All language subtitles for Justice.on.Trial.S01E04.1080p.WEB.h264-EDITH

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.

-Did you attack her?
-No.

You picked up
this 16-year-old boy...

-Did you hit her with a rock?
-No.

...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?
-Yes.

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.

To whom
it may concern...

I'm sure everyone who writes you
claims that they are innocent.

But I didn't kill her.

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.

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.

Kevin, would you swear
the witness, please?

Raise your hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the
truth in these matters today?

-I do.
-Yes, have a seat.

Mr. Mentzer, you may inquire.

Thank you, Your
Honor. Good morning, Dr. Smith.

-Good morning.
-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.

That would
be good cop, bad cop?

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And what type of
material were you asked to profile?

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.

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.
-And what was that race?

He's Caucasian.

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.

I have no
further questions.

You may
inquire, Mr. 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.

Next witness.

Your Honor, we call the
plaintiff, Jeffrey Deskovic.

You may inquire.

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.

Did you go to
her memorial services?

Yes.

Why did you go
to the memorial services

of someone you barely knew?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

And was part of that
agreeing to sit for a polygraph exam?

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.

-Is that him right there?
-Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Mentzer?

Plaintiff rests.

Mr. Bakman?

Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to call
Officer Daniel Stephens to the stand.

Now you may inquire, Mr. 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?

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.

And in assisting them,
did you do anything illegal?

No, sir.

-Did you deprive him of food?
-No.

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?

-Yes.
-For the subject,

he can't move without
damaging the machine.

-Correct.
-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?

I
believe that's true.

You doubled that
with this 16-year-old boy.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

-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.

Court, come to order.

The Honorable Judge Judy
Sheindlin presiding.

Thank you. Can I have
the verdict, please?

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.

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.

This case is
going to hell, gentlemen.

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.

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.

Did you also come to
learn that the hair and the DNA

was not that belonging
to Mr. Deskovic?

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.