Attorney calls for Durham police chief's removal
DURHAM (WTVD) -- It's the case that never should have been. That's what Carlos Riley Junior's attorney told a small crowd gathered outside the Durham County courthouse Monday - just a few days after his client was found not guilty of shooting a Durham police officer.
"From the very beginning, this was a case that shouldn't have been prosecuted," said defense attorney Alex Charns. "It's a sad day for justice."
A jury of 10 men and two women, three black and nine white, cleared Riley of the assault on an officer and reckless driving charges in connection with a December 2012 traffic stop that turned into a fight. It would end with Officer Kelly Stewart wounded in the leg. Riley's attorney plans to appeal the jury's only guilty verdict for common law robbery related to the officer's property.
Wearing a Carolina Hurricanes cap, Charns accused the Durham County District Attorney's Office of 'dirty plays' in court and he called for a 'penalty box' for the motion prosecutors filed to remove him from the case. Charns has a lengthy history of handling criminal and civil cases against the Durham Police Department.
"The bloodlust in the prosecutor's office that led them to prosecute this case without evidence and to hide the ball, to do the shell game, and then try to remove the lawyer, something's wrong here folks," added Charns, while holding photos of the scene.
What the jury didn't see
Charns did not present evidence during the trial. During his news conference, he shared images of the vehicle where Riley and Officer Stewart struggled that the jury didn't see. Charns told the crowd and members of the news media that the prosecution avoided using the photos because the images don't support the officer's claims he was on his back in the passenger seat of Riley's car with Riley on top of him.
Other photographs of the officer's unmarked SUV showed his bulletproof vest with radio attached and citation clipboard inside his vehicle. At trial, Charns accused Officer Stewart of failing to follow protocol when he didn't call in the traffic stop.
"He could've called this in. He didn't call it in because he's off the books," said Charns.
Charns also highlighted a field technician's note on a Gunshot Residue Analysis form that read, "struggle w/ officer, 1 shot fired by officer."
He added that had the officer's workman's comp claim been presented in court, it would've revealed the incident was deemed an accident early on.
Removal of Police Chief?
After the verdict, Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez issued a public statement.
"Although we're disappointed with today's verdict, we respect our justice system and the jury's decision. We will continue to protect and serve the citizens of Durham," wrote Lopez in a news release.
Charns says it was Chief Lopez's comments about Riley reported in a Durham newspaper that convinced him to hold a news conference.
"We have a police chief that doesn't believe in our system, our jury system, our right to a trial," said Charns. "He's still saying my client is guilty."
Charns publicly asked Durham City Manager Tom Bonfield to remove Lopez from his post, saying that he failed to properly train and monitor Officer Stewart's traffic stops. Charns says his records show 76 percent of the drivers Stewart stopped were black.
The city manager and the police chief declined to comment on Charns' news conference.
"He [Bonfield] respects the jury's decision in this case, and that he has confidence that the police department will continue to do its best to serve all residents of Durham," wrote Beverly Thompson, Director of Public Affairs, in an email response.
Systemic Problems?
Charns said Riley's case could be indicative of a much bigger problem. He cited the Durham District Attorney's Office's troubled history as well as other cases he's tried against the police department.
"When I see what happened in this case, it's going to happen again unless the prosecutor and the police chief do something differently," declared Charns. "Why don't we have a system where favorable, exculpatory information gets released without me filing 30 motions or spending 400 hours on the case?"
