Attorney Murphy was handpicked because he has spent the bulk of his legal career defending police officers.
The Springfield City Council is being asked this Monday to approve an order for 550,000 dollars from the stabilization reserves to the Springfield Police Department to contract a Compliance Evaluator and hire Attorney Kevin Murphy to assist the Internal Investigations Unit in accordance with a recent settlement agreement imposed upon the City of Springfield and the Springfield Police Department by the Department Justice. On its face, this financial request seems reasonable and one that would allow the City to meet its July 28th deadline in accordance with the terms of the agreement. However, after conducting a cursory search of Attorney Murphy’s history the City Council should resist any efforts by the administration to push this order through on Monday to give citizens an opportunity to vet Attorney Murphy who will ultimately be responsible for making sure their claims against officers are taken seriously.
Councilor Hurst expressed his disappointment over the lack of community involvement and Department of Justice oversight into the selection of the IIU attorney, “The Department of Justice must understand that if they give Mayor Sarno and Commissioner Cheryl Clapprood any room to be disingenuous in the implementation of the settlement agreement, then they will take full advantage. Neither the Mayor nor the Commissioner alone at this point can be trusted to unilaterally appoint anyone who will play an instrumental role in ensuring meaningful reform in our Police Department without the oversight of the Department of Justice and input from the community. Attorney Murphy was handpicked because he has spent the bulk of his legal career defending police officers. This position was never advertised, there was no opportunity for community input, and to make matters worse Attorney Murphy is not a resident of the City of Springfield and will likely have a tough time relating to those individuals who feel their rights have been violated.”
It is also hard to fathom that Attorney Murphy can be objective in his role considering that he has represented police officers in some of the highest profile cases in the City of Springfield. Most recently, he defended an officer in the Nathan Bill’s case where 4 men were beaten, two officers were convicted of assault and battery, and the residents of Springfield had to bear the burden of paying out close to a million dollars in settlement money to the victims. Similarly, Attorney Murphy defended the police officers in the Mark Schand case where residents once again had to pay 6.5 million dollars in settlement money to Mr. Schand who was wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years.
Councilor Hurst stated, “There is an inherent conflict of interest that will occur sooner or later when Attorney Murphy has to investigate an officer that he has previously represented.” Councilor Hurst went on to say, “Bottom line is that the perception from the community will be that Attorney Murphy cannot be impartial. And, if allowed to serve in this role, the many people who thought this settlement agreement would be the impetus for true reform will question whether even the Department of Justice can affect change in a Police Department where our Mayor and Police Commissioner are openly resistant to that change and often times fail to even acknowledge that there is a problem. I encourage my colleagues to unanimously vote this order down and I’m hopeful that the Department of Justice will step in immediately and insist that the City have an open process with community input to select the next attorney to assist the Internal Investigations Unit.”
The Springfield City Council is being asked this Monday to approve an order for 550,000 dollars from the stabilization reserves to the Springfield Police Department to contract a Compliance Evaluator and hire Attorney Kevin Murphy to assist the Internal Investigations Unit in accordance with a recent settlement agreement imposed upon the City of Springfield and the Springfield Police Department by the Department Justice. On its face, this financial request seems reasonable and one that would allow the City to meet its July 28th deadline in accordance with the terms of the agreement. However, after conducting a cursory search of Attorney Murphy’s history the City Council should resist any efforts by the administration to push this order through on Monday to give citizens an opportunity to vet Attorney Murphy who will ultimately be responsible for making sure their claims against officers are taken seriously.
Councilor Hurst expressed his disappointment over the lack of community involvement and Department of Justice oversight into the selection of the IIU attorney, “The Department of Justice must understand that if they give Mayor Sarno and Commissioner Cheryl Clapprood any room to be disingenuous in the implementation of the settlement agreement, then they will take full advantage. Neither the Mayor nor the Commissioner alone at this point can be trusted to unilaterally appoint anyone who will play an instrumental role in ensuring meaningful reform in our Police Department without the oversight of the Department of Justice and input from the community. Attorney Murphy was handpicked because he has spent the bulk of his legal career defending police officers. This position was never advertised, there was no opportunity for community input, and to make matters worse Attorney Murphy is not a resident of the City of Springfield and will likely have a tough time relating to those individuals who feel their rights have been violated.”
It is also hard to fathom that Attorney Murphy can be objective in his role considering that he has represented police officers in some of the highest profile cases in the City of Springfield. Most recently, he defended an officer in the Nathan Bill’s case where 4 men were beaten, two officers were convicted of assault and battery, and the residents of Springfield had to bear the burden of paying out close to a million dollars in settlement money to the victims. Similarly, Attorney Murphy defended the police officers in the Mark Schand case where residents once again had to pay 6.5 million dollars in settlement money to Mr. Schand who was wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years.
Councilor Hurst stated, “There is an inherent conflict of interest that will occur sooner or later when Attorney Murphy has to investigate an officer that he has previously represented.” Councilor Hurst went on to say, “Bottom line is that the perception from the community will be that Attorney Murphy cannot be impartial. And, if allowed to serve in this role, the many people who thought this settlement agreement would be the impetus for true reform will question whether even the Department of Justice can affect change in a Police Department where our Mayor and Police Commissioner are openly resistant to that change and often times fail to even acknowledge that there is a problem. I encourage my colleagues to unanimously vote this order down and I’m hopeful that the Department of Justice will step in immediately and insist that the City have an open process with community input to select the next attorney to assist the Internal Investigations Unit.”
