Directed a Falsified (Redacted) Report, Lied, then Blamed a Subordinate Officer
|
On October 9, 2005 three (3) subjects (teenage males) were arrested following a
motor vehicle stop on Route #3 (plantation Highway). The three listed subjects were
arrested for Possession of a Class D (Marijuana) substance (94C). Apparently, however, a
fourth subject was also in the motor vehicle at the time of the stop, but for some
inexplicable reason that young man was allowed to leave the scene while the other three
subjects were arrested and taken into custody. Vecchi, who was acting as 4-12 Shift
Commander directed the arresting officer to remove the fourth subject's name from the
arrest report. According to that officer "after review by the Shift Commander [Sgt. Scott Vecchi]
I was instructed to make changes to the report... I was instructed that the report would look better
with the name of the fourth subject omitted. I did as instructed and removed the subject from the report."
It is not clear how the Chief became aware of the incident, but an Internal
Affairs investigation was instituted. Though the Internal Affairs investigation never
properly identified the fourth subject, there is mention that "the [3 arrested] defendants
claim the Plymouth officer's knew the fourth subject" a "Plymouth Football
Player. .. named John." It appears, therefore, that because "John" was known to at least
one of the Plymouth Police Officers that evening, he was allowed to walk free, while his
three friends were arrested and had their future educational and employment prospects permanently
tarnished by arrest records for possession of a controlled substance.
In true form, Vecchi tried to pass-the-buck and throw his subordinate officer
under-the-bus by placing the blame on him for making the decision to redact the fourth
subject's name from the arrest report. Vecchi went on to further criticizing his underling
for poor "decision making ability" ... [poor] "report writing skills" ... and "having to
correct his reports numerous times for spelling, grammar, and context."
The Internal Affairs investigation "exonerated" Vecchi's subordinate police
officer in the redaction of the fourth subject's name from the police report and
"sustained" the Complaint against Vecchi alone, for directing that officer to remove the
name from the report in violation or Plymouth Police Department Rule 12.1 (Report
Writing) for failure to write a "complete and accurate report" (Incident #: 0522514, IA#:
05-029, Incident Date: October 9, 2005).
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 268, section 13A, the intentional falsification of a
police report can be punishable by a five hundred dollar fine and imprisonment in a jail or house of
correction for up to one year. Vecchi's conduct likely constitutes a violation of a more serious criminal
statute relative to tampering with records and documents for use in official (eg. Court) proceedings pursuant
to MGL c. 268, § 13E, which is a ten (10) year felony. Perhaps Vecchi does belong at the Plymouth
County House of Correction, but not in the role of Sheriff.
For some reason the matter was not referred to the Plymouth County District Attorney's office for possible grand
jury indictment, but was handled "in-house" as a mere disciplinary issue, rather than an actual crime. Somehow,
Vecchi avoided any form of substantive discipline whatsoever, for this otherwise dischargeable offense.
Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the withholding of
exculpatory evidence in a criminal prosecution violates a defendant's due process, particularly evidence that could
have allowed the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. It is the prosecution's affirmative
obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence, without the requirement that it be requested by the defense.
Such exculpatory evidence includes, but is not limited to "any finding of misconduct that reflects upon the
truthfulness or possible bias of the prosecution witness, including findings of lack of candor or integrity."
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
The Internal Affairs investigation into this troubling incident found that Vecchi directed a subordinate employee
to alter and thereby falsify an official police report by redacting pertinent facts, and that he subsequently lied
about it, and blamed the subordinate employee, but was ultimately found responsible for doing so, himself. Because that
finding reflects upon Vecchi's truthfulness and lack of candor and integrity, any time he is called as a witness for the
prosecution in a criminal proceeding, such disclosure must be made to the defense. For some unknown reason, however, such
disclosures have never been made when Vecchi has been called as a prosecution witness in criminal proceedings. Many criminal
defendants, therefore, have been deprived of their constitutional rights to due process under Brady and Giglio,
et al. Some of those criminal defendants who have been convicted on Vecchi's testimony could seek to have their convictions
appealed, set aside or reversed on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct for failure to disclose Vecchi's past misdeeds,
which reflect directly upon his lack of truthfulness, candor and integrity.
The law clearly requires that the prosecution must disclose Vecchi's past misconduct any time they intend to call him as a
witness in criminal proceedings. Why this has not been done in the past is a question that begs to be investigated, and
disclosed to the defense bar, immediately. In any event, Vecchi's ability to effectively perform his duties as a credible
and reputable law enforcement official have been seriously curtailed because of his previously unreported official
misconduct.
|
|
|
