Marc Stephens Files Notice of Appeal With The United States Court Of Appeals For The 3rd Circuit Regarding Suit Against City Of Englewood
Last month, in a case titled Marc Stephens, et al vs City of Englewood, et al, Marc Stephens filed a notice of appeal, and is requesting that the United States Court of Appeals overturn U.S. District Judge William J. Martini’s opinion and order dismissing Stephens case with prejudice in favor of the defendants City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, Det. Marc McDonald, Det. Desmond Singh, Det. Claudia Cubillos, Det. Santiago Incle Jr., Det. Nathaniel Kinlaw, Nina C. Remson Attorney At Law, LLC, and Comet Law Offices, LLC.
In August 2014, Marc Stephens, and his brother Tyrone Stephens, filed a federal civil complaint against the defendants. The complaint alleges False Arrest, Conspiracy, falsifying evidence, False imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, legal malpractice, and several other cause of actions. Marc and Tyrone Stephens are seeking over $76 million in damages.
The lawsuit stems from an incident which occurred on October 31, 2012, in the parking lot of 7-eleven in Englewood, New Jersey, at 10:00pm. A suspect riding a bike wearing a black sweater, and wearing a ski-mask attacked three victims causing multiple injuries. One victim later died.
Despite the fact that detective Marc McDonald of the Englewood Police Department testified in court that none of the victims or witnesses were able to identify the suspects, McDonald arrested Tyrone Stephens of Englewood, who was a juvenile at the time, and charged him with three counts of robbery, three counts of assault, and one count of rioting.
The audio sworn statements of the victims, witnesses, and co-defendants revealed that all of the investigating officers knew it was impossible for Tyrone to be involved with the incident.
After Tyrone’s brother, Marc Stephens, presented evidence to the prosecutor Ryan McGee of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, revealing that several officers from the Englewood Police Department fabricated the victims sworn statements, police reports, and testimony, the prosecutor’s office dropped the charges against Tyrone, a juvenile at the time.
On February 18, 2014, Judge Conte signed an order dismissing all 7 charges against Tyrone Stephens.
On August 26, 2014, Tyrone and his brother and guardian, Marc Stephens filed their civil lawsuit.
On November 3, 2015, Federal Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the plaintiffs’ civil complaint with prejudice stating that the officers had probable cause to arrest Tyrone Stephens, and that police officers are allowed to lie and fabricate evidence to the court and grand jury.
“It is well settled that police officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for giving alleged perjured testimony”, says Martini.
Marc Stephens pointed out in his brief that in 1986, the United States Supreme Court stated, “Qualified immunity does not protect police officers who are "plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." “The common law has never granted police officers an absolute and unqualified immunity”. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that “procedural regularity notwithstanding, the Due Process Clause is ‘violated’ by the knowing use of perjured testimony or the deliberate suppression of evidence favorable to the accused."
In 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who currently has Marc Stephens’s motions for review, has already gave an opinion in the case Halsey v. Pfeiffer that “A police officer who fabricates evidence against a criminal defendant to obtain his conviction violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law”.
Marc Stephens is anticipating a quick decision, and has filed a ‘Motion to Expedite’ the appeal, which all defendants objected to.
Martini is clearly in error, and the court of appeals should remove Martini from the case because he is deliberately sabotaging the case in favor of the City of Englewood. In fact, Marc Stephens filed a ‘Motion to Recuse’ and is requesting for the removal of Judge Martini. The lawyers for the City of Englewood, and Nina C Remson Attorney at Law, filed motions opposing Martini’s removal.
As Marc mentions in his brief, this case is ‘straightforward’. The documentary and testimonial evidence on record revealed that the incident took place on ‘October 31, 2012’, in the parking lot of ‘7-eleven at 10pm’, and that Tyrone Stephens was seen, almost a mile away, by the officers from the Englewood Police Department in front of ‘McDonalds at 10pm’. It was impossible for Tyrone to be the suspect who attacked the victims.
As Tyrone Stephens mentioned to the officers during his sworn statement, “How could I be in two places at once?”
Judge Martini is clearly in ‘error of facts’ and ‘error of law’ when he dismissed the case with prejudice stating the officers had probable cause based on (1) the alleged photo identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statements made by Justin Evans; (3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi; and (4) the statement Tyrone allegedly made to Jaquan Graham while in a holding cell”.
None of the statements from the witness or co-defendant’s regarding Tyrone can dispute the fact that the officers stated ‘on record’ and in ‘testimony’ that Tyrone was located at McDonalds during the attack at 7-eleven.
Furthermore, the record also shows that the witness Natalia Cortes ‘did not’ identify Tyrone as the suspect, that Justin Evans stated the officers told him Tyrone was under investigation and forced him to mention Tyrone as the suspect, and that Judge Gary Wilcox stated based on the timeline Tyrone should have been at ‘McDonalds’.
The only defense that the defendants have is Judge Martini, which is clearly why the defendants are fighting to keep Martini on the case.
“Martini is acting as a savior for the defendants”, says Marc Stephens.
Copy of Marc’s Notice of Appeal and Motion to remove Judge Martini