It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A jury acquitted two New York police officers on Thursday of charges that they raped a drunken woman after helping her into her apartment while on patrol.
The woman had described snippets of a harrowing night in which the officers, called to help her because she was extremely intoxicated, instead abused her. They insisted no rape occurred, with one allowing only that he snuggled with her while she wore nothing but a bra.
One crucial piece of prosecution evidence was a secretly recorded conversation days later between the woman and Officer Moreno. In the recorded conversation, Officer Moreno told the woman that he had worn a condom, but only after he had denied numerous times that he had sex with her. His lawyers argued that he lied to her about wearing a condom because she had threatened to make a scene in his precinct station house.
Officer Moreno also made other statements during the conversation that suggested he had had sex with the woman.
A lack of DNA evidence seems to have been the deciding factor for jurors in the trial of two NYPD officers accused a raping a young woman in her East Village apartment in 2008. DNAinfo tracked down two women who served on the jury, and their comments definitely won't send you flying into a teeth-gnashing, window-smashing rage (assuming you're heavily sedated). "In my heart of hearts, I believe her that the officers did it," juror Melinda Hernandez says. Not to be outdone, another female juror says she's certain they were guilty.
"[Kenneth Moreno] raped her," the unidentified female juror tells DNAinfo. "There is no doubt in my mind." But never mind that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" business, today's modern jury demands DNA. As juror John Finck, 57, explains, "We were strictly bound by the judge's instruction that there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendants of the major charges of the case."
That does NOT mean there needs to be DNA evidence, but as one legal expert told the Post after the verdict was announced, "CSI has made things difficult, there's no law saying that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means we show you DNA. It means 'evidence that points to a moral certainty that is beyond dispute.'" "My heart breaks for her. I think the system failed her terribly," says Hernandez, the juror who played a crucial role in the system that acquitted the cops.
"In my heart of hearts, I believe her that the officers did it," juror Melinda Hernandez says. Not to be outdone, another female juror says she's certain they were guilty.
"[Kenneth Moreno] raped her," the unidentified female juror tells DNAinfo. "There is no doubt in my mind."