Ralph Cipriano at BigTrial.net offers a piece on Philly DA Larry Krasner personal conflict in prosecuting former cop.
In indicting and prosecuting former Police Chief Inspector Carl Holmes, District Attorney Larry Krasner failed to disclose a personal conflict of interest in the case -- namely that Krasner as a defense lawyer in 1996 represented the convicted robber of a 7-11 who pointed his gun at Holmes, and was found guilty of assaulting him.
Krasner also represented Christopher Butler, who was sentenced to 6 to 12 years for the robbery, in a civil rights suit against the city claiming excessive force that was settled in 1997 for $80,000.
As a result, Greg Pagano, Holmes's lawyer, filed a motion in Common Pleas Court to disqualify Krasner as prosecutor. The motion to disqualify Krasner as prosecutor because of Krasner's undisclosed conflicts came on the same day that Judge Kai Scott dismissed the second of three sex abuse cases filed against Holmes over decade-old allegations made by three women who are former cops.
"Philadelphia District Attorney, Lawerence Krasner, failed to notify this Court, Supervising Grand Jury Judge, the investigating grand jurors and defense counsel of his role in the criminal trial, post-trial, criminal appeal and civil cases, directly related to the testimony and credibility of Carl Holmes," Pagano wrote.
"Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, DA Krasner has a duty to disclose that which is material to a defendant’s innocence. Mr. Krasner’s role as defense counsel to Mr. Butler in criminal and civil proceedings, attacking Mr. Holmes’ credibility and police work constitutes Brady/Giglio material," Pagano wrote.
In January, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Karen Simmons twice admonished Assistant District Attorney Rachel Black for a lack of candor regarding the ability of one of the complainants to show up in court to testify against Holmes.
Judge Simmons caught ADA Black telling a bald-faced lie -- that a complaining witness who had accused Holmes of sexual abuse couldn't appear in a Philadelphia courtroom because she had serious health problems and was supposedly hiding out in Florida, in fear of catching COVID.
The truth was that the witness herself, Elisa Diaz, in one Facebook post after another, had dismissed the pandemic as a hoax and a sham. She had previously driven from Pennsylvania down to Florida in a fully equipped RV, and so she was perfectly capable of driving back up to Philadelphia to testify in court.
And in court, when confronted with Diaz's Facebook posts, ADA Black immediately flipped her story, saying that the health concerns that she had about Diaz appearing in court weren't about Diaz's own health; no ADA Black was supposedly concerned about the Philadelphians that Diaz might infect, because she didn't wear a mask.
That tap dance only served to further anger the judge.
You can read the rest of the piece via the below link: