Jimmy Binns Vs. The Daily News

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

In one corner, we have Helen Ubinas, a Philadelphia Daily News columnist who can't believe those "rogue cops" got their jobs back. She wants to know why our top city officials who previously did so much political grandstanding  in this case don't have much to say about it anymore.

In the other corner we have Jimmy Binns, the veteran defense lawyer who not only represented Rocky on the silver screen but also Michael Spicer, one of the rogue cops who beat the rap and got his job back. The same Jimmy Binns who publicly predicted to Judge Eduardo Robreno at a bail hearing last August that his guy would beat all the charges and walk out of federal court a free man.

In her July 15th column, Ubinas wrote about how Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the guy who described the rogue cops scandal as "one of the worst cases of corruption" that he ever heard, sounded like a beaten puppy when she talked to him. After all six cops were acquitted by a jury on all 47 counts, Ramsey told Ubinas, "It was just a matter of time" before they got their jobs back . . . That's our system, unfortunately."

Ubinas wrote Binns an email seeking a copy of the arbitrator's decision that reinstated the six former narcotics officers. Binns responded by writing Big Trial a letter where he ripped Ubinas's column as "silly" and the "naive musings" of a "know-nothing" reporter and her editors.

As a public service, Big Trial will attempt to mediate this dispute and make everybody happy.

"I talked to one guy who said he was dangled over an 18th-floor balcony by some members of the crew," Urbinas wrote. "I believed his story. A jury didn't."

In Ubinas's defense, she's not the only journalist at 8th and Market who put their faith in the RICO indictment of the rogue cops.

At least she doesn't work at the Inquirer, where they treat documents  issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office as though they just came down from Mt. Sinai.

Since the rogue cops got their jobs back, Ubinas wrote that she feels like she's dead. She's pinning her hopes for reform on a future sit-down with Jim Kenney, our next Democratic mayor.

Uh Helen, do we really need any more political grandstanding in this case? Haven't we already heard enough of that from Ramsey and Mayor Nutter?

I disagree with Binns about Ubinas. She's a tough reporter who holds people accountable, like Richard Basciano, the slumlord behind the fatal building collapse at 22nd and Market. We may disagree about the rogue cops, but I admire her for knocking on doors and asking what the hell is going on with that case for her July 15th coumn. But after she visited the police commissioner's office, the mayor's office, and the D.A.'s office, she should have made one more stop.

The U.S. Attorney's Office at Sixth and Chestnut. They're the ones who have some explaining to do.

I sat through some pre-trial hearings and quite a bit of the trial in the rogue cops case. I was shocked by how bad the prosecution's case was. They had nothing but the accusations of a bunch of drug dealers. And no corroborating evidence of any kind to back it up.

The prosecution did not even bother to interview 12 of 15 cops and supervisors who were eyewitnesses at the scene of many of the alleged episodes of brutality until 3 to 7 months after the indictment was issued. When an investigation is that shoddy no wonder the jury wound up tossing all the charges. In a RICO case no less.

One of my favorite government witnesses in the case was Kenneth Williams, the former state trooper and admitted marijuana user who claimed the cops broke down the door of his North Philly home and seized $16,200. That included $14,000 that Williams claimed he had hidden in a suit pocket in his bedroom.

The bulk of that money, Williams told the jury, came from a worker's compensation settlement that he supposedly got ten years earlier. Williams claimed he stored that money in his suit pocket rather than a bank because he was hiding money from family court. But did he have any paperwork to prove he ever got a workers' comp settlement? Nope. Did the feds present any evidence of that payout? Nope again.

I wasn't in the courtroom the day the verdict was read. The doors were locked by the time I got there. But a cop who was inside the courtroom said that when the jury foreman read the verdict, not guilty 47 times, he was staring straight at the lead prosecutor.

If you believe the drug dealers' allegations, as Ubinas  did, then the government's shoddy case is an even bigger travesty. An FBI agent admitted on the witness stand that mistakes were made. Shouldn't some heads roll after a monumental stinker like this, where all six defendants beat every charge on a 47-count RICO indictment? When was the last time that happened?

In the more than two months since the verdict, the U.S. Attorney's office has only issued a couple of canned statements that basically said, we knew this was going to be a difficult case and we stand by our case, even though everybody knows by now that it really sucked.

The day of the verdict, after a gag order was lifted, I asked Patricia Hartman, the spokesperson for the imperial U.S. Attorney's office, why the government didn't interview before the indictment a dozen cops and superior officers who were witnesses to the episodes of alleged police misconduct. I asked why the government didn't offer a paper trail or any proof that the money allegedly stolen from the drug dealers was in their possession when they were busted by the cops.

"I do believe the public is owed an explanation for what went down in this case," I wrote Hartman on May 16th.

Hartman obviously disagreed; she never bothered to write back.

But if Helen Ubinas of the Daily News knocks on Hartman's door, maybe the U.S. Attorney would have to explain how they bungled the case.

Hold them accountable Helen, like anybody else.

Now there's a column that Jimmy Binns would love to read.

Here's the full text of Binns' letter to Ubinas:

Dear Mr. Cipriano,

Helen Ubinas, who works at the Philadelphia Daily News, requested that I share with her the Arbitrator's Award that restored 6 former members of the Narcotics Field Unit to the Philadelphia Police Force, after their recent acquittal.

I was privileged to represent Police Officer Michael Spicer in defense of an Indictment that accused him of engaging in a Rico Conspiracy. The Indictment was the result of an 8 year investigation. The trial of Officer Spicer and his 5 co-defendants lasted for 7 weeks, during which over 40 witnesses testified, including Officer Spicer.

I have read an "article" posted on Philly.com authored by Ms. Ubinas entitled "How Did The Six Cops Get Their Jobs Back". The author said that she engaged in conversation with one of the drug dealing prosecution witnesses, whom she believed, although none of the 12 jurors who listened to his sworn testimony during the trial shared her opinion as to his veracity. Ms. Ubinas ranted about the failings of the "system" and, by implication, criticized not only the jurors but all those whom she guessed might be in a position to institute changes to correct what she perceives as imperfections within the Police Department and/or the political system/structure of the City of Philadelphia.

During the trial I took notice of your daily presence and that of Mr. Anastasia as well as several other individuals seated in the row allocated to members of the media. I don't know Ms. Ubanis and consequently I have no idea whether or not she attended the trial.  However, from the silly comments contained in her rant I suspect that she did not. As a 6 time indulgent grandparent I usually error on the side of instruction as opposed to scolding. I'm all in favor of giving youngsters a break. Since your reputation as a brilliant journalist has spoken for itself for several decades, I am enlisting your help to seize upon which could be a teachable moment in Ms. Ubinas's “career”. I enclose 3 audios which I request that you forward to Ms. Ubinas and her editors.

The first is an excerpt from the August 12, 2014 contested bail hearing for Officer Spicer before the Honorable Eduardo Robreno. I predicted that Officer Spicer would "prevail on all of the charges and leave his courtroom not guilty of one single crime." My statement to the Judge was based upon what Officer Spicer told me before and after his Indictment, all of which turned out to be true.

The second is my opening statement to the jury at the commencement of the trial.  I promised that the evidence, or lack thereof, would enable them to easily acquit Officer Spicer and the other 5 defendants. That promise was based upon personal interviews with eyewitnesses and the review of over 110,000 documents, the vast majority of which were provided to me by the prosecutor (and most of which formed a part of the “petard” with which the prosecutors hoisted themselves).

The last is my closing speech which was predicated upon what the jury had seen and heard during the 7 week trial. The witnesses for the prosecution and defense (Mike Spicer testified on behalf of ALL the defendants as to each incident that formed the basis of the indictment) were subject to rigorous cross-examination by the lawyers on both sides of the case. I am not going to burden you with transmitting to Ms. Ubinas and her editors the transcript of the trial but please inform them that it is available at the United States District Court Clerk's office, 2nd floor, 601 Market Street. Philadelphia PA.

Hopefully, after listening to the audios and perhaps reading the trial transcript Ms. Ubinas and/or her editors will refrain from publicizing rants about something that they know absolutely nothing about. This will benefit their dwindling readership and perhaps lead to an increase thereof, once they learn to publish articles based on facts, not the naive musings of a young lady.

I sent this letter in an email to Ms. Ubinas and offered her an opportunity to reply. "Speaking of facts," she wrote, and then she pointed out that both Binns and I had misspelled her name. She thanked me for sharing the letter with her.

For anyone who's interested, here's Binns's opening in the rogue cops case and his closing.

And here's Binns's prophecy at the bail hearing last August.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNe-gBH4JKg

Binns's commentary on that audio clip:

This is a 4 minute audio excerpt of my guaranty to Federal Judge Eduardo Robreno at Mike Spicer's 2nd bail hearing on August 12, 2014. Mike was previously denied bail by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret when the prosecutor misinformed him that Mike struck drug dealer Jason Kennedy in the face with a sledge hammer. Judge Robreno found that allegation not to be supported by the Indictment or the facts. I predicted to Judge Robreno that Mike would prevail on all of the charges contained in the Indictment and that he would leave the courtroom not guilty of any crimes. Mike was arrested in his home @5am on July 30, 2014. In the presence of his wife, he was handcuffed while an AR-15 rifle was pointed at his head. He was placed in solitary confinement at the Federal Detention Center for 12 days until he was released on bail after the contested hearing before Judge Robreno. After a 7 week trial, during which he testified at length on direct and cross examination, Mike was totally vindicated by the jury's unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict (the jury foreman read those words 47 times!), reinstated to the Philadelphia Police Department, paid over $90,000.00 in back salary and been given back his badge and gun that he was forced to surrender at the time of his arrest on the trumped up charges. His 4 children can now return to their respective schools with their heads held high, proud of their hero Police Office father, a cop’s cop.