Samantha Melamed -- Larry Krasner's Official Propagandist

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

When does a major legal defeat for the District Attorney of Philadelphia turn into a victory?

When Samantha Melamed, Larry Krasner's faithful propagandist, is writing the story for The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Melamed, a full-time "justice & injustice" reporter who's paid by the Inquirer to write only pro-Krasner puff pieces, really outdid herself today.

On Tuesday, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a "Do Not Call List" of allegedly tainted cops compiled by D.A. Krasner -- a list that would prohibit those cops from testifying in court as witnesses -- is unconstitutional.

But when Melamed showed up two days late in print with today's Inquirer, she allowed D.A. Krasner, a habitual liar known for cooking up his own phony crime stats, to falsely claim that "We won" the case. Next, Melamed quoted Patricia Cummings, head of the Conviction Integrity Unit, as saying the D.A.'s office always treated the cops fairly by giving them an opportunity to correct the D.A.'s allegations of misconduct against them. 

Melamed, who did not respond to a request for comment, obviously never read the 34-page opinion written by Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough.

Had Melamed read Judge McCullough's opinion, she would have discovered that the judge specifically stated that the former process that the D.A.'s office employed to allegedly give the cops a chance to correct allegations of misconduct -- the exact same process described by Cummings in the Inquirer story -- was woefully inadequate in terms of protecting the cops' constitutional rights. 

The judge even went a step further to say that the D.A.'s office could not be trusted to be fair to the cops. 

But Melamed didn't report any of that. Instead, she quoted just six words from the judge's 34-page opinion that ruled that the D.A.'s office for the past four years has been trampling on the constitutional rights of cops. And then Melamed allowed Krasner to falsely claim victory in a case that he clearly lost.

When a cop gets a letter from the D.A.'s office alleging misconduct, the cop is informed that the D.A. plans to turn over incriminating information to defense lawyers so that the cop can be impeached as a witness in a criminal case, so the defendant can go free. 

"Please note, if you believe our information is incorrect, feel free to communicate to us in writing through counsel," concludes the D.A.'s form letter to cops accused of misconduct.

In her story, Melamed quoted Cummings as saying that the D.A.'s office "had always had a process by which officers are informed of their inclusion in the database and given an opportunity to dispute or correct any factual misrepresentations."

Here's what Judge McCullough had to say about that process.

"First, whether the information in the Letter is 'correct” does not go to whether the officers were mistakenly placed on the List and should be removed from the List in light of their exoneration," the judge wrote. 

In some instances outlined in the FOP lawsuit, officers accused of misconduct who were included on the Do Not Call List were ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.

"Limiting the officers’ challenge to whether the information is 'correct' or not – is not the same as affording them the opportunity to establish before an impartial tribunal why, having been cleared, they should not have been placed on, and should not remain on, a List of untrustworthy officers," the judge lectured the D.A.'s office.

"Therefore, the procedure offered by the District Attorney’s Office, which restricts any challenge to the 'correctness' of the information contained in the Letters, does not serve as meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue," Judge McCullough concluded.

"Moreover, adequate due process requires an impartial tribunal," the judge further opined. "As alleged in the complaint, the process offered by the Letters places sole discretion with the District Attorney regarding whether officers should be placed on or remain on the Do Not Call List even though they were acquitted."

"Therefore, it is not an adequate remedy to leave the decision to the very person whom the appellant police officers contend mistakenly and unfairly placed them on the List in the first place," the judge wrote.

In her 34-page opinion, the judge said that the Inquirer's decision to publish Krasner's Do Not Call List  amounted to a "black list" in that newspaper, because it did not afford the accused cops due process where they could contest the charges, and have a chance to clear their names.

Another fact that Melamed conveniently omitted from her story.

The judge's opinion was issued in the 2019 case of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 vs. the city of Philadelphia, Mayor Jim Kenney, District Attorney Krasner, and former Police Commissioner Richard Ross.

Judge McCullough's opinion overturned a 2019 Common Pleas Court ruling that dismissed the FOP's complaint with prejudice after the lower court ruled that District Attorney Krasner had absolute immunity from civil damages for his actions relating to his prosecution of criminal cases.

Instead, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the FOP lawsuit "was not within the rule of immunity" because the FOP was simply seeking "constitutional compliance through equitable relief" by restraining the D.A. and the city from trampling on the constitutional rights of cops.

This isn't the first time we've flagged Melamed, Krasner's biggest fan, for committing crimes against  journalism.

In a story last year about Cynthia Alvarado, a woman convicted of being an accomplice in a murder, Melamed sanitized the crime in question as well as Alvarado's participation in it, falsely portraying a foul-mouthed stripper who brought her one-year-old infant daughter along on drug buys as a nun.

Then, Melamed overlooked Krasner taking a few legal dives to let Alvarado out of jail. Finally, Melamed misstated the terms of the sweetheart plea bargain that Krasner gave Alvarado, details that were plainly spelled out in public records.

In August, Melamed wrote a story about how the D.A.'s office dropped aggravated assault charges against Stefon Crawley, after he got involved in a wrestling match with Officer Timothy Stephan, as he was attempting to escape arrest. 

In her story, Melamed rewrote the facts of the case to claim that Officer Stephan and another cop shot an unarmed Crawley five times in the back as he was attempting to run away.

Mistake No. 1 -- Stefon Crawley wasn't unarmed. 

According to the cops, as he was resisting arrest, Stefon Crawley, a gang member and convicted felon who was on parole for armed robbery, had a Glock in his waistband loaded with an extended foot-long magazine. 

Mistake No. 2 -- Officer Stephan never shot Crawley in the back. 

Not even Stefon Crawley agreed with Melamed's twisted version of the facts. In a deposition, Crawley admitted that he fought with Officer Stephan over the officer's gun and stated he was shot in the leg by the cop as he was resisting arrest, by attempting to bolt out of the car and run away. 

In that case, the D.A.'s office dropped the charges against Crawley so he could sue Officer Stephan in a civil suit for damages. 

That's Larry Krasner, always anti-cop and pro-criminal.

And whenever Krasner is trying to bust another convicted criminal out of jail, Melamed is right there beside him to provide cover in the Inquirer.  

They're a team, like Bonnie and Clyde. The only casualties are truth and justice.