[narrator] Last time on Justice on Trial.
We like you for the murder of Angela Correa.
I would never touch her.
The primary evidence of the people
is the alleged confession Jeffrey Deskovic made to the police.
We can't wait for DNA results.
Don't worry about it.
This guy specializes in getting confessions.
-[man] Did you attack her? -No.
[Mentzer] You picked up this 16-year-old boy...
-Did you hit her with a rock? -No.
[Mentzer] ...took him to another town...
Did you rape Angela Correa?
...interrogated him for seven hours until he's a sobbing mess on the floor
in a fetal position.
-Did you choke her? -[sobbing] Yes.
[Mentzer] You call that a confession?
The jury finds you guilty as charged in the indictment.
I didn't do anything.
I will be back on appeal.
I will be free.
[Jeffrey] To whom it may concern...
I'm sure everyone who writes you claims that they are innocent.
But I didn't kill her.
-[tense music] -[Angela grunts]
[Jeffrey] Nobody checked my alibi.
They took my blood, but never used it as evidence.
They scared me into a confession.
I was only 15.
Told me I couldn't eat or go home.
Never read me my rights.
Never showed me the lie detector results.
They keep denying my DNA appeals.
I am wasting my life in here.
Please, you've gotta help me.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Deskovic.
I'm Judy Sheindlin.
Before I was a judge on TV,
I was a judge in New York City for 15 years,
and a lawyer for 17 years before that.
While serving on both sides of the bench,
I learned that justice doesn't always end up feeling...
just.
Sometimes, the impact of one decision by a police officer, a lawyer,
or even a judge, can change the way justice is delivered.
We're going to demonstrate this by taking landmark cases
from actual crimes committed by real people.
And we'll recreate them with our trial lawyers
and yours truly as the trial judge.
While we're not going to recreate the trials verbatim,
all the court's ultimate decisions are accurate.
It will be up to you to decide whether the case was fair
and the outcome just.
[narrator] Real cases, actual lawyers,
surprising verdicts...
Justice on Trial.
Jeffrey Deskovic was in jail for 16 years
for the murder of his high school classmate, Angela Correa.
It was largely due to what he said was a false confession,
a confession made under pressure from law enforcement
when he was only 15 years old.
His sentence was even upheld by an appeals court.
But finally, the Innocence Project,
a law firm dedicated to reversing faulty convictions,
took up his case. And what they found was shocking.
The DNA sample from the victim, Angela Correa,
matched a convicted killer whose name is Steven Cunningham.
Cunningham, who was in jail for raping and murdering a teacher,
tragically had committed that murder after he had murdered Angela Correa.
Jeffrey Deskovic was finally set free.
He immediately sued Putnam County and the detective
who oversaw his false confession for wrongful conviction.
Let's see how that played out in court.
Counsel, note your appearance, please.
Dan Mentzer for Jeffrey Deskovic. Good morning, Your Honor.
Morning, Your Honor. Larry Bakman on behalf of Putnam County
and Defendant Daniel Stephens.
Thank you. Members of the jury, the plaintiff, Jeffrey Deskovic,
was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his 15-year-old schoolmate
and spent 16 years in prison before being exonerated.
In this lawsuit, he seeks damages from the county of Putnam,
state of New York, and its agent, Daniel Stephens,
in the amount of $40 million for his wrongful imprisonment,
which he alleges was a direct result of illegal, willful police practices
which led to his conviction and incarceration.
If you find that the police did in fact violate Mr. Deskovic's civil rights,
then you must consider the amount of the damages
for that violation and his subsequent incarceration.
Mr. Mentzer, do you wish to open?
I do, Your Honor.
Sixteen years after Jeffrey Deskovic was falsely convicted
of the rape and murder of Angela Correa,
the District Attorney finally allowed the DNA sample
that had been removed from Miss Correa to be put into the DNA data bank.
When they did, lo and behold, they knew what we already knew,
is that it was not Jeffrey Deskovic.
This trial is about holding the people who did this to him responsible.
This trial is about holding the people
who robbed this boy of his childhood
by forcing him to spend the best years of his life in jail
as a convicted rapist.
How do we put an economic value on it? We can't.
But that's what your job is gonna be, to decide what economic value
you can give this guy for something that you can never replace.
That's 16 years of his life. Thank you.
Counsel?
Thank you, Your Honor. This is a simple case.
This case comes down to one thing and one thing only.
Did the police violate
approved police investigative procedures?
Did they coerce a false confession from Mr. Deskovic?
And the answer to those questions are no.
Putnam County promulgated proper police policies and procedures.
Detective Stephens, the defendant in this case,
followed those policies and procedures.
He did not coerce a false confession.
Now, the plaintiff wants you to believe they can't put an economic number
on the damages he suffered as a result of his imprisonment.
The plaintiff in this case is asking for $40 million.
The man has 40 million reasons
to lie about the police conduct in this case.
I'm going to be asking you, did they have probable cause
to believe that this man was a child killer of Angela Correa?
And the answer to that question is also yes.
And because of that, you should deny this man's claim.
Thank you.
Mr. Mentzer, call your first witness, please.
Plaintiff calls Dr. Carissa Smith.
[suspenseful music]
Kevin, would you swear the witness, please?
[Kevin] Raise your hand, please.
Do you swear to tell the truth in these matters today?
-I do. -[Kevin] Yes, have a seat.
Mr. Mentzer, you may inquire.
[Mentzer] Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Dr. Smith.
-Good morning. -[Mentzer] Are you employed?
Yes. I am a board-certified forensic psychologist.
I specialize in the study of convicted defendants
who have falsely confessed to committing crimes.
Now, Doctor, are you actually telling us that this is a common practice,
that people falsely confess to crimes they never commit?
Absolutely.
Now, in these cases where defendants have been found
to have been falsely convicted based upon their own confessions,
are there tactics that the police typically use
that you've seen in these studies?
Yes. There will be tactics
such as intimidating and befriending.
[Mentzer] That would be good cop, bad cop?
-[Dr. Smith] Exactly. -[laughs]
[Dr. Smith] Typically, these individuals who falsely confess are young.
Over half of them are under the age of 21.
There will be tactics used such as feeding the suspect details of the crime,
which then become embedded in the suspect's mind.
The suspect then repeats these details in their ultimate confession,
which fleshes out their confession to be more believable by a jury.
Sounds like you were there, kid.
We've been talking about this case for so long.
I almost feel like I was.
Does that ever happen to you guys, too?
Yeah. We usually try to put ourselves in the mind of the killer.
Well, why don't you try that by sketching out what you think happened.
It would help us a lot.
Yeah. Yeah, sure.
And they will take the suspect into an interrogation room,
isolated, generally where the suspect is hungry and tired.
And they will proceed to do whatever it takes to get a confession.
Does the interrogator typically offer the suspect
a way out of the lengthy interrogation?
Yes. The interrogator will make it clear that there is only one way out,
one way to get home, and that is to confess.
Your only hope, and I keep trying to make you understand this,
is to tell the truth.
If you confess, then the D.A. can reduce your sentence.
Okay, he might not even prosecute you 'cause you're a 16-year-old kid.
But I didn't do those things.
Again, look at this. You're lying.
Now, Dr. Smith, I'm gonna ask you if you've had the opportunity
to review the case file of Jeffrey Deskovic.
I have.
[Mentzer] Do you see anything in the interrogation that you observed,
that is common to other interrogations where people have falsely confessed?
Yes. I see that the suspect was interrogated for over six hours.
That they were kept hungry, and that the interrogators had decided
the suspect was guilty before they began the interrogation.
[Mentzer] Do you have an opinion as to whether the tactics
used by the police in the Jeffrey Deskovic false confession
violated common accepted standards of what an interrogator should do
in order to obtain a statement from a witness?
There's no doubt in my mind that they violated the standards.
This is the worst I've seen.
Thank you, Doctor.
Now you may inquire, Mr. Bakman.
Thank you, Your Honor. Let me start out first off, Doctor,
you've been paid by the plaintiff to testify here today?
-Correct. -And how much do you charge per hour?
Five hundred dollars per hour.
[Bakman] And given you had no personal knowledge
of how this investigation was conducted at the time,
you're now being paid to tell this jury here
that this man was wrongfully convicted. Correct?
I'm being paid to give my expert witness opinion.
I have no further questions.
You're excused.
Call your next witness, please, Mr. Mentzer.
The plaintiff calls Jeff Stockton.
[suspenseful music]
You may inquire, sir.
Mr. Stockton, could you please tell us what your background is?
I'm an expert in DNA comparison.
Now, Mr. Stockton, I want to draw your attention back to November of 1989.
Were you asked to conduct a profile on a DNA sample
that was given to you by the Peekskill Police Department?
I was, yes.
[Mentzer] And what type of material were you asked to profile?
[Jeffrey] It was the semen from the victim's body.
And I want to draw your attention to January 11th of the following year.
Were you asked to profile another DNA sample in the case?
Yes. It was a blood sample from the suspect, Jeffrey Deskovic.
[Mentzer] And were you asked to do anything once you got the profile?
Yes. I received a written order to compare the DNA profile
of Jeffrey Deskovic to the DNA profile of the rapist.
And what did your comparison reveal?
That they were not the same person.
That Jeffrey Deskovic was not the source of that semen.
Now, were you also asked to perform a hair analysis examination in this case?
Yes, I was given six strands of hair from the victim's body, Angela Correa,
and I was given control hairs from Jeffrey Deskovic,
and I was given control hairs from Angela Correa.
Now, were you aware of the race of Jeffrey Deskovic
at the time you performed your examination?
-Yes, I was. -[Mentzer] And what was that race?
He's Caucasian.
[Mentzer] What was the racial makeup of the hairs
that you were removing from Angela Correa's body?
Several of the hairs were from a person of African-American origin.
[Mentzer] I have no further questions.
[Judy] You may inquire, Mr. Bakman.
[Bakman] Thank you, Your Honor.
So, can you say that the lack of matching on the DNA sample,
or the lack of the hairs matching Mr. Deskovic,
it doesn't mean that because DNA didn't match,
he's not the man who put a ligature around this child
and strangled her to death. Isn't that right, sir?
-What you said is correct. -No further questions.
Witness is excused. Thank you very much.
[suspenseful music]
Next witness.
Your Honor, we call the plaintiff, Jeffrey Deskovic.
[tense music]
You may inquire.
[Mentzer] I know this is tough,
but I'm gonna ask you some questions about November of 1989, all right?
What was your relationship, if any, with Angela Correa?
I didn't know her. I might've seen her in the hallways once or twice,
said hello, but that was about it.
[Mentzer] Did you go to her memorial services?
[Jeffrey] Yes.
[Mentzer] Why did you go to the memorial services
of someone you barely knew?
[Jeffrey] I was devastated by what happened.
So was everybody else in school. I had never known anybody
that had been murdered before, and I just wanted to show my respect.
Now, at some point after school on December 12th,
were you approached by Peekskill police detectives?
Yes. They approached me as I was walking in their police vehicle
and told me they wanted to talk about the death of Angela.
[Mentzer] What was your response when they told you that?
I was surprised. I told them I had no idea what happened to Angela.
And did you agree to talk to them on December 12th?
Yes. They drove me to the police station, yes.
[Mentzer] How did the police treat you at the police station?
At first they were mild and polite and friendly with me.
Did they give you any specific information about the crime itself
in discussing it with you?
[Jeffrey] They did.
Did they actually take you to the crime scene that day?
They did. And they showed me things at the crime scene, yes.
[Mentzer] Did they ask you your theories about the crime at all?
Yeah, they asked my theories about the case, how the crime was committed.
Things like that.
Did you believe that they really wanted your help?
At the time, yes.
Now, how did, specifically, Detective McIntyre treat you?
[Jeffrey] He seemed to show interest in my opinions about the case.
He wanted my inputs about the case.
We'd eat pizza, drink coffee together. I looked up to this detective.
I thought he was in my corner.
So, I wanted to do anything I could to please him at the time.
Now, did you actually agree to allow them to remove blood from you
to test it against what they found at the crime scene?
Yes. They told me if I wanted to continue working on the investigation,
they would have to rule me out as a suspect.
And you actually agreed to do that to prove to them that you were innocent?
Yes. I wanted to do everything I could to prove my innocence at the time.
[Mentzer] And was part of that agreeing to sit for a polygraph exam?
[Jeffrey] Yes.
Now I want to ask you some questions about January 25th.
You were on your way into school that morning?
Yes. I was on my way to school, it was about 8:00 a.m.
I asked to go with my friend. They outed him, told him to get lost,
and then drove me in the back of a police car.
And they drove you, not to the Peekskill police station, did they?
No, it was about half an hour away, a place I'd never been before.
Introduced me to a person I'd never met before.
When you say, introduced you to a person that you'd never met before,
-do you see that guy in court? -Yes.
-[Mentzer] Is that him right there? -[Jeffrey] Yes.
[Mentzer] Did you go to an office setting or a police department of some sort?
He escorted me into a small room, hooked me up to a machine
and just started asking me questions.
[Mentzer] What type of questions?
He asked me if I killed Angela. I told him I didn't.
And at the end of it, did Detective Stephens
say something to you before he left that room?
Yes. He kept telling me, the machine tells him
that I'm guilty, I need to confess.
And did Detective McIntyre come into the interrogation room
-where you were seated? -He did.
Did he tell you whether you could go home at any point?
Yes. He told me that I could go home,
however he said that I would need to confess.
Did you ultimately break down and confess?
I ultimately broke down emotionally.
I ended up lying on the floor in the fetal position.
But he was nice enough to get down on the floor with me and comfort me.
Just told me everything was gonna be okay.
[Mentzer] And did you eventually give him what he wanted?
I told him what he wanted to hear.
And why did you confess to a crime you didn't commit, Jeffrey?
I didn't think I had a choice at the time.
I had been so bombarded with pressure and questions
that I just wanted to go home.
But I thought confessing was the only way I could get out of it.
Jeffrey, as best as you can, could you please describe for us
what life was like for a guy to go into prison at age 16?
It was tough. Let's just put it this way,
once the other inmates found out that I was a convicted rapist,
I was a dead man walking.
Were you ever assaulted in prison?
Many times. Once I was hit in the back of the head with a 10-pound weight.
[Mentzer] How did you feel at age 32, walking into the world as a free man?
The world had passed me by.
Everyone had a cell phone, a computer. I had to learn all of this from scratch.
I mean, I didn't even know how to drive a car.
Jeffrey, how are you now mentally?
Not good. I have severe PTSD.
I have trouble sleeping at night. I have nightmares.
Terrified of police. Though I'm on the outside now,
it was a part of my essence
that I really don't think I'll ever see again, or find again.
It's gone.
-[Mentzer] Thank you. -You may inquire.
Thank you. You've had 16 years in prison
to think about this case every single day.
-Is that right? -Yes, that's correct.
[Bakman] Putting yourself in the officer's shoes
back in the day when you were cooperating with them,
you wanted to be a part of the investigation, yes?
Yes.
You were late to school the day after Angela went missing, yes?
Yes.
You were at not one, but three different wakes, correct?
-Correct. -You barely knew the girl, correct?
Correct.
And then, the police focused their suspicion on you, yes?
Yes.
[Bakman] And they interviewed you multiple times, correct?
-Correct. -And you denied, denied, denied
having anything to do with the death of Angela for some two months.
And then, lo and behold, you met my client, Detective Stephens,
and you believe he was so coercive with you,
that that same day you met him, you gave a full confession
to Detective McIntyre. Do I have that right?
Yes.
[Bakman] And not only did you give a confession after denying this,
you gave Detective McIntyre the details
of how this girl was killed, correct?
I don't remember.
Well, you do remember not just saying, "I killed her"?
You went into detail, didn't you?
I never said I killed her because I didn't.
Well, sir, when you were in a fetal position laying on the floor,
and Detective McIntyre was befriending you,
you gave him a confession. That's what you're suing for.
I'm saying to you that it was 16 years ago.
I might've given a confession,
but it was an absolute complete and utter false confession.
I told him what he wanted to hear.
That's all I could think to do at the time.
And you have 40 million reasons today to make that claim. Don't you, sir?
Objection.
-Sustained. -No further questions.
Witness is excused. Thank you, Mr. Deskovic.
[contemplative music]
Mr. Mentzer?
Plaintiff rests.
Mr. Bakman?
Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to call Officer Daniel Stephens to the stand.
[suspenseful music]
Now you may inquire, Mr. Bakman.
[Bakman] Thank you, Your Honor. Detective Stephens,
you and I seem to have gone through these questions some 16 years ago.
Uh, as I recall, yes.
And why don't you tell this jury what was your profession and occupation?
I was a detective and polygraph investigator
for the Putnam County Sheriff's Department.
And did you have occasion to meet the plaintiff
at some point in time some 16 years ago?
I did.
How did that come about, if you could tell this jury, please?
Uh, the Peekskill Police Department requested that I come in
to assist them in their investigation by giving a polygraph examination.
And the focus of that investigation fell on Mr. Deskovic, correct?
[Stephens] That is correct.
And when you used that polygraph upon Mr. Deskovic,
did you try and obtain a confession from him?
Yes, sir, that was the goal.
[Bakman] And in assisting them, did you do anything illegal?
No, sir.
-[Bakman] Did you deprive him of food? -No.
[Bakman] Did you ever keep him there involuntarily for the six hours?
Certainly not.
Was there anything that you did during your six hours with this man
that, in hindsight, you believe was abusive?
-No. -No further questions.
You may inquire, sir.
Thank you, Your Honor. Detective Stephens,
the morning of January 25th,
Jeffrey Deskovic was brought to your office.
You brought him into the interrogation room
and strapped him to the machine, right?
-[Stephens] Yes. -[Mentzer] For the subject,
he can't move without damaging the machine.
-[Stephens] Correct. -[Mentzer] You left him there
for six hours in that condition.
Roughly six hours, yes.
But the American Polygraph Association training
says that you're to conduct these examinations
for a period no longer than three hours. Right?
[Stephens] I believe that's true.
[Mentzer] You doubled that with this 16-year-old boy.
[Stephens] Yes.
[Mentzer] You're trained on the Arther method,
and the Arther method is criticized
because it starts with the presumption that the subject is guilty, right?
Correct.
[Mentzer] And whether or not he's telling the truth didn't matter to you.
-That's the Arther method. -Correct. The assumption is he's guilty.
[Mentzer] Now, this kid who was strapped to a chair,
hooked up to a polygraph machine, facing interrogation from a guy like you,
who has a knack for getting confessions,
who consistently said he didn't do it.
Did it ever dawn on you that maybe he didn't do it?
Again, sir, my job was to get a confession.
This was not my investigation.
This was Detective Levine's and McIntyre's investigation.
Both those detectives came in telling me, this is our guy,
they need a confession. My job was to get it.
And the only thing you cared about was getting a confession.
I cared about doing my job.
-[Mentzer] No more questions. -I have a couple of questions.
Now, you had a 16-year-old whom you were administering a test to.
And I am correct in your testimony
that the defendant, each time said, "I didn't kill Angela Correa"?
Correct.
Didn't you think the machine was being reliable?
I had two detectives who were coming in from Peekskill
who were telling me that they've got their guy.
My job is to get a confession. So, from that perspective,
with that particular technique, what the polygraph says or doesn't say--
-Is irrelevant. -Correct.
Okay, now you're excused. Thank you very much.
Any other witnesses, Mr. Bakman?
No, Your Honor, the Defense rests.
Okay. Summations, please.
All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, once again, good afternoon.
This is my closing argument in defense of both Putnam County
and in defense of Daniel Stephens.
And basically, what this case comes down to, folks,
is a credibility contest.
The credibility contest
is between the plaintiff, Mr. Deskovic,
who I pointed out has 40 million reasons to exaggerate,
bend the truth, or outright lie
in order to tell you that his confession,
it was all done because of this man here
at counsel table, Detective Stephens.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now, 16 years later, the DNA excluded him
as being the individual who inseminated the victim, nothing more.
They had circumstantial evidence in this case that he was the killer.
Add to that, he confessed with details,
and you have the reason for the arrest and the conviction of this individual.
And I would ask that you rule in favor of the Defense
and you reject the request for $40 million. Thank you.
-Mr. Mentzer? -Thank you, Your Honor.
Why would anyone confess to a crime they didn't commit?
It's a question that baffles us all.
But we know from the testimony of Dr. Smith that it happens.
Never mind the fact that he never seemed like a likely suspect
from the very beginning.
They were so obsessed with getting a confession
that they couldn't see that everything that this man did
was consistent with an innocent man. That's tunnel vision.
They keep focused on one guy, exclude any other evidence.
And then, finally, then you get the DNA evidence--
now, DNA evidence where you can prove beyond any doubt,
not reasonable doubt, not probable cause,
beyond any doubt that he was not the source of the semen
recovered from the rape victim's body.
That was not even enough. They simply marched ahead.
You cannot give him what was taken from him.
You will never give him what he really deserves.
But we feel that he deserves a monetary amount
so that people like that pay.
Thank you.
Thank you. The jury is directed to retire to deliberate the verdict.
[contemplative music]
[Kevin] Court, come to order.
The Honorable Judge Judy Sheindlin presiding.
Thank you. Can I have the verdict, please?
[somber music]
The jury, Mr. Deskovic, finds that the defendants did in fact
violate your civil rights and are guilty.
The jury further finds damages in your favor
in the amount of $41 million.
I thank the jury for its service. This case is now concluded.
[encouraging whisper]
Jeffrey Deskovic was wrongly convicted and spent 16 years in prison
for a murder he didn't commit.
He successfully sued for wrongful imprisonment,
but the question remained,
did the prosecutor who got it wrong just make a mistake,
or did he actually commit what was called prosecutorial misconduct?
That's when a prosecutor knowingly hides evidence
or submits false evidence in order to obtain a conviction.
Jeffrey believed his prosecutor did both.
Counsel, please state your appearances for the record.
For the plaintiff, Jeffrey Deskovic, I'm Dan Mentzer.
Good afternoon, everyone. Larry Bakman on behalf of the State of New York.
Thank you, Counsel. We will now hear argument on the matter.
Mr. Mentzer.
Thank you, Judge. We do not accuse the prosecutor in this case
of being solely responsible for taking 16 years of that young boy's life.
Indeed, on January 25th,
the day that Jeffrey was coerced into falsely confessing,
we know that the prosecutor wasn't even there.
But then, Jeffrey was indicted.
And then, he came into charge.
And every decision that was made at that point, he made.
Then comes March 2nd. March 2nd is the day
this case should have ended.
March 2nd is the day that he gets back evidence--
evidence that not just tells him he's got the wrong guy,
but it screams to him, you got the wrong guy!
This kid is innocent!
What any reasonable person would do then,
anybody who cares about being fair to that boy,
is dismiss the case right then.
Anybody except for this prosecutor.
[Bakman] This case is going to hell, gentlemen.
[scoffs] The hell you talkin' about?
We gave you a confession.
Well, here's a news flash:
the DNA results came back, they don't match your boy.
You're joking.
[Bakman] And I'll tell you something else.
The hair samples recovered from the victim's body,
they come back to an African-American male.
That doesn't mean anything.
The M.E. and the CSI tech, they're both Black.
Maybe it comes from one of them.
You know that and I know that,
but when the defense lawyer finds out, he's gonna have a field day.
I've got half a mind to kick this case, right now.
Come on, you can't do that.
The only thing I have is a confession
which you two geniuses failed to record.
-Look, trust me, that's a good thing. -Oh, really?
Listen up, hotshot, you and I both know
we got people out there, and they're screaming for blood.
You're up for reelection.
Grow a pair, get out there and do the right thing.
Grow a pair? Trust me, I'll burn this kid at the stake.
You two clowns better hope he's got a lousy defense lawyer.
The conduct of this prosecutor is outrageous.
And it needs to be punished, and he needs to be held accountable
for that boy spending 16 years in a hole fighting for his life
when he should've been enjoying his life. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mentzer. Mr. Bakman.
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
So, 20 years this case has dragged on.
Unfortunately for Mr. Mentzer,
the question is one of law for this court.
The question is absolute versus qualified immunity.
And the standard that the court has to ask itself
is as a prosecutor, during the initiation of criminal proceedings,
and the prosecution of the indictment in this case,
was I entitled to absolute immunity?
For courts and prosecutors to be able to function,
the laws in most jurisdictions grant them immunity
from being sued by convicted criminals for wrongfully conducting prosecutions.
In New York, if a prosecutor during the investigative phase of the case,
which is prior to the grand jury, withholds or manufactures evidence,
he cannot use the immunity as a shield from civil liability.
However, in what may seem odd to our sense of justice,
if the prosecutor withholds or manufactures evidence
after the grand jury, which is known as the judicial phase,
he is protected from being personally liable in any civil suit.
It may not protect the state from liability for wrongful imprisonment,
but it protects the individual prosecutor.
-Judge DiMango. -Thank you.
I'm gonna ask Mr. Bakman to stand up.
Mr. Bakman, I'm gonna ask you a number of questions about your behavior,
and I'd like to know whether or not you've engaged in the following behavior.
Did you learn at some point that the victim was not sexually active?
Yes.
[Patricia] Did you also come to learn that the hair and the DNA
was not that belonging to Mr. Deskovic?
Yes.
[Patricia] So, the only issue that we here have to resolve,
is that when in point in time did you come to learn this information?
I turned to the plaintiff's pleadings for the answer to that question.
Their own papers, their own concessions
tell this court that everything that I learned
by way of my investigators
was post-indictment during the judicial phase of this case,
thereby allowing me to have absolute immunity.
[Patricia] Okay, you can have a seat. Thank you.
Judge Levy.
Thank you, Mr. Bakman. You can step back up, please, sir.
Jeffrey Deskovic spent 16 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
And you prosecuted him for that crime.
You convinced the jury
that Mr. Deskovic raped his 15-year-old classmate,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You created, out of thin air, false theories
to explain away the DNA evidence that exonerated him.
And as the lead prosecutor in the case, sir,
you were directly responsible for his wrongful conviction.
So, why should you avoid being held to account for your conduct?
Well, I'm not clear on what the court means
by holding me accountable for my conduct.
You are not gonna pay a nickel
for the 16 years that that boy spent in jail.
He lost the best years of his life.
True, and that's because the Prosecution
is covered by absolute immunity in this case,
no matter how despicable you may think that is.
I don't think that's despicable, Mr. Bakman,
I think your conduct in this case, sir, was despicable.
How do you defend yourself from the indefensible?
I defend myself by saying the defense attorney fell down on the job.
[Adam] Always someone else's fault.
Do you have anything to say to Mr. Deskovic now,
after serving 16 years in jail, Mr. Bakman, for a crime he did not commit?
Your Honor, I did my job as a prosecutor to the best of my ability
based on the evidence in the moment, not 20/20 looking backwards.
[Adam] How about Patricia Morrison?
Patricia Morrison, you should know, Mr. Bakman,
was the victim of the real murderer of Miss Correa.
In 1993, Steven Cunningham murdered Patricia Morrison,
a mother of three.
It was Steven Cunningham's DNA inside Miss Correa.
Had you done your job, sir,
and your police agency done their job, sir,
then Patricia Morrison would be alive today
because the real murderer would've been found.
What do you have to say to Patricia Morrison's family?
I have nothing to say.
Procedurally, you are asking us to dismiss the case against you
before any civil discovery takes place
that could link you with conduct that occurred
before probable cause was determined.
[Bakman] There's not a shred of an allegation
that I engaged in any misconduct pre-indictment.
That, sir, we will never know about if, in fact, we, as a judicial body,
determine that you are entitled to absolute immunity.
Thank you, Judge Acker.
[Tanya] Thank you, Judge. Mr. Bakman,
the conduct that is alleged here is indeed troubling.
And I think that you would admit that it strikes right at the heart
of public trust in our court system.
You would acknowledge, sir, that you are in fact an officer of the court.
Absolutely.
[Tanya] You would acknowledge that as an officer of the court,
you are obligated to only make representations in court
for which you have a good faith basis.
You know, Judge, we had a 15-year-old child brutally murdered.
And we had a 16-year-old boy
who gave us detailed information
about the killing in a confession.
That was the good faith belief to prosecute,
and a good faith belief to believe he was not only the killer,
he was also the rapist despite the DNA not matching.
I am talking about what you, sir, know to be your responsibilities
as an advocate for the People.
I just ask if you, Judge Acker, have ever prosecuted a criminal case?
I think, Mr. Bakman, that rather than directing questions to the bench,
you should take a good hard look at your own conduct.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Mentzer, please.
I think, Mr. Mentzer, that it's very important
that we stay squarely focused on what is at issue here.
What we must do is not simply determine
whether or not he engaged in something egregious,
the question is the timing of his egregious conduct.
Now, explain to the court why you believe that his conduct was investigatory
and not in preparation for trial.
Well, Judge, the reason why he would be protected ordinarily,
if it comes post-indictment, because that's part of the judicial phase,
is because post-indictment comes generally with probable cause.
Once probable cause is established,
then we enter the judicial phase. In this case, on March 2nd,
DNA evidence came back and said he's not the guy.
That eviscerates any probable cause here.
What should happen at that point is that this man
should have dismissed the indictment, continued to investigate.
Because there is no probable cause once you have that exculpatory evidence.
Hold on, Mr. Mentzer, we also had a confession in this case.
And doesn't that confession establish probable cause for the indictment?
It was a coerced confession. That's why he needs to be held accountable
and only given qualified immunity
because that March 2nd DNA evidence changes the game.
Thank you, sir.
Gentlemen, we'll now hear closing arguments.
Mr. Mentzer.
When Jeffrey Deskovic was a 16-year-old boy,
he should've been going to high school. He did not.
He was in a maximum security prison fighting for his life
against a bunch of inmates who thought that he was a rapist and a murderer.
The people who put him there are all held to account.
The police officers, the detectives who coerced the confession from him,
they can be sued.
The polygraph examiner who convinced him
that he failed polygraph tests which led to his false confession,
they can be sued.
Everybody except the guy running the show? Is that what he's trying to say?
Everybody except him? He did this.
This man needs to pay. This should outrage every one of you!
You can deny his motion to dismiss
and force him to do what he forced Jeffrey to do,
and that's get in front of the jury and let them decide.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mentzer. Mr. Bakman.
Thank you. So, no matter how loud Mr. Mentzer gets,
it doesn't change the concept of absolute immunity.
And that's what we have here in this case.
His own pleadings fail to state anything
that could lead this court into believing that I had knowledge
of what was going on with respect to police misconduct pre-indictment.
I ask this court to dismiss me
on the legal basis of absolute immunity. Submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
We will now retire to deliberate.
[contemplative music]
[Tanya] We have reached a unanimous verdict.
When a state prosecuting attorney is acting within the scope of their duties
and initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution,
they are immune from civil liability. It must be so.
Without this immunity, prosecutors would be afraid to do their jobs.
They'd be afraid of constantly being sued.
Of course, not everything a prosecutor does is absolutely immune
just because a prosecutor did it.
Whether or not there is such absolute immunity
depends on the conduct in which the prosecutor is engaged.
When engaged in conduct that occurs in the course of their role
in the judicial phase of the criminal process,
absolute immunity will attach.
When the conduct is associated
with the investigative stage of the process, however,
only qualified immunity applies.
However objectionable the prosecutor's conduct may have been,
protecting the right of prosecutors to exercise their independent judgment
so as to keep the public safe is the principle that must guide us.
For that reason, the motion to dismiss the lawsuit against you
is granted, Mr. Bakman.
And you are exempt from any financial liability in this case.
Jeffrey Deskovic is now a lawyer.
He started a foundation to help others
who had been wrongfully convicted of crimes,
and to fight against the abuse of power by law enforcement.
He learned the hard way that the justice system isn't always just.
We need a strong system to enforce our laws and punish the guilty.
But as we've seen in the case of Jeffrey Deskovic,
the injustice of a wrongful conviction affects not only those who are convicted,
but it can allow a real predator to be free to kill again.
[string quartet music]
[closing theme music]