“Why not put the criminal informant on the stand,” Rounds asked in his summation. “Because then she might have to answer questions about what else she did that day, or what else she had on her that day?”
Rounds also questioned the chain of custody for the narcotics allegedly purchased from McPherson in light of the high volume of undercover buys undertaken by the team in the midst of Operation Clean Sweep. Rounds asked why a state police investigator who witnessed Negron logging the evidence did not take the stand and noted that, for at least a brief period between its alleged purchase and its being logged into evidence, the cocaine was stored a backpack that was not under direct visual observation by police. Rounds also pointed out that police passed on the opportunity to arrest McPherson immediately after the alleged drug sale to avoid blowing the informant’s and the cop’s cover. (McPherson would be arrested along with dozens of other Clean Sweep defendants in the early-morning hours of March 30, after the undercover portion of the operation was concluded).
“Maybe things just start to run together,” said Rounds. “Maybe when you cast the big net, you don’t care about the individual fish.”
Assistant District Attorney Dylan Gallagher, meanwhile, asked jurors to focus on the consistency between the undercover cop’s testimony and the recorded evidence. On both occasions, Gallagher said, McPherson showed up at the appointed time and place and willingly got into the undercover’s vehicle. The cocaine entered into evidence was consistent with the informant’s request for a “nice fifty.” During the recorded conversation inside the SUV, there is no discussion about the purpose of the meeting indicting, Gallagher said, that McPherson knew exactly why he was there, to sell crack.
“[To find McPherson not guilty] you would have to conclude that there was a far-ranging conspiracy to frame an innocent man,” said Gallagher. “And that is not consistent with the evidence in this case.”
‘Example’ plan goes awry
Several sources familiar with Clean Sweep said that they believed McPherson was chosen as the first case because of the strength of the evidence against him and his exposure to a potentially lengthy prison term based on his previous felony record. While some Clean Sweep defendants are accused of selling drugs to a confidential informant in the presence of an undercover cop, McPherson allegedly made the handoff directly to the officer. Meanwhile, with three previous convictions for drug sales and one for robbery, McPherson was looking at a potential 15 years to life sentence as a persistent felony offender.
“They wanted to make an example out of him so everyone else would plead guilty,” said Ismail Shabazz, a community activist and friend of McPherson. “But if the evidence was so strong, why did he get acquitted?”
District Attorney Holley Carnright declined to discuss the potential impact of the acquittal, including whether the outcome would encourage other Clean Sweep defendants to take their chances at trial rather than accept a plea agreement. Ulster County Public Defender Andrew Kossover said that each case would rise or fall on its own merits. Kossover, however, said that the outcome of the trial pointed to issues with evidence based on the sheer volume of undercover operations.
“This was a very large operation especially considering the relatively small size of the DA’s office and the task force,” said Kossover. “I think this trial revealed some weaknesses that are a result of undertaking such a large operation.”
This is a real failure for Carnright. There is little doubt that there would have been a conviction if Jonathan Sennett was the DA.