New Haven detectives in the 1990s were expected to refrain from reporting evidence that could help criminal defendants, according to retired Det. Michael Sweeney — even if that practice contradicted the written policy at the time. Sweeney testified to that effect before a federal jury in Hartf ord on Thursday and Friday as part of an ongoing civil rights trial about the 1994 conviction of Stefon Morant for a 1990 double murder. Sweeney spoke about his decision to come forward in 1999 as the lone voice from law enforcement to take a public stand against his former colleague’s conduct. He also had to answer as to why he didn’t act sooner. His testimony crystallized one core question in the ongoing federal court case: whether the New Haven Police Department of the 1990s had culturally ingrained practices of unconstitutionally withholding evidence that could undermine a prosecutor’s case, even though those practices contradicted the city’s written policies. Morant spent nearly 21 years incarcerated for the 1990 double murder of former alder Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields. Morant and his co-defendant at the time, Scott Lewis, have always maintained that New Haven detectives framed them for the murder. Both men have secured their freedom and cleared their names of the crime through various legal and legislative procedures. Read more about the case… A 1998 New Haven Advocate exposeThe FBI’s report on Vincent Raucci The Independent’s coverage of Lewis’ habeas victory, his exit from prison, his lawsuit against the city, Morant’s sentence reduction, and their adjustments to freedom The National Exoneration Registry’s synthesis of Lewis and Morant‘s stories An update on Raucci’s life since he left the police force (he was not convicted for the charges described in this story) An overview of the 2026 trial Sweeney supervised the New Haven police investigation that led to Lewis’ and Morant’s convictions. He is now a defendant in Morant’s ongoing lawsuit, as Morant’s lawyers argue that Sweeney should have done more to intervene before the convictions. He also played a pivotal role in helping the two men secure their freedom. In 1999, one year after his retirement from the New Haven Police Department, Sweeney came forward to testify at Morant’s habeas trial that he had witnessed former Det. Vincent Raucci coerce the 16-year-old witness who formed the basis of the state’s case against the Morant and Lewis. Another teenage witness had testified to similar coercion at Morant’s criminal trial. Back then, Sweeney testified that during Raucci’s initial interrogation of a teenager known as Ovil Ruiz, he witnessed the teenager repeatedly say he knew nothing of the crime. He said he witnessed Raucci coach Ruiz to state every fact that ultimately made it into Ruiz’s statement — “The whole statement, sir,” Sweeney said under oath in 1999. Sweeney testified to this effect repeatedly at multiple post-conviction proceedings across the decades that followed. A federal judge overturned Lewis’ conviction in 2013, eventually finding Sweeney’s testimony “credible.” After he testified to this effect once again, attorneys representing both Raucci and the City of New Haven questioned the reliability of his allegations of Raucci’s misconduct. Thomas Gerarde, representing the City of New Haven in the current federal jury trial, established that Sweeney and Ruiz had not met prior to that night. He raised the question of whether Ruiz had initially claimed ignorance of the double murder because he had no established relationship with Sweeney, not because he actually had not seen anything. Raucci’s lawyer, Jim Tallberg, questioned Sweeney on his statements that Raucci threatened to pin the double murder on Ruiz, while offering to let him go if he made a statement. Tallberg returned to a line Sweeney uttered at the 2013 Lewis habeas trial, stating that “he didn’t threaten him in any way.” “He did threaten him,” Sweeney said on Friday. “Of course he did, in my presence.” “You Could Have Intervened, Couldn’t You?” In court on Friday, Gerarde pressed Sweeney on the moment he notarized the formal statement Ruiz gave to police, after Raucci had interrogated Ruiz. Sweeney witnessed only the first part of the interrogation, and he would later attest to having witnessed Raucci coerce Ruiz into making false statements during that interview. The day after the interrogations, Ruiz returned to sign his statement and swear to its veracity under oath. “You could have intervened, couldn’t you?” asked Gerarde. “At what point, sir?” Sweeney asked. “If you felt there was fabricated evidence, and this person’s about to sign off on it and you’re about to sign off on it … you could have intervened if you wanted to, right?” Gerarde asked. “That’s not right,” Sweeney said. He soon elaborated, “My duties that day included: I witnessed his signature, I had him swear to the oath he told the truth, he signed a statement in my presence. I did not question him on the statement that day.” Gerarde continued, “The reason why you did nothing more than that is that you had no reason to question” the statement that Ruiz offered. “Isn’t that true?” “No it is not,” Sweeney said. “This person had just given 20 pages of false testimony,” Gerarde pressed, “but ‘hey, my job is just to tell him to raise his hand and let it happen…’” “You say I don’t care. Of course I care,” said Sweeney. “My obligation that day — it’s not my investigation. I did not read that report… I notarized his signature and that’s exactly what I did, sir.” “You asked him to raise his hand and swear that what he said was true… and you had no reason to doubt that, right?” Gerarde said. “It was not my job to check and see whether the information was correct,” Sweeney said. Later on, Gerarde asked why Sweeney had not reported his concerns to the prosecutor trying Morant’s and Lewis’ cases. “If you wanted to, you could have talked to [prosecutor] David Gold and spoken with him about your contact with Ovil Ruiz. Am I right?” asked Gerarde. “I could have, if i was aware of the importance of the information I had, yes sir,” Sweeney said. “But you did not,” Gerarde said. “No, I did not,” Sweeney said. What Sweeney Was Thinking Sweeney’s own lawyer, Michael Ryan, asked the retired detective about his own thought process as he decided what to say, and what not to say, when. Through Ryan’s questioning, Sweeney explained that upon learning that Ruiz had passed a polygraph exam, he began to doubt his own misgivings about Ruiz’s statement, which he said he did not personally evaluate. He said that suspects typically lie to detectives, and that often, the truth comes out over the course of multiple interviews. “We only put on paper — I would only put on paper things we would investigate and thought were 100 percent true. Things we found out were lies, we did not,” Sweeney said. Sweeney said that he verbally conveyed his concerns about Raucci’s interrogation to a colleague, Robert Lawlor, and asked Lawlor to contact the state’s attorney’s office about this information. He said that he learned about Morant’s and Lewis’ convictions upon returning to the United States from a temporary move to Bosnia. He said he tried to contact the police department multiple times about his ongoing concerns, but did not get through to anyone. “I think I saw in the paper the attorney’s name who had some kind of involvement in the case,” said Sweeney — attorney Michael Fitzpatrick. “I told him who I was, I told him I’m not sure how important the information was, but I told him basically what it was.” He met with Fitzpatrick “many times” and eventually testified in Morant’s 1999 habeas case. “You just went to court to tell the truth?” asked Ryan. “That’s correct,” said Sweeney. Sweeney: A Norm Of Non-Disclosure Gerarde also asked Sweeney about the New Haven Police Department’s code of conduct in place by 1990. He read from the code: “No employee shall fabricate evidence… No employee shall withhold evidence… No employee shall destroy evidence…” “You and every police department employee,” Gerarde said, were obligated to follow that code of conduct. To “disclose every exculpatory evidence you received,” including “evidence that questions the reliability of a witness, or even the reliability of a police officer.” “You knew and understood all of that, am I correct?” Gerarde asked. “Yes, you are,” Sweeney said. Nick Brustin, an attorney representing Morant, countered through his questioning that the broader culture and general practice within the New Haven Police Department consistently defied those written policies. He brought in other cases of Black men allegedly framed by police, including the cases of Erik Ham and Adam Carmon. On Thursday, Brustin confirmed with Sweeney that he did not record any misconduct or report it to any of the lawyers trying the case. “You didn’t create any documentation, any police report whatsoever, concerning what you observed with Raucci and Ruiz on the night of Jan. 13, 1991?” Brustin asked. “That’s correct, sir,” said Sweeney. Brustin eventually asked: “So in New Haven, in 1991… You have no obligation to document those contradictions?” “No, you do not!” Sweeney answered with fervor. “You acted entirely consistent with the expectations of the NHPD,” Brustin asked. Gerarde objected. Judge Sarala Nagala overruled. “Yes, that is correct,” Sweeney said. “In 1990, ’91, in the NHPD, there was an expectation that exculpatory and impeachment evidence would not be documented in police reports, correct?” Brustin asked. Gerarde objected. Nagala paused for a moment to consider, then said, “Overruled.” “That’s correct, sir,” Sweeney said. “Based on your experience,” Brustin later asked, “you don’t know any detective during that time period that would put down info for the defense to attack the case. Correct?” “That is correct,” Sweeney said. The post Ex-Detective: Withholding Evidence Was The Norm appeared first on New Haven Independent. ...read more read less