A high-profile perjury trial against a former NYPD detective was sensationally thrown out Tuesday after the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office failed to share evidence with the defense lawyers.
The case against Joseph Franco, who was accused of framing innocent people by lying about seeing drug deals go down, was abruptly dismissed and sealed by Judge Robert Mandelbaum – just two weeks after the trial got underway.
Among the evidence withheld by prosecutors was cellphone records from people who were arrested after Franco – a 20-year NYPD veteran — identified them as drug dealers, the ex-cop’s attorney, Howard Tanner, told The Post.
Surveillance footage, police memos and communications from prosecutors also weren’t shared with the defense throughout the proceedings, Tanner said.
A spokesman for DA Alvin Bragg confirmed that the evidence in question had “violated our discovery requirements.”
The assistant district attorney who was leading the case, Stephanie Minogue, was removed from her role as the Deputy Chief of the Police Accountability Unit, the spokesman said.
The dismissal of the charges against Franco – whose questionable work as a detective has led to more than a hundred cases being dismissed across the Big Apple — is a major blow to Bragg’s office.
While the perjury and official misconduct charges were brought under the former district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., Bragg campaigned on improving police accountability.
“[Bragg] is not happy,” a law enforcement source told The Post of the case being dropped. “He is elected to his job. This is a case that plays to his constituents.”
Franco, who had pleaded not guilty to the charges, was on trial after allegedly lying in three separate drug cases in 2017 and 2018 — claims which led to criminal convictions.
All three defendants took plea deals and two of them were still serving state prison sentences when the allegations regarding the undercover narcotics detective’s conduct came to light. They were subsequently released and their convictions were vacated.
Franco’s 2019 indictment led to dozens of other cases being tossed in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx that relied on him to get a conviction.
The judge’s decision to drop the case means the DA’s office will be unable to prosecute Franco again on the charges.
If convicted, he would have faced seven years behind bars.
Franco’s attorney said the ex-cop was “relieved at the outcome.”
“But how does he get his reputation back? A decorated police officer who honorably served this city for 20 years, he never did anything wrong,” Tanner added.
He accused the DA of “repeated withholding and destruction of evidence, misrepresentations on the record and other ethical violations” and said the jury would have ultimately acquitted his client “due to the lack of credible evidence.”
The NYPD fired Franco in 2020 after he was found guilty of lying during an administrative trial, which has a lower threshold of guilt.
In the wake of the dismissal, the DA’s office spokesman announced Minogue’s removal and said the General Counsel’s Office would conduct a “root-cause analysis.” The office’s Post-Conviction Justice Unit will continue to review cases in which Franco was involved.
“New Yorkers must know that law enforcement, including prosecutors, are acting with the utmost integrity. We hold ourselves accountable to that standard,” the spokesman, Doug Cohen, said in a statement.
The Brooklyn DA’s office had sought to dismiss 90 convictions that relied on Franco’s testimony in the wake of his indictment, while a Bronx judge tossed out more than 130 convictions tied to the detective.
“District Attorney Bragg’s office, and the ’Police Accountability Unit’ in particular, are quick to impugn the integrity of our Detectives, even for possible mere mistakes made in the good faith performance of our duties,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the NYPD Detectives’ Endowment Association, charged in a statement.
“This case, shows the need for new oversight to turn that same criticism inward and re-evaluate their investigative process and ethics — and fire the assistant district attorneys responsible.”
