Judge Again Cites Lies by U.S. Witnesses

By WILLIAM GLABERSON (NYT)

In a third case in recent months, a judge has ruled that federal prosecutors in Brooklyn relied on false testimony. It was the latest in a series of rulings that defense lawyers say highlight the rarely acknowledged problem of deceit by prosecution witnesses.

Judge John Gleeson of United States District Court in Brooklyn described the testimony of a New York police detective in a counterfeiting case as ''a recent fabrication'' that ''strains credulity.'' He barred the prosecutors from using some of the seized bills.

The decision, filed last week, was in measured language and included no criticism of the federal prosecutors from the office of the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Roslynn R. Mauskopf.

It followed a strongly worded ruling in another case by the same judge in February that said he had concerns about whether prosecutors from the same office deliberately elicited perjury from cooperating witnesses in a gang murder case.

Also in February, another Brooklyn federal judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis, issued a stinging ruling saying federal prosecutors had relied on ''grossly false'' testimony by an F.B.I. agent in a drug paraphernalia case.

The decisions have attracted wide notice among defense lawyers who say that judges often ignore their claims of prosecution lies. Yesterday, Martin B. Adelman, the president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the rulings suggested that judges have grown skeptical of the witnesses relied upon by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn.

''Judges are waking up to the reality of what's been going on all along,'' Mr. Adelman said.

Ms. Mauskopf said in a statement that lawyers in her office were reviewing the decision in the counterfeiting case. A police spokesman declined to comment.

Other federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said they were vigilant about testing the credibility of their witnesses. They also said hundreds of cases handled by their office every year proceeded without any question.

Judge Gleeson's rulings have drawn particular notice because he is a former federal prosecutor. In the counterfeiting case, he was faced with a fairly standard claim by defense lawyers about a police officer's account of having discovered damning evidence after a routine traffic stop.

The detective in the case, John Soto, testified that he stopped a Nissan while on a narcotics enforcement patrol in Astoria, Queens, in September 2003.

The detective said he saw a bulge in one of the men's pants that he thought was a gun. The judge found that the detective turned his back on the suspect and said the claim was fabricated.

The detective also said he saw two bills on the floor in the rear of the car and noticed the ink was smeared, raising the suspicion of counterfeiting. Judge Gleeson concluded that that ''would not have been possible'' given the circumstances, which included the fact that the two men in the back seat of the small Nissan Sentra weighed ''well over 200 pounds.''