Judge throws out $2 million worth of drugs, gun as evidence in case against Springfield man

Judge throws out $2 million worth of drugs, gun as evidence in case against Springfield man called 'big fish' drug trafficker

SPRINGFIELD - Saying the actions of a veteran state trooper and a Holyoke police detective amounted to "lawlessness," a judge has refused to allow close to $2 million worth of cocaine and a loaded handgun to be used as evidence to prosecute a Springfield man described as a "big fish" in drug trafficking.

The ruling by in Hampden Superior Court marks the third time in a month that judges have thrown out evidence in cases being prosecuted by the office of Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett with conclusions that they didn't believe the testimony of police officers.

William M. Bennett It also marks the second case in the past two years in which Moriarty has raised questions about the credibility of Holyoke detective Paul C. Barkyoumb, a 13-year member of the force who has been involved in some of his department's major narcotics investigations over the past decade.

In reference to the recent case, Bennett said Monday, "The judge is dead wrong. The officers told the truth.

"We stand behind the investigation and the officers involved," Bennett said. "We will do all we can to appeal this unjust result.

"The police did a fabulous job in this case. It is frustrating to see all their hard work go down the drain," he said.

Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott said he would not comment until he had seen a copy of the ruling.

Paul C. Barkyoumb Brockton lawyer Joseph F. Krowski, who represents Jimmy Roman-Rosario, 41, filed a motion challenging the search warrant.

"It's extremely important for the judiciary to recognize that the integrity of the system has to be protected," Krowski said. "The integrity of the system has been protected in this case."

Krowski, who was assisted in the case by defense investigator Rich Williams, said he does not believe there is any issue in the decision that could be appealed.

In early 2007, Moriarty excluded evidence in a cocaine trafficking case against Luis Lopez and Juan Pagan, and the state Supreme Judicial Court upheld Moriarty's decision.

In the ruling in the Pagan and Lopez case, Moriarty, chiefly citing inconsistencies in Barkyoumb's testimony and sections of it which he did not believe, said there was no probable cause to search the defendants' vehicle.

In a 20-page ruling filed Friday in the case against Rosario, of Springfield, Moriarty said his conclusion "yields a regrettable but necessary result" - elimination of the drugs and gun as evidence - in the prosecution of "an apparent major narcotics trafficker."

Daniel J. Soto He cited the famous words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis from a 1928 case involving illegal search and seizure in which Brandeis wrote: "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

Barkyoumb had "demonstrated an unhesitating willingness to offer false testimony," Moriarty wrote. And, Trooper Daniel Soto, a member of the Hampden Narcotics Task Force, "both deliberately and purposefully misrepresented and omitted material facts" in the sworn affidavit that he submitted to secure a District Court search warrant for Rosario's home on Putnam Circle in August 2006, according to the ruling.

It was at the Putnam Circle home that a team of state and city narcotics officers seized 38.5 pounds - or 17.5 kilograms - of cocaine with an estimated street value of $1.7 million and a loaded, .357-caliber handgun.

Bennett acknowledged that if the appeal is not successful, without the evidence there is no case against Rosario. He said that Moriarty's ruling will have no effect on past, present or future cases in which Barkyoumb and Soto are involved.

RELATED LINKS Jan. 19: Judge does not believe officer, throws out evidence Jan. 6: Narcotics evidence tossed for unlawful search The search came after Holyoke police conducted surveillance of drug sales in their city and Barkyoumb and Soto took into custody a suspect, Eugenio Negron, on Aug. 17, 2006. Negron told officers he bought drugs from Rosario.

"This foisting of falsehoods, subscribed to under oath, by a law enforcement officer upon a neutral and detached magistrate in an affidavit filed in support of an application for a warrant to search a private dwelling is precisely the type of egregious conduct that has been the target of the exclusionary rule since its inception," Moriarty wrote.

Moriarty said he believes Barkyoumb fabricated a story about surveilling Negron from Holyoke to Rosario's Springfield apartment. The surveillance was used to get the search warrant for Rosario's apartment.

It was Barkyoumb who initiated the investigation that led to Rosario's arrest, according to the ruling. Barkyoumb used information from an informant - "cooperating individual" - to track reported sales of crack cocaine by Negron to dealers on Newton Street. In the week prior to the arrests, several undercover purchases of cocaine were made before a search warrant was obtained for an apartment at 74 Newton St., the ruling explains.

Negron was taken into custody as he attempted to flee the scene where he had been due to deliver a quantity of drugs and was taken to the Holyoke police station where he was questioned for several hours by Barkyoumb and Soto, Moriarty wrote.

According to police, Negron said he had cocaine between his buttocks, and police said they retrieved it.

Hours of testimony at the hearings were devoted to following the path of that cocaine and asking why Negron was only booked for disorderly conduct.

Testimony was that Negron was not booked on drug charges because he gave good information about Rosario.

"While the Holyoke Police Department had in effect at all pertinent times a written policy regarding the handling of evidence, Barkyoumb violated this policy at least in respect to the evidence taken from Negron's person on Aug. 17, 2006," Moriarty wrote.

"There is no record verifying any quantity of crack cocaine was recovered from Negron on that day," Moriarty said.

Moriarty said he did not believe 50 grams was taken from Negron but he believes some amount was taken.

Rosario was arrested on Aug. 17, 2006, at the Putnam Circle address and charged with trafficking cocaine in the amount of over 200 grams, violation of a drug free school zone, and unlawful possession of a gun and ammunition.

Lengthy hearings were held in front of Moriarty on four dates in September and December. Krowski asked hours of questions to officers about what they did and in some cases, why there were no records to support what they said.

In the December hearing, Moriarty asked Barkyoumb if he should stop the hearing so Barkyoumb could get a lawyer.

When Barkyoumb declined, Moriarty asked Barkyoumb if he wished the court to appoint him a lawyer for the proceedings before he continued testifying. Barkyoumb said he would keep testifying without a lawyer.

Soto wrote that Negron was followed by surveillance officers to Springfield where he made several stops, including 50 Putnam Circle.

"I am convinced that, by the preponderant evidence, Negron did not travel to 50 Putnam Circle to purchase crack cocaine from Rosario on Aug. 17, 2006, between 5:30 and 6 p.m.," Moriarty wrote.

He said he found the trip and surveillance reported on Soto's affidavit "a fiction."

Sgt. John T. Michael, head of the Hampden County Narcotics Task Force, referred questions about Moriarty's findings about Soto to Bennett.

Two other recent rulings, one each by Hampden Superior Court Judges Constance M. Sweeney and Judd J. Carhart have thrown out evidence in drug cases, with judges saying they did not believe Springfield police.

Asked how his office can address these situations dealing with police credibility, Bennett said the cases of Rosario and the other two recent rulings are all different and he just wanted to speak about Rosario's case.

“In this case I could care less if the police didn’t get all the evidence rules 100% correct.”

Why not just throw a little cold water on that slippery ice slop towards a police state? That is a dangerous prescedent that you are setting. So we start out saying that in drug cases, the police don’t have to follow all the rules, as long as the dealer gets time. Then, logically, the police begin to let slide the rules on other types of cases...hey, why not? Then, logically again, you get to where the POLICE decide where and when to follow the rule of law.

What kind of police state are you advocating?

Forget Singapore....

I thought Drug Warriors LOVED to talk about Singapore. Well, they do until it's pointed out what a terrible problem they have with heroin compared to the Netherlands. Then it's "Forget Singapore", LOL! If you were really concerned for the children, you would not be so knee-jerk dismissive of a more successful policy.

We all know you will be jumping for joy when the police raid the crack house next door to you and break a few rules (laws) doing so.

I asked you to clarify what the nature of their law-breaking was and you refused. So I guess you're OK with shooting an innocent child?

Your libertarianism about drug raids is in the abstract. When it come to your personal situation you won't care especially because these drug dealers were talking to your teenage children

If drug dealers are talking to my children, I don't wait around for the police to act. I get them to safety - I move, or send them to a relative or trusted parents of their friends.

As I said, it is prohibition that creates conditions for crack houses to fluorish. We've been going after them for 20 years, and they're still popping up. You never addressed that point either. So stuff your phony Reno-esque "for the children" demagoguery.

Libertarianism = hypocrisy

Drug Warriors = Nearing full-blown meltdown mode.

Just hang ‘em high and be done with it. I have zero sympathy for those who sell poison. Especially to young people. You think it’s a cops and robbers cartoon

Pushers are as bad a child molesters and child rapists. Just try them and execute them. Recycle them. Worms got to eat to. Same for bacteria and insects

“If the police bend a few rules to put a big drug dealer behind bars....yeah I don’t give a crap and neither would you if he was your next door neighbor.”

Yes, I would. I don’t advocate police bending any rules, no matter the cause. Once that starts, where does it end? The list of crimes where they can bend the rules becomes longer and once started, it can’t be stopped. You do not want to open Pandora’s box just because of your personal feelings against a certain crime. The next thing you know that beating a confession out of someone becomes ok because “it’s for the greater good” or “it will get a terrible person off of the street”. Isn’t that what we fought against in WWII or the Cold War?

As I stated in my earlier post, you do not want to get started down that slippery slope because you may like what it gets you now, but you won’t be happy with the end result.

“How about if the next door drug dealers death meth and threatened your wife and layed his hands on your daughter. How about then? Would you care if the police got rid of him by bending a few rules?”

That’s one of the worst straw man arguments I’ve seen. Why is that those who want a police state always say those things? I would hope that the police would obey the rule of law and then I wouldn’t have to worry about the guy being back out on the street. It’s really simple...the police have rules for a reason, to protect those who might be innocent from being railroaded by overzealous cops who break the rules.

And, to answer your question...no, it’s never ok for the police to bend a few rules, not even one...no matter the situation.

Just hang 'em high and be done with it. I have zero sympathy for those who sell poison. You think it's a cops and robbers cartoon

They hang them high in Singapore and Iran, yet they have terrible addiction problems, much worse than the Netherlands. Traffickers in Mexico are being killed in larger numbers, and in worse ways than in Singapore or Iran. You're the one living in Cartoon Land if you think that will do any good. Why won't you consider a program with better results?

Pushers are as bad a child molesters and child rapists. Just try them and execute them. Recycle them. Worms got to eat to. Same for bacteria and insects

Equivalent to a guy who grows marijuana in his basement? No matter, why support a policy that all but guarantees a profitable business for them and their replacements? Are you aware that the US had no federal prohibition of drugs until the early 1900's? According to information at the usdoj website, the addiction rate was actually LOWER in 1900 than in 2000!

I'm real impressed by your "above top secret" stoner intel
And I can top that!
Did you know that George Washington grew hemp to make rope!!!!!!! Put that in yr pipe and smoke it!!!1111!!!!!1!!

Pushers are as bad a child molesters and child rapists. Just try them and execute them. Recycle them. Worms got to eat to. Same for bacteria and insects

Equivalent to a guy who grows marijuana in his basement? No matter, why support a policy that all but guarantees a profitable business for them and their replacements?

Not talking marijuana the drug of choice for the stupids
But those who push hard drugs like meth need a necktie party
hang enough of them and there won't be any replacements

I'm real impressed by your "above top secret" stoner intel

Behold:

"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

_______________________________________

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm

_______________________________

The US population in 2000 was about 280,000,000. So the combined addiction rate was about 1.6% in 2000 vs 0.5% in 1900, according to information on the USDOJ website.

“pathetic”

I’ll tell you what is “pathetic” is a United States citizen that would accept the law enforcers breaking the rules. You want criminals punished by any means, including police breaking the law themselves. How hypocritical is that?

The old phrase “the end justifies the means” is a terrible one to have when you are talking about law enforcement. And I certainly can’t believe that anyone who posts of Free Republic would have those thoughts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.