The Court Report

By Richard Blassberg

U. S. Attorney’s Office Doing Their “Double Jeopardy Trick”
United States District Court, White Plains
Justice Charles Brieant Presiding

Monday, September 11th Paul Cote, former Westchester County Correction Of-ficer, with twelve years on the job, who was tried in July, 2001, by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro for allegedly assaulting an inmate at the County Jail, a year earlier, who was convicted, of Second Degree Assault, and served three months in jail, went to trial on the same set of facts, this time in the United States District Courthouse in White Plains, Judge Charles Brieant presiding. The prosecution, actually beyond the five-year Statute of Limitations, being conducted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cynthia Dunne and Andrew Schilling, is, by any measure, an unjust instance of “double jeopardy.”

Simply stated, the Federal Government, for whatever nefarious purposes, is taking a “second bite out of Mr. Cote,” based on the same transaction for which he was previously framed by a fellow officer, John Mark Riemer, to whose aid he had gone when that officer was assaulted by the inmate in question. Having previously
been charged with First Degree Assault in the state trial, Cote is now charged with violating the Civil Rights of inmate Zoran Teodorovic, by denying him his liberty without benefit of due process, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Dunne, delivering a fifteen minute opening statement charged that Cote “brutally beat” inmate Teodorovic, to “punish him and teach him a lesson.” Dunne further charged that the Defendant, immediately following the incident proceeded to produce a “report that was a lie.”

In substance the Government is alleging that while Officer Riemer held the inmate down on the concrete floor of Cellblock 1G, the Defendant, Paul Cote punched and kicked that inmate in his body and head, causing injury that ultimately, fourteen months later caused his death.

Defense Attorney, John Patten, partnered in the Defense with Bennett Epstein, told the jury of seven men, and five women, “the Government is presenting selected parts of the facts.” He assured the jurors them that the Defense would show that his client, “made a split-second decision to come to the aid of another officer,” and that
“the entire incident took 20 to 30 seconds, of which his client’s “entire involvement was two or three seconds.”

Patten further advised the jury that the inmate was not restrained as claimed by the Government, but was resisting, and that inmate witnesses that the Government would be presenting “lack credibility.” He cautioned the jury to listen very carefully to the details of the Government’s case, keeping in mind that the only side of the inmate’s face that was exposed to possible injury by the Defendant was the right side, and the alleged fatal injury was delivered to the left. Finally, in an appeal to the jurors’ common sense, he reminded them that the Government was presenting a case six years after the fact that involves, “what happened in two or three seconds,” and asked them not to become distracted by talk of a cover-up, “because the Government
would have charged that had there actually been one.”

It was apparent that Judge Brieant would live up to his “let’s get down to business, no nonsense” approach from the outset, having selected a jury in less than three hours Monday morning, and moving right into opening statements and testimony from the Government’s key witness Correction Officer Sergeant John Mark Reimer immediately following lunch.

After going through preliminary questions designed to set the scene and explain the setting in a way favorable to the Government’s theory, Prosecutor Dunne began to illicit specific testimony about the incident. She inquired if the inmate Teodorovic had struck Reimer. He responded, “He punched me on the lower left portion of my jaw.”

Dunne asked, “How would you describe him.”

Reimer replied, “He was shorter than I, and lanky.” It was already established that Reimer is six feet, two inches tall, and weighed approximately 285 pounds at the time of the altercation. Asked to describe his immediate response when Teodorovic struck him, the witness stated that he put the inmate into a ‘bear hug’ and brought
him down hard onto the concrete floor of the cellblock.

Dunne asked, “Whose body struck the ground first?”

Reimer responded, “We struck the floor together. I used my right hand to try to break the fall. His chest was against my chest. He was on his left side.

Dunne: “Did he take any actions you thought were threatening?”

Reimer: “No.”

Prosecutor Dunne now asked her witness to describe what actions Officer Cote took when he responded to assist him. Reimer stated that the Defendant struck the inmate twice to the body and twice to the head with his hands, then kicked him twice to the body and twice to the head, and finally stomped him in the face.

Leading her witness, Dunne then asked, “What did he say?” (referring to the Defendant.)

Reimer responded, “You never hit an officer.”

Prosecutor Dunne now turned to the Judge and said, “I would ask Officer Reimer to demonstrate for the Jury.”
Judge Brieant immediately snapped, “No. They’re overdone already.”

Dunne now asked Reimer to describe what he said when the Defendant allegedly punched and kicked the inmate. Reimer responded that he told him, three times, “Paulie that’s enough.” He then volunteered, “It happened so fast. I pulled my pin and called a Code 13”

Dunne now inquired, “Was he moving, (referring to the inmate), what was Mr. Teodorovic’s condition?”

Officer Reimer answered, “He appeared unconscious.”

At this point Judge Brieant called a brief recess.

Returning from the brief break, and following some additional questions from the Government, essentially designed to clarify, or reinforce the original line of questions, Defense Attorney John Patten now began to cross-examine the Government’s star witness.

He began, “Officer Reimer, what would you estimate was the total time from the punch to the time Mr. Cote left the scene?”

Reimer quickly wisecracked, “I didn’t have a stopwatch.”

On that note Patten came back with, “How many times have you met with the United States Attorney in the last few weeks?”

Reimer answered, “Seven times.”

Patten: “How long were the sessions?”

Reimer: Sometimes an hour, sometimes three or four hours.”

Patten: “On seven different occasions you went over your prior testimony?”

Reimer: “Yes.”

Attorney Patten now asked the witness the key question, “How come it took seventeen hours to go
over your prior testimony in preparation?”

Sergeant Reimer now responded, “I don’t know.”

Annoyed, and with his voice raised, Attorney Patten now insisted, “And, is it your testimony that you don’t
recall saying at a prior proceeding that it took twenty to thirty seconds from the point at which you were struck,
until Paul Cote left the room.?” Raising his voice still further, Patten demanded, “Do you recall testifying ‘twenty
to thirty seconds’ at a prior proceeding?”

Prosecutor Schilling now jumps up, “Objection, Your__”

Judge Brieant cuts him off, “Overruled.”

Patten, now turning partially toward the jury, declares, “Ladies and gentlemen, the Government concedes
that that was the testimony that was given.” Then, turning to the witness he asks, “Do you recall testifying
that it took fifteen seconds to take Teodorovic to the ground?”

Prosecutor Schilling: “Objection.”

Brieant: “Overruled.”

Patten continuing to hammer away, “From the kicks to the chest to the kicks to the head, would you
say it was three or four seconds?”

Reimer responded, “I would say it was longer.”

Patten: “You testified it happened so quickly, in a matter of seconds?”

Reimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “Inmate Sauls was in cell 27?”

Reimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “This incident took place near cell number two?”

Reimer: “Closer to cell four.”

Patten: “His head was closer to cell four?”

Reimer: “Right.”

Patten: “Was this the first timke you were ever struck by an inmate?”

Double Jeopardy, continued from page 3 Reimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “In the cell area there’s nothing but noise?”

Reimer: “At times.”

Patten: “What type of weapons have been found in the runners, (cell door tracks)?”

Reimer: “Sharpened pencils, pieces of metal.”

Patten now took an abrupt turn in his line of questions, asking, “Isn’t it a fact that you brought him down
violently, fast, and hard? Do you recall saying his head bounced off the floor?”

Reimer responded, “I may have.”

Patten: “And, it was the left side of his head, correct?”

Redimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “You broke your fall, but you didn’t break his fall?”

Reimer: “I guess.”

Patten: “You spoke to a lawyer the very next day?”

Reimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “But you didn’t see the prosecutor for ten days?”

Reimer: “Yes.”

Patten: “How many times did you see him?”

Reimer: “Three times.”

Patten: “How many hours?”

Reimer:
Patten: “You were concerned that you would have immunity? You were concerned that you had crashed
him to the floor, and bounced him to the ground and that he went unconscious?”

Reimer, getting noticeably more uncomfortable, says, “I was concerned about the cover-up.”
Patten, pulling the witness back to his principle point, “You wouldn’t speak to the prosecutors until you
got immunity?”

Reimer: “Correct.”

Patten now enlarging the scope of his inquiry, asked, “You wanted to protect yourself. Officer Meade
had called you at 7:30AM the next day to tell you Teodorovic was brain dead?”

Analysis:

The Government’s key witness Correction Officer Sergeant Reimer, is a typical Prosecution witness of
the variety who, having committed the wrongful act, then runs quickly to get “ lawyered up” before approaching
prosecutors to cut a deal, either for total immunity, or for the promise of a reduced sentence, in exchange for their “customized testimony” or, more likely, modified and perjured testimony, designed to convict an innocent second party or parties, as per the prosecutor’s personal preference, and/or political agenda.

Entirely too many prosecutors, both state and federal, are perfectly comfortable with such arrangements
these days. For such individuals, their work has long ago ceased to be a search for the truth. Rather,
it is a contest to see how many individuals they can convict irrespective of innocence or guilt.