Marc Stephens files Judicial Misconduct Complaint against 3rd Circuit Judges Scirica, Restrepo, and Fisher

Marc Stephens files Judicial Misconduct Complaint against 3rd Circuit Judges Scirica, Restrepo, and Fisher

In the $76 Million case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, docket no. 16-1868, Appellant Marc Stephens has filed a Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica, Luis Felipe Restrepo, and Dennis Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The complaint also includes Judge William J. Martini from the United States District Court in Newark.

On January 17, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, Office of the Circuit Executives, acknowledged receipt of Marc Stephens' Complaint of Judicial Misconduct.  Marc Stephens argues that the judges intentionally ignored his evidence, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and right to trial when they granted the City of Englewood's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Marc’s complaint reads, “The Judges for the District Court granted and the 3rd Circuit affirmed the defendants motion for summary judgment despite the record showing clear disputed facts. The judges refuse to correct their errors and send this case to trial. [I]n order to prevail, a party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “If the evidence “presents a sufficient disagreement” over a factual issue, summary judgment must be denied.”

The 3rd Circuit Judges erroneously dismissed the case for the following three (3) reasons: Page 5, “The facts here, viewed most favorably to the Stephenses, do not create a genuine dispute as to whether probable cause existed when Tyrone was arrested. The defendants had three compelling pieces of evidence implicating Tyrone in the attack: (1) the identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statement made by Justin Evans that Tyrone had participated in the attack; and (3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi. This evidence was more than sufficient to establish probable cause.”

Marc’s complaint reads as follow:

(1) No identification by Natalia Cortes

“According to detective Cubullos, Tyrone’s (a juvenile) picture was not in the photo array, and this photo array was the same used by McDonald on November 2, “On 11/13/12, I met with Natalia Cortes at the Englewood Police Department to show her the same photo array that Det. McDonald had provided”…During said photo array, Natalia was unable to pick anyone out. McDonald advised me that the individual that was placed in the photo array was a possible suspect Victory Sarhano..”.  No photo of any other juvenile suspect was used in this photo array”, Doc: 003112688916, defendants SA177. EXHIBIT 4.”

“Photo array eyewitness identification worksheet for Natalia states the following: “Did the witness identify any photo as depicting the perpetrator?” The answer checked is “No”, SA186, #20 also same ECF Doc. 42, page 9. #20. EXHIBIT 5.”

During Tyrone Stephens probable cause hearing Natalia Cortes testified the following: Jordan Comet (Q). Did you witness Mr. Stephens fighting that night? Natalia Cortes (A). I didn’t quite see anybody’s faces who were actually fighting. SA234, Doc 003112432109, Page: 80, para #9, #7-10. EXHIBIT 7.

(2) the statement made by Justin Evans that Tyrone had participated in the attack was produced by coercion.

A. Defendant McDonald’s testified that none of the victims or codefendants identified Tyrone as the suspect. Comet: Did any of the victims identify my client?   McDonald: No. Comet: Did any of the codefendants, other than Justin Evans who was accused himself of wearing a mask, did any of them identify my client?   McDonald: No. ECF Doc 72-3, page 53, para 67, #7-12. EXHIBIT 11

B. Defendant Desmond Singh admits that he suggested Tyrone’s name when he states to Justin, Singh: “You’re doing good but the more names we give you”. ECF Doc 72-2, page 70. EXHIBIT 12

C. Justin Evans: “How they gonna put my name in this?”..”Tyrone was in High School”. McDonald: I gave you all of them. ECF Doc 72-2, pg 59. EXHIBIT 13

D. Justin Evans testified that he implicated Tyrone Stephens because the officer lied to him, Justin Evans: I thought he was one of the people that said I was involved or told them”…and it was “out of revenge”. ECF Doc 72-4, page 8-9. EXHIBIT 14

E. Comet: Did he say, “It’s me because the officers are pushing me…” McDonald: correct. ECF Doc. 72-3, page 32, #24-25. EXHIBIT 15

(3) No inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi.

A. Judge Gary Wilcox: “I heard the brief testimony of Tyrone Roy. I found Tyrone to be credible as a witness. And clearly the reason Tyrone Roy was called is to establish time line, indicating that, again, he and another friend, Anthony Mancini, picked up Tyrone at his house at approximately 9:40, 9:45. At approximately 10pm they went to McDonalds. They ate food there for about ten or 15 minutes. And then Anthony drove Tyrone Stephens home. So, I think the Juveniles argument here is that, again, the time line, and again, the act was alleged to have occurred at 10:13pm-- that Tyrone at that time, would have been at McDonald’s”. Doc: 003112688950. EXHIBIT 16

B. Tyrone Stephens: Kinlaw said he seen me! Kinlaw just said he seen me!

1.  Det. McDonald: “Kinlaw said he saw you and other people…when Kinlaw saw you on the Ave at this particular time you weren’t at home..”

2.  Marc Stephens: Were you there?

3.  Tyrone Stephens: No I was not there at all! I was not there! I didn’t see any fight, anything! Kinlaw seen me at McDonald’s. I pulled up at McDonalds.

4.  Marc Stephens: Kinlaw said he saw him on the Ave, at, look like 10 o’clock. Where was this altercation at? The 7-Eleven on the ave.?

5.  Det. McDonald: up the street.

6.  Tyrone Stephens: That’s it right there! I was in front of McDonalds. I just hopped out of a car. I walked in McDonalds and said what’s up Kinlaw.

7.  Tyrone Stephens: If Kinlaw just said that he seen me, you just said it on here, you heard Kinlaw say that he seen me. He seen me at McDonalds, and he was talking to a little kid Willie. I think he was with Ron, right there at McDonalds. If you say that’s the time, than how could I be at two places at once?

8.  Det. McDonald: That was at 10:00 he said, ECF Doc 72-2, page 91. para 9-14. EXHIBIT 17

C. Prosecutor: First of all what was the time that the victims said the attack occurred?

1.  McDonald: On or about 10pm -- 10pm.

2.  Prosecutor: And what day did they say the attack occurred?

3.  McDonald: October 31, Halloween.

4.  Prosecutor: Where did Tyrone say that he was at that time?

5.  McDonald: He stated he was initially at McDonald’s. Doc: 003112688943. EXHIBIT 18

The incident took place at 7-eleven at 10pm, and the evidence shows that the Englewood investigators knew before their investifation started that Detective Kinlaw saw Tyrone at McDonalds at 10pm, almost 1 mile away.

The judges made up their own facts

Marc Stephens concludes that, “The Judges ignored the testimony of the time the victims said the attack occurred, and created their own facts regarding Natalia’s ID, 3rd cir. Opinion Page 2, “Tyrone was then arrested in November 2012 in connection with an assault committed by several individuals outside a 7-Eleven store a little after 10:00 pm on October 31, 2012”. “Natalia Cortes, identified three of the attackers as Tyrone, Justin Evans, and Derrick Gaddy”. 3rd cir. Opinion Page 3, “First, Cortes, while acknowledging that she had earlier identified Tyrone as a perpetrator, testified that she was not actually sure if he was involved”.

Marc points out that the Supreme Court ruled, “[Error] involving the denial of basic fundamental rights may constitute judicial misconduct”. In re Dileo, 83 A. 3d 11 - NJ: Supreme Court 2014 at 15-26. In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172, 178 (La.1997).  (“A single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct.” (citing Jeffrey M. Shaman, Judicial Ethics, 2 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 9 (1988))). See Alvino, supra, 100 N.J. at 97 n. 2, 494 A.2d 1014. "Judicial conduct [is] improper ... whenever a judge appears biased, even if she actually is not biased." See In re Antar (SEC v. Antar), 71 F.3d 97, 101 (3d Cir.1995). Abulashvili v. Attorney General of US, 663 F. 3d 197 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2011 at 208.

Stephens has submitted evidence which clearly presents a sufficient disagreement over a factual issue, and the case was supposed to go to trial.

According to the court's Executives, the Chief Judge David Brooks Smith decision could take up to 60 days. Marc Stephens also claims that the Englewood Police Department framed Tyrone Stephens again, this time with Attempted Murder.

"They are trying to turn the public against us by framing Tyrone with multiple crimes, and then placing it in the media.  They are using police informants to say Tyrone committed crimes, but the evidence shows that the Englewood Police informants were not present during the incidents.  At the time of Tyrone's arrest, he was a straight A student", says Marc Stephens.

Full Copy of Marc Stephens Judicial Misconduct Complaint regarding City of Englewood - 6 pages

Full Copy of Marc Stephens Judicial Misconduct Complaint regarding Nina C. Remson - 6 pages

Full Copy of Marc Stephens Notice of Tort - 1 page

Full Copy of The Office of the Circuit Executive Letter - 1 page

Video of Malicious Prosecution, and false imprisonment of Tyrone Stephens

Video of the Day


Wayne's Interior Design