.... Based on the timeline given by the DA’s top witnesses Cleary and di Pietro, themselves --- they were “asleep” directly across the street from 150 Argyle Road at the time that Mark Fisher was shot to death at that location. Among all the suspects, they are the only ones who have admitted to being that close to the murder scene at the time of the murder…..

So, what did these top witnesses, Cleary and DiPietro, see and/or hear being so close to the murder of Mark Fisher ??? ACCORDING TO THEM --- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!!! Both claim that their first knowledge of any murder was much later in the day, long after the events that happened so close to them on Argyle Road.

In addition, based on what Cleary and di Pietro have said, not only did the couple not see or hear anything related to the murder of Mark Fisher, they didn’t see or hear the huge team of police and forensic investigators, and then press teams, all around the premises where they were staying at the time. --- And the police were doing, among other things, door-to-door interviews; and later on so were the press.

Anonymous said...

Angel DiPietro was hired by Hynes to be a prosecutor.

That happens a lot with murder witnesses.

Anonymous said...

dipietro was not a murder witness. she was a suspect. who do you think was the screaming girl the 911 callers were talking about?

Anonymous said...

Gail, you have not connected this case to your long-standing crusade against courthouse corruption. Why not?

I am an attorney and I know a little about criminal trials, and I have this simple question, was Giuca's trial lawyer, Sam Gregory, bound and gagged during this trial?

Giuca's appeal was very much hampered by the record at trial, because Samuel Gregory didn't make timely objections to some of the worst underhanded stuff the trial ADA, Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, was pulling.

Also, you are always days behind in your media watching. The Harry Siegel of the Daily News all but called Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi a bitch and a half, both inside the courtroom and out.
Take a look at his article "What John Giuca's prosecutor is guilty of"; it was posted on the News website yesterday and is probably in today's Sunday News.

Anonymous said...

Did everyone forget Hynes was the hero of Howard Beach?

Anonymous said...

yeah 2:35 we did forget that because it was like 50 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Hero of Howard Beach? You can't be serious. That was 100% a BAD CONVICTION of three guys that didn't kill anybody, named "Michael Griffith" or anything else; and it was all done to protect the person, who actually did kill Griffith. All of which makes the Howard Beach case almost exactly like the Fisher case and the lynching of your friend Giuca.

The Hynes crowd fooled everybody. They made folks think that in the beginning Hynes was a "reformer" going to clean things up. That was always BS! Hynes was always about taking his cut of all the scams that he could find out about and get in on.

Anonymous said...

Marty and Hynes were asshole buddies. Hynes had his election night party at Bay Ridge Manor.

bixsco12 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Galewyn Massey said...

RESPONSE: THE "OMG --- CIRCUMSPECTION" EDITION

TO: WHOMEVER IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHO WAS "RESPONSIBLE" FOR "COMMENT DELETED... AT 6:22 AM"

II'S SO RARE THAT COMMENTERS ON THIS BLOG THINK TWICE ABOUT SOME OF THE STUFF THEY POST --- HOPEFULLY, YOU TOOK YOUR STUFF DOWN FOR GOOD & SOLID REASONS

However, mere edginess, or lack of complete scientific or metaphysical certainty about this, that and/or the other is not a good and solid reason to hold back anything that's narvelous (new and marvelous), juicy, dicey, incendiary, or even laughably ridiculous. [Warning: nothing containing the forbidden "1%" meme will stand the test of time or my red pencil.....]

Anonymous said...

Hynes was no hero. He was always dirty.

Anonymous said...

Mike Long seemed to think Hynes was ok

Anonymous said...

Who gives a shit about what Mike Long thinks. He's done more to destroy real conservatism in New York State than any other person.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "GRAND SLAM" EDITION

FORMER PROSECUTOR AND LAW PROFESSOR SLAMS THE BROOKLYN ADA WHO TRIED THE CASE AGAINST JOHN GIUCA --- BUT, NOW SHE'S A REALITY TV HOSTESS --- ANNA-SIGGA NICOLAZZI

LAW PROFESSOR, AND FORMER ADA AND DEPUTY NYS AG, BENNETT GERSHMAN, IS AN OPEN CRITIC OF MANY ASPECTS OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM --- BUT, ESPECIALLY OUT-OF-CONTROL PROSECUTORS.

GERSHMAN CALLS OUT ANNA-SIGGA NICOLAZZI FOR IMPROPER CONDUCT THAT IS ALL-TO-COMMON AMONG PROSECUTORS IN AMERICA


Here's some of what Professor Gershman said about the former Brooklyn Assistant DA and current TV personality: "What Nicolazzi did in hiding favorable evidence from the defendant might shock some people unfamiliar with criminal prosecutions. But in fact such conduct is commonplace. One federal judge characterized the practice of prosecutors hiding favorable evidence from defendants as an 'epidemic.' The national registry of exonerations has documented thousands of wrongful convictions since 1989, and a substantial number of those convictions involve prosecutors hiding favorable evidence that would have proved the defendants’ innocence. New York State ranks second in the nation, just behind Texas, in convicting innocent persons...." (See "Star Prosecutor Turned TV Commentator Just Got Caught Doing Some Dirty Tricks" by Bennett Gershman, 2/12/18, "Law and Crime -- A Dan Abrams Production" [[https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/star-brooklyn-prosecutor-just-got-caught-doing-some-dirty-tricks/]).

Professor Gershman's article went on to give the details of Ms. Nicolazzi's prosecutorial misconduct as follows: ".... The unanimous decision [of the New York State Appellate Court] found that Nicolazzi engaged in flagrant misconduct by hiding substantial evidence that likely would have changed the jury’s verdict. As the court’s opinion meticulously describes, Nicolazzi failed to disclose evidence to the defense that [one of her key witnesses] had violated conditions of his drug program; that a warrant had been issued for his arrest; that he had violated the conditions of his plea agreement; and that he met with Nicolazzi and the investigating detectives several times during which they tacitly agreed that if [the witness] helped the prosecutor convict Giuca, the prosecutor would help [the witness] stay out of jail.... In her jury summation, Nicolazzi not only reinforced [her witnesses false testimony[, but then] compounded his lies by representing to the jury that [her witness had received no benefits for his testimony and acted selflessly in contacting the authorities because, as she argued to the jury, 'for once he tried to do something right.'...”