Overwhelming Evidence?

In short, although the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that neither officer received a fair trial, they maintained that this did not matter in the case of Larry Nevers because there was "overwhelming" evidence against him. The court continued on to define this "overwhelming" evidence as the testimonies of the four EMS technicians, whom they said "had no apparent motive to lie."

What was the Testimony of these Technicians?

Larry Nevers testified that as he struggled to arrest Green at the driver's door of Green's vehicle, he struck Green several times on the head in an attempt to get Green to release his grip on Nevers' gun. After Green released the gun, Nevers looked up, saw the EMS vehicle of Albino Martinez, and Mithyim Lewis approaching, and flagged it down hoping for some assistance with the still resisting Green.

According to Nevers, he struck Green several more times when Green began swinging a "shiny metallic object" at Nevers' head. It was these last few strikes of the flashlight that Martinez and Lewis witnessed. Each testified that, as they stood together in the street near Green, they saw Nevers strike Green with quick "flicks" of the wrist, thus supporting the testimony of Larry Nevers. Martinez said he saw Nevers strike Green four times, Lewis said only three. A set of keys was later removed from Green's clenched first by other officers who handcuffed him as he continued to resist arrest.

According to EMS computer recordings, technicians Scott Walsh and Lee Hardy arrived in their rig eight minutes after Martinez and Lewis. Nevertheless, according to their testimonies, they saw as much or more than Martinez and Lewis. Walsh testified that he saw Nevers straddle Green and strike him one time on the back of the head. Walsh was the only witness to describe Nevers in this position and the autopsy report showed no injuries to the back of Green's head. Lee Hardy, who gave the most exaggerated testimony, claimed that Nevers struck Green ten times on the head and continued to strike Green as other officers handcuffed him.  According to both Martinez and Lewis, no blows were struck by Nevers after the arrival of Walsh and Hardy, and all other witnesses stated that Nevers did not participate in the handcuffing of Green at all.

Apparently, it is Lee Hardy's testimony that the Michigan Supreme Court would like us to believe constitutes "overwhelming evidence" against Larry Nevers, despite the fact that it was soundly refuted by several other witnersses, and despite the fact that Trial Judge Crockett called Hardy a liar when he acquitted Officer Robert Lessnau since Hardy was the only witness to present testimony against Lessnau..

Did Any of the EMS Technicians have a Motive to Lie?

Martinez and Lewis transported Green to the hospital. After radioing the hospital from the scene, that they would "be there in two to three (minutes)", EMS computer recordings did not register their arrival at Detroit Receiving Hospital for another 17 minutes. It should take no more than five minutes to make this short trip. What took them so long? When Green lost vital signs, these technicians pulled over, within eye sight of the hospital, to attempt two person CPR. They were. trained in one person CPR!  Is it possible that they may have shaded the truth in order to cover up their own negligence? Could this be why their supervisor told them how they should write their reports? Their supervisor told them, "Cover yourself, cover the EMS, and cover the City of Detroit."

Did Walsh and Hardy have a motive to lie? The facts are as follows:  No one reported any police impropriety until about an hour and forty-five minutes after the incident, when Lee Hardy radioed his supervisor and asked what he should do if he witnessed "police brutality/murder."  During that previous time frame, Hardy spent at least five minutes casually conversing via his EMS computer with a friend. Casual conversations, of this nature, are prohibited per "EMS Rules and Regulations."  During this conversation, he made no mention of the "brutality" he had supposedly just witnessed. Later, he and the other EMS technicians returned to the scene, spent time stopping at a party store for refreshments, and discussed the incident among themselves.

Lee Hardy had a very poor work record with EMS. In the short three years he worked for EMS, he had repeatedly violated EMS rules and had been disciplined numerous times. His resentment against authority began to surface at this time. He had repeatedly attempted to gain disability compensation from EMS for a variety of reasons. After the Green's death, Hardy again applied for disability compensation citing emotional stress over the incident.

Shortly after the verdicts, the City of Detroit offered Hardy $20,000 to settle his disability lawsuit against the city. Two weeks later, the City of Detroit offered Hardy an additional $15,000 with the understanding that Hardy would "cooperate" in his testimony against Robert Lessnau in Lessnau's pending lawsuit against the city. Is it possible that Hardy saw the Green incident as a stepping stone to a disability retirement, and that the city encouraged this attempt in order to ensure his further cooperation in the Lessnau civil suit? Is it also possible that Hardy intimidated Scott Walsh into lying?

What About the Other Appeals Issues?

In total, 15 issues were brought to the attention of the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court did not respond to 13 of these issues, saying only that it concurred with the lower court's ruling on those issues. In reviewing the lower (Appeals) court's opinion, one finds that they did not address most of these issues either. Their response to the remaining 13 issue was only to say that they were "insignificant."

Not only did the Michigan Supreme Court ignore nearly every appeals issue presented, it also ignored in its entirety, a lengthy Amicus Curiae brief submitted on behalf of both officers by the N.A.P.O. (National Association of Police Officers), Washington D.C. This brief covered in great detail, the right and necessity of an on duty police officer, charged under similar circumstances, to be judged by a different standard than that of an average citizen. The Michigan Supreme Court made no mention of this brief in its response.

THE COURT'S PRESENTATION OF THE HIGHLY INFLAMATORY "MALCOLM X"   FILM TO BOTH JURIES. (The Appeals Court said the effect of this on the jurors was "negligible" but "highly inappropriate". The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that this warranted a reversal in the case of Walter Budzyn, but not Larry Nevers.)

JURORS KNOWLEDGE AND DISCUSSION OF REPORTS THE CITY WAS BRACING FOR A RIOT (FREEWAYS WOULD BE CLOSED, NATIONAL GUARD WOULD BE ALERTED, ETC.) IN THE EVENT OF AN ACQUITTAL. (Deemed "insignificant" by the Appeals Court. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that this warranted a reversal in the case of Walter Budzyn, but not Larry Nevers.)

A JUROR'S REVIEW OF THE SENTENCE GUIDELINES MANUAL INEXPLICABLY LEFT IN THE JURY ROOM. (Deemed "insignificant" by the Appeals Court. Not addressed by the Michigan Supreme Court.)

THE JUROR'S EXPOSURE TO SUPPRESSED PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL. (Deemed "insignificant" by the Appeals Court. Not addressed by the Michigan Supreme Court.)

FAILURE OF THE COURT TO GRANT A CHANGE OF VENUE DESPITE EXTRAORDINARY AND PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE MAYOR CALLING THE OFFICERS "MURDERERS," THE CITY'S FIRING OF BOTH OFFICERS IMMEDIATELY FOR "COMMITTING SECOND DEGREE MURDER," AND THE CITY'S AGREEMENT TO PAY A $5 MILLION SETTLEMENT TO THE GREEN FAMILY. (Deemed "insignificant" by the Appeals Court. Not addressed by the Michigan Supreme Court.)

THE WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING PAYMENTS AND FAVORS TO PROSECUTION WITNESSSES. (Not addressed by either court.)

THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OPINION HELD BY THE CHIEF CORONER OF THE WAYNE COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE THAT COCAINE "CONTRIBUTED TO (GREEN'S) DEATH." (Not addressed by either court.)

THE TRIAL COURT'S BOLSTERING OF THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL BADEN. (Not addressed by either court.)

FAILURE TO JUSTIFY THE SECOND DEGREE CONVICTIONS OF BOTH OFFICERS BY FAILING TO PROVE INTENT TO KILL. (Not addressed by either court.)

THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF HEARSAY AND PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY GIVEN BY LEE HARDY. (Not addressed by either court.)

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE BLOWS INFLICTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE THE CAUSE OF DEATH. (Not addressed by either court.)

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANTS WERE MORALLY LESS AT FAULT BECAUSE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR LAWFUL DUTIES AS POLICE OFFICERS. (Not addressed by either court.)

THE COURT'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE NEVERS' JURY THAT IT IS THE PROSECUTOR'S BURDEN OF PROOF IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE CASE OF LARRY NEVERS. (Not addressed by either court.)

THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURIES REGARDING THE USE OF FORCE BY AN ON-DUTY POLICE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE LAWFUL ACT OF SUBDUING A CRIMINAL SUSPECT. (Not addressed by either court.)

THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO GIVE THE REQUIRED, NECESSARY AND PROPER INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURIES IN A CASE WHERE THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS IN DISPUTE. (Not addressed by either court.)

The next link in consecutive order is Quotes from Zatkoff's Opinion.

BACK