Marc Stephens Request 3rd Circuit Judges To Clarify Their Opinion In $76M Case Against City Of Englewood
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 Plaintiffs Marc Stephens has filed several motions with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On May 3, 2017, Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica (pictured), along with Luis Felipe Restrepo, and Dennis Michael Fisher from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard and dismissed Appellant Marc Stephens $76M lawsuit regarding the false arrest of his brother Tyrone Stephens, a minor at the time.
On August 1, 2017, after receiving an extension of time to file his petition for rehearing, Marc Stephens filed several motions requesting the court to clarify their opinion.
In the introduction of his motion Marc Stephens states, “There are three instances where the Panel stated in their opinion that Natalia Cortes identified Tyrone Stephens as the “perpetrator”, and “participating in the attack”. Nowhere on the record does Cortes make those statements. Appellants are respectfully asking the court to withdraw/amend their opinion based on the facts on record as shown below, or clarify where on the record does Natalia states she identified Tyrone as a perpetrator, or as participating in the attack on October 31, 2012, in the parking lot of 7-eleven at 10pm, or a little after 10pm”.
The first clarification of opinion requested by Stephens is where the three Judge Panel states, Page 2, “Natalia Cortes, identified three of the attackers as Tyrone, Justin Evans, and Derrick Gaddy”.
Marc Stephens put forth evidence that Natalia did not identify, which reads:
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. see defendants EXHIBIT 11 - SA234, ECF 003112432109, Page: 80, para #9, #7-10
The second clarification of opinion requested by Stephens is where the three Judge Panel states, Page 3, “However, at this point, the prosecutor’s case against Tyrone began to unravel. 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 Stephens put forth evidence that Natalia did not identify Tyrone, and that Natalia was sure, which reads:
a. Jordan Comet (Q). And, at that point, was there ever a point where you said, I identify a specific person? Natalia Cortes (A). Well, I identified, like, one or two that kind of stood out, BUT NOT HIM. EXHIBIT 12 - para #10, #3-6.
b. 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, EXHIBIT 10 - ECF Doc. 72-3, page 94, para #17, #1-3.
c. Prosecutor: DID YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE PICTURES THAT YOU POINTED OUT AS BEING TYRONE STEPHENS? Natalia Cortez: NO. EXHIBIT 10 - ECF Doc 72-3, pg 95, para 19, #16-18
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. EXHIBIT 10 - ECF Doc 72-3, page 96, para #21, #8-11.
Prosecutor: I don’t have any further questions.
d. Comet: Did the officer say to you a reason why they came to you more than one time and didn’t just question you once?
Natalia: Because they said -- the second time they said that they had, like, a small group that they had gotten from that day. And that was, like, only, like, four or five pictures.
Comet: And in those four or five pictures, was my client one of those pictures?
Natalia: Not that I can recall. No. EXHIBIT 10 - ECF Doc 72-3, pg 97, #22, 1-10
Marc’s motions also reveals that all Englewood Investigators were fully aware that Natalia did not identify anyone. There is also testimony, on record, from defendant Marc McDonald of the Englewood Police Department stating Natalia did not identify any suspects.
The three Judge panel will be reviewing the motions. The City of Englewood is requesting the court to deny Marc Stephens’ motions.
Marc Stephens Motion for Clarification - Natalia Cortes Testimony - A Must Read!
Marc Stephens Motion for Clarification - Tyrone Stephens Alibi - A Must Read!
Marc Stephens Motion for Clarification - Justin Evans Statement - A Must Read!