"Rape Cop" Juror Who Found Cops Not Guilty Believes They're Guilty

It's been a while since we've been enraged by jurors who voted to acquit two NYPD officers charged with raping a drunken woman in her East Village apartment. At the start of June, juror Melinda Hernandez told DNAinfo, "In my heart of hearts, I believe her that the officers did it." (For good measure, another juror said, "[Officer Kenneth Moreno] raped her. There is no doubt in my mind.") Now, on the eve of the two officers' sentencing for official misconduct, Hernandez has resurfaced with more of the same pointless and infuriating confessions.

Hernandez tells the Daily News she believes "in my heart" the two cops raped the unidentified woman, but like other jurors she decided that prosecutors failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Some have dubbed this the "CSI effect," with one legal expert telling the Post, "CSI has made things difficult, there's no law saying that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means we show you DNA. It means 'evidence that points to a moral certainty that is beyond dispute.' "

Moreno and his partner, Franklin Mata, were cleared of all charges except official misconduct, but they could get up to two years in prison at their sentencing tomorrow. Hernandez tells the News, "I hope [the judge] throws the gavel at them." Or the book, whatever. Something should be thrown at them, says the woman who let them walk.

Update (9/9/11): Gothamist has published a long-form feature about the Rape Cop case, written by one of the jurors. It takes you behind the scenes during their deliberations, and explains how they came to their controversial verdict. Buy it today as a PDF or on Kindle.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on June 27, 2011 11:32 AM

Comments [rss]

Guest

No reasonable person believes that these two scumbags did not rape the woman.

Nos Feratu

I believe the cop hooked-up with this woman consensually, but the cops are not being paid for hook-ups. The jury did the right thing, and the city was right to fire these two idiots. I just hope the PBA doesn't waste sacks of taxpayer money trying to get these two clowns rehired.

Gombro

I just keep thinking what a great Richard Price novel this would all make.

Guest

So from what the jurors said, it sounds like the prosecution failed. When do they get fired?

Daniel

Since all of you are so sanctimonious about this then actually respond to jury duty the next time you're called instead of doing everything in your power to get out of it. I'm not going to throw stones at a jury that took an extra seven days to reach a verdict. They did their job. I don't like the fact that those two cops are free and believe they did it, but don't blame a jury that had to evaluate a prosecution's argument that had holes punched in it.

estragon_nyc

This.

Allison

too little, too late.

whatidsay

Hey, Hernandez, why don't you throw your conscience at them? After what you did, that must be pretty heavy these days.

WetButt

Its not what you believe, its what can be proven

Guest

i agree. it's all about knowing how to use the wording of the law.

p's and q's logic.

JarekAF

This "we really think he's guilty" is such BS.

It's an example of people taking pot shots at an extremely unsympathetic defendant.

They had their opportunity and they found that there was reasonable doubt.

This "CSI-Effect" excuse is just BS. There was little actual evidence of a crime. And that's that. Was it weird and unprofessional for cops to be there. YES! (and the jurors convicted them on official misconduct). But, even though they were there, doesn't mean that they raped the lady. And there wasn't any evidence that she was aside from her hazy drunken memories, which, as the jury at the time decided, wasn't sufficient to over come reasonable doubt.

***

This is really the jury trying to deflect the blame for a non-conviction from themselves. They see how unpopular it was. They don't want to be linked to the defendants. So, they're coming up with excuses now.

heyhohey

right, because faking a 911 call to be able to go back to her house, admitting that you had sex with the woman when you admit she was so drunk she can't possibly remember what happened but magically she was not so drunk that she couldn't consent to sex, and her bruised cervix aren't at all evidence. Nope not at all.

JarekAF

Thanks for not responding to my actual comment and instead choosing to talk sh-t.

If you're so strong in your convictions, then be pissed at the jury.

They were the ones who "weighed the evidence" and found that there was reasonable doubt.

The reason I comment is that some jurors are trying to back off their not-guilty verdict, because of how unpopular their verdict was/is. That to me is BS. They had their chance to weigh the "admitting that you sex with the woman," and found reasonable doubt. I wasn't on the jury, so, direct your displeasure at them please.

HughGass

Anything less than concrete DNA proof is reasonable doubt these days.

HJaySimpson

Can't be mad at jurors that did the right thing. We need more jurors that go based on EVIDENCE, and not EMOTION. Maybe we'd have less innocent people in jail...

Now with that said, I believe he raped her as well; And I believe in KARMA.

Karma got the EMT that let that pregnant lady die in Au Bon Pain...