Re: 2/20/02 - New Haven Register: Cop's lack of credibility is troubling
Opinions
FORUM
Cop's lack of credibility is troubling
David R. Cameron February 20, 2002
As if it were not bad enough that the New Haven police still have not solved the mystery of who killed Suzanne Jovin after more than three years, now it appears the head of detectives may have given testimony under oath to the state's Freedom of Information Commission that was inaccurate and is contradicted by a document in the police records.
The allegedly inaccurate testimony was given by Lt. Bryan Norwood, the head of the investigative services unit, at a commission hearing in April. Last Wednesday, the commission voted unanimously to order the New Haven police to release substantial portions of the records. In so doing, it accepted the recommendations of one of its members who, acting as a hearing officer, reviewed the entire case file — almost 5,000 pages — submitted after the April hearing.
The vote is surprising in light of the fact the investigation is ongoing. That the commission acted as it did must be attributed largely to the finding of the commissioner who reviewed the records: "It is further found that the testimony of the respondent's sole witness with respect to whether the requested records had been disclosed to certain third parties is not accurate. In camera document IC-III, pages 2501 and 2502, clearly contradicts such testimony. Consequently, the commission finds the testimony of such witness not credible."
Norwood was the sole witness representing Police Chief Melvin Wearing, who was not present at the April hearing. Much of the questioning of Norwood concerned whether the records had been made available to Andrew Rosenzweig, a retired New York homicide investigator hired by Yale in late 2000, or any other member of the public. At several points, Norwood denied the New Haven police had made the records available to Rosenzweig or any member of the public.
The hearing did not establish whether the records had in fact been made available to Rosenzweig. It is conceivable the records were made available to Rosenzweig via the state's attorney's office, which is exempt from the public records law. Indeed, Norwood acknowledged that the records had been given to the state's attorney's office. Providing access through that office might have allowed the police, who are not exempt from FOI, to claim they had not made the records public to anyone, thereby avoiding creation of a right of access under FOI for all.
Now, it turns out the New Haven police may have made the records available to Rosenzweig after all. The two-page document that allegedly contradicts Norwood's testimony is a letter from the New Haven police to the chief of the New York Police Department requesting assistance in the investigation. The letter mentions that former members of the New York police had requested cooperation in being allowed to review the Jovin records and discuss the investigation with New Haven police, and that they "have been granted full and complete cooperation."
It is possible Norwood was either not aware of the letter or, if he was, did not believe it accurately described the extent and nature of the cooperation granted to the former members of the New York police. It is possible the "full and complete cooperation" described in the letter did not in fact include permission from the New Haven police to review its records. However, it is possible his testimony was knowingly inaccurate — that the cooperation granted did include permission to review the Jovin records, that the permission was granted by the New Haven police as well as or instead of by the state's attorney's office, and that he knew that to be the case.
The allegation about Norwood's testimony is deeply troubling. Police officers are frequently required to give sworn testimony as part of their job and much depends on the truthfulness of their testimony. The allegation may be untrue. But if the allegation is true that would be a most serious matter.
If the public trust is to be maintained, the commission should forward without delay the transcript of the April hearing, the commissioner's report, and the two-page letter referred to in the commissioner's report to the chief state's attorney's office and the Criminal Justice Commission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David R. Cameron is a professor of political science at Yale University and a member of the New Haven Civilian Review Board. Readers may write him in care of the Register, 40 Sargent Drive, New Haven 06511.
©New Haven Register 2002
newhavenregister.com |
