Jabbar Collins: The Sins of Joe Hynes?
February 21, 2011
There is nothing more harmful to society than an unprincipled district attorney.
Unfortunately, that description seems to fit Brooklyn’s longtime D.A., Charles J. Hynes.
Once an idealist and reformer, Hynes, in his two decades in Brooklyn, has become the consummate opportunist.
He is yet another example of a once honorable law enforcement official too long in office, whose ambition and ego have run amok.
These faults come into sharp relief in the case of Jabbar Collins, an apparently innocent man framed by Hynes’s office for a rabbi’s murder.
Convicted in 1995 of fatally shooting Rabbi Abraham Pollock, Collins spent 16 years in prison before recent revelations of prosecutorial misconduct led to his release.
Did Hynes feel pressure to get a conviction in the rabbi’s slaying by Brooklyn’s powerful Orthodox Jewish community, with whom Hynes has been especially cozy?
Whatever the answer, Collins’s conviction was overturned in 2010 by federal judge Dora Irizarry, based on “compelling evidence” that the DA’s office “had wrongfully withheld a key witness’s recantation, had knowingly coerced and relied on false testimony and argument at trial, had knowingly suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence and had acted affirmatively to cover up such misconduct for 15 years.”
Irizarry termed the prosecutors’ conduct “shameful.”
In a $150 million civil lawsuit that Collins filed last week in federal court, he names as defendants nine Brooklyn Assistant District Attorneys and detective-investigators, including Hynes’s star assistant, Michael Vecchione, who prosecuted Collins.
The lawsuit describes Vecchione as “the principal defendant” who “orchestrated the 15-year cover up of the office’s misconduct.”
Specifically, Collins’s lawsuit charges Vecchione and others “for their misconduct in covering up and withholding documents and information specifically requested by [Collins] over nearly 15 years, which would have revealed Vecchione’s and the office’s wrongdoing and would have provided the basis to overturn [Collins’s] conviction.”
Hynes himself is not named.
“At the present time, there is insufficient evidence that Hynes personally knew about these specific activities aimed at Jabbar Collins when they occurred,” says Collins’s attorney, Joel Rudin.
But the lawsuit cites Hynes’s “history of indifference to such behavior by Vecchione and to other prosecutors in the office and by Hynes’s consistent public approval and ratification of such behavior.”
Hynes refused, says the lawsuit, “to investigate or impose meaningful discipline on dozens of prosecutors found in court decisions to have engaged in misconduct, including deliberate misconduct.”
Joe Hynes sure didn’t start out like this.
Following his success as Special State Prosecutor in the racially-charged Howard Beach case of the 1980s, he was considered a possible mayoral candidate.
Instead, in 1989, he ran and was elected Brooklyn District Attorney.
He later ran unsuccessfully for both attorney general and for governor.
Then, realizing he was going no farther than Brooklyn, he seemed to lose his moral compass.
He did a 180 on the death penalty; cozied up to the politically connected Hasidic Jewish community; placed a former borough president on his payroll as “Director of Community and Civic Affairs” at $125,000 a year; and actually indicted his election opponents.
He also made Vecchione his go-to guy, assigning him the office’s most high-profile cases.
This back-fired most notably after Hynes indicted former FBI agent Lindley DeVecchio for allegedly passing confidential information to the Columbo crime family, leading to four murders.
At a news conference, trumpeting the indictment, Hynes called DeVecchio’s alleged actions “the most stunning example of official corruption I have ever seen.”
It turned out, however, to be a most stunning example of prosecutorial incompetence — one that Collins cites in his lawsuit.
Hynes was forced to drop the case after veteran investigative reporters Tom Robbins and Jerry Capeci presented Hynes with their long ago tape-recorded interview of his star witness, mob moll Linda Schiro, which revealed her to be a stone-cold liar.
Hadn’t Vecchione, as the lead prosecutor, debriefed Schiro?
Worse, did he — and by extension did Hynes — know that Schiro was a liar, and yet still went forward with the case?
It remains unclear why Hynes is enamored of Vecchione, whose judgment seems perpetually clouded.