Marc Stephens request 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for Internal Investigation regarding alleged Tampering and Spoliation of Evidence

Marc Stephens request Court of Appeals to conduct Internal Investigation regarding alleged Tampering and Spoliation of Evidence

In a $76 million civil lawsuit against the 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., for false arrest, conspiracy, defamation, fabricating evidence, and false imprisonment, malicious prosecution Plaintiff Marc Stephens has requested for an internal investigation with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding obstruction of justice - Tampering with Evidence and Spoliation of Evidence.

Tampering with evidence, is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation. Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

On May 3, 2017, a three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard and dismissed Marc Stephens $76M lawsuit.

On May 6, 2017, Appellant Marc Stephens submitted three motions -- a Motion for Clarification on the local rules for filing a Petition for Rehearing, Motion to Compel Investigation of Evidence, and a Motion for Extension of Time.

Marc Stephens is demanding a full investigation regarding his evidence filed on record with the court's ECF system.

On multiple occasions the Judges, and the defendants, are stating that Marc Stephens did not submit evidence on the record, which is untrue. According to the filings on record, Marc Stephens is constantly pointing the judges and defendants to the evidence.

“It is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence”...“There are over 21 clear error of Facts and Law, and Facts overlooked”, says Marc Stephens in his motion for clarification.

Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica, along with Luis Felipe Restrepo, and Dennis Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erroneously dismissed the case for the following three (3) reasons:

“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. See Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 790 (3d Cir. 2000)”.

You will quickly realize the court is sabotaging this case, and forcing Marc Stephens to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that Tyrone Stephens was arrested as the "Ski-masked suspect", and spent 1 year and 35 days in jail. Below is Marc Stephens' evidence on file:

(1) the identification by Natalia Cortes;

A. On November 2, 2012, at the Englewood Hospital Defendant Desmond Singh asked Witness Natalie Cortes the following:

Desmond Singh: "If you saw the actors again, would you be able to identify them?

Natalia Cortez: "I'm not really sure because it was really dark and most of them had hoods on and like that one in the bike had the ski-mask on", ECF Document 72-2, page 22-23.

B. Marc McDonald testified that Natalia Cortes did not identify attackers on Nov. 2, so they conducted a photo array with Detective Cubillos on November 13, 2012, ECF Doc.72-3, pg [121].

Q. Okay. She also said, “I’m not sure I can identify the actors it was really dark”. I think, then, that you said “If you saw them again could you identify them?”

McDonald (A). Right. Yes.

Q. Okay all right. So then I think then you showed her the photo array, again?

McDonald (A). That was for --

Q. Oh, detective Cabillos

McDonald (A). Yes

On November 13, 2012, Cubillos and McDonald conducted a photo array with Natalia:

Cubillos: Okay anybody look familiar

Natalia: Not really. But—

Cubillos: There was one?

Natalia: There was one that maybe, but I mean I’ve seen him around a couple times.

Cubillos: Was he there the night um—

Natalia: I’m not sure cause everybody had hoodies—

Cubillos: Uh huh Natalia: Hats. The guy with the ski-mask

Cubillos: Um, so the one that you think was there. I mean—

Natalia: I mean he kinda looks like, like his

Cubillos: Uh huh

Natalia: But I’m not really sure of his face

Cubillos: You’re not sure of his face, so he doesn’t even look familiar? Okay. Um, that’s it. Time is 3:33pm.

Detective Cubillos and Marc McDonald’s 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”, see defendants, [SA186].

E. On February 26, 2013, State witness Natalie Cortez testified at Tyrone Stephens's probable cause hearing that she did not identify Tyrone Stephens by name, picture, or as a possible suspect on November 2, 2012, ECF Document 72-3, page 93-97.

Jordan Comet: But there are three parts to this. There's an identification by knowing the person by name. There's an identification of a picture. And then there's the -I'm not sure, I really don't know maybe possibly. Those are the three parts that were looking at here.

Jordan Comet: First question is, did you pick out anyone from a picture, looking at them and saying, oh, I know that person, his name is whatever, either on 11/2 or 11/13 2012?

Natalia Cortez: No. I didn't know anybody's name. I just saw by face.

Jordan Comet: When you looked at their faces, did you say I saw that face at 7eleven on October 31, 2012?

Natalia Cortez: No.

Jordan Comet: And finally, third, did there come a point where you wavered and said, I'm not sure, this person might have been there, I really don't know?

Natalia Cortez: Yeah.

Jordan Comet: And how many faces did you say that about?

Natalia Cortez: I think one or two.

Jordan Comet: And the crucial question is, do you know whether one of those faces that you said might have been there was my client?

Natalia Cortez: No ... .I'm saying, no, it wasn't him.

Prosecutor: You said that you were interviewed at the hospital correct?

Natalia Cortez: Yes.

Prosecutor: And you think that the date, November 2, 2012 sounds correct?

Natalia Cortez: Yeah. Something like that.

Prosecutor: And you said that you were showed a photo identification book? A collection of pictures?

Natalia Cortez: Yes

Prosecutor: Did you point to any of the pictures when asked if they were there?

Natalia Cortez: I pointed, like, one or two pictures.

Prosecutor: Did you say how sure you were at that point?

Natalia Cortez: All my answers were pretty much, I'm not so sure. It might have been, but I'm not really sure since it was really dark. And like I said, everybody had either hoodies or like, some type of hat on.

Prosecutor: Did you know Tyrone Stephens before you looked at the photo book on November 2?

Natalia Cortez: I remember him by face because we went to high school together. I mean, like, we really didn't talk or, like, anything. But I remember seeing him in high school. And that he played sports and everything.

Prosecutor: Did you recognize any of the pictures that you pointed out as being Tyrone Stephens?

Natalia Cortez: No.

Prosecutor: Do you remember the identification in the hospital.

Natalia Cortez: I remember they showed me.

Prosecutor: Do you remember what you said that day very well?

Natalia Cortez: I remember them showing me the books and what I said. It was - Not Really.

Prosecutor: I don't have any further questions.

(2) the statement made by Justin Evans that Tyrone had participated in the attack;

A. McDonald testified that Justin Evans was coerced to implicate himself and Tyrone, ECF Doc. 72-3, page 32-36, #24-32.

Comet: Did he say, “it’s me because the officers are pushing me…”

McDonald: correct.

B. Defendant McDonalds admits that he “suggested the names” to Justin Evans in regards to Tyrone Stephens being involved, “I gave you all of them”, ECF Document 72-2, page 59.

C. Defendant Desmond Singh admits that he suggested and gave up Tyrone name when he states to Justin, “You’re doing good but the more names we give you..”, ECF Document 72-2, page 70.

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

E. This confirms Justin Evans statement in his letter to Tyrone when he mentioned that the officers said Tyrone was under investigation for the incident, and when McDonald and Singh stated Tyrone implicated Justin, Justin stated, “I through it back on yall”.

F. Justin realized that the officers lied about Tyrone saying his name, “I fell for it on some dumb shit”. Justin states to Tyrone, “I aint purposely do it”, ECF Document 72-3, page 85.

(3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi.

A.  Defendant Singh, Incle Jr, and Cubillos said the attack was at 10pm, ECF Doc. 72-3, page 7, #15-16.

B.  McDonald testified “victims stated” they were attacked at 10pm, ECF Doc. 72-3, page 25-26, 28.

C.  Marc Stephens confirms Kinlaws statement: “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.?, ECF Doc. 77-6 page 55-56.

D.  Marc Stephens testified that Kinlaw confirmed that he seen Tyrone at 10:00pm, ECF Doc. 72-4, page 33, # 105-106.

E.  Tyrone states that on October 31, 2012 at 10pm he was at McDonald’s, and greeted defendant Kinlaw and Ron, ECF Doc. 72-2, page 89.

F.  The Englewood police 911 dispatch timestamp confirms Tyrone’s sworn statement that defendant Kinlaw and Ron were in front of McDonalds located at W. Palisades Avenue and Nathaniel Place at 2200hrs=10pm, ECF Doc. 72-2, page 1.

G.  Defendants Marc McDonald and Desmond Singh confirmed that Tyrone was in front of McDonald’s at 10pm and defendant Nathaniel Kinlaw confirmed that he saw Tyrone in front of McDonalds at 10pm, ECF Doc. 72-2, page 91. ECF Doc. 77-6 page 55-56.

McDonald: “Kinlaw said that he saw you…that was at 10 oclock he said that”.

H.  Defense witness Tyrone Roy testified that at 10pm he was with Tyrone Stephens at McDonalds and ate for 10-15 minutes, ECF Doc. 72-3, page 56. 10pm + 15 mins eating = 10:15pm.

I.  Judge Wilcox ruled Tyrone Roy testimony was credible and Tyrone Stephens would have been at McDonalds or home during the incident, ECF Doc. 72-3, page 65-66.

According to Wilcox's opinion, it does not matter if the incident at 7-eleven was during 10pm, 10:12pm, 10:15pm, or "a little after 10pm", Tyrone could not have been at the incident.

Investigation is pending.

Video of the Day


Wayne's Interior Design