Vincent Hill (00:29):
Hey, good afternoon and welcome to an all new hour of Law and Crime. I'm Vincent Hill, of course. Now again, Newman Raja. He is on trial right now for manslaughter and attempted murder of Corey Jones. Newman. Raja is a former Palm Beach, Florida police officer who shot and killed Cory Jones back in October, 2015. It's kind of strange. Yes, he's charged with manslaughter and attempted murder. We're going to cover that. But first, right after the shooting, about four hours after Newman Raja gave a statement which was videotaped to investigators. Let's take a quick look.

Nouman Raja (01:00):
While I'm in street clothes, while I'm in this, I do not do any take downs. I do not do anything, but just in case for an emergency, something happens. That's why I have the vest and everything identifying on me. I'm supposed to call the road unit to come out to him. And I didn't think there was anybody in there. And as I got close to the vehicle and the door swung open and this guy jumps on night, immediately got out of the van and he's like, I'm okay. I'm okay, man. And at which point I said, Hey man, police, can I help you? And second, I said, police. He jumped back and I clearly remember him drawing and pointing a gun at me. I saw that silver muzzle, and he had, I can swear on this, he had a laser max laser in the guide rod in the gun. And I saw that red light of that laser max flashing at me, and I immediately just shouted, drop the gun. Sorry. Take a deep breath. Let's do this. So you need a drink? No, I'm control. Listen, I want you to take

Vincent Hill (01:56):
Your time. I want you to feel okay. So that's what Newman Rajas said. Just hours after he shot and killed Corey Jones, he said he identified himself as a police officer. Now, we've heard on previous testimony on this network, we've listened to audio where that's not quite clear that Newman Raja actually said, Hey, police, may I help you? That's not heard on that at t roadside assistance call that we've played countless times on this network. Joining me at this time in studio, Catherine Smith, civil rights attorney here in New York, thanks for joining us.

Katherine Smith (02:28):
Thank you for having me.

Vincent Hill (02:29):
So let me ask this. If you were on the side of the rope, three in the morning, you're broken down, you'd been there for hours, and this guy with the inside out T-shirt, baseball hat, and jeans comes up in this white van, would you think he was a police officer?

Katherine Smith (02:44):
I mean, absolutely not. As the prosecution laid out in their opening statements, he, from my experience, deviated sharply from what police officers are trained to do in those circumstances.

Nouman Raja (02:54):
Yeah, absolutely. So he attempted. Raja attempted last year, stand Your Ground, which of course is in Florida. But my take as being former law enforcement myself, I think Corey Jones had every right to stand his ground, which I think is what led to the shooting because there's no doubt in my mind Corey did go for his gun because here's this guy again with inside out T-shirt, just walking up to him at three in the morning. So there's no doubt that Corey actually went for his gun. So let me ask this. If the roles were reversed and Corey actually shot and killed Newman Raja, do you think Corey would be charged with murder or do you think he would've pled stand your ground and have been cleared that way?

Katherine Smith (03:40):
I mean, unfortunately, as we know, sometimes the rules aren't applied equally in lots of circumstances like this, the law enforcement officers get more of a fair shake. I think had the circumstances been reversed, Jones should have been availed of the stand your ground. I mean, certainly in the way in which Raja approached the vehicle, turning his car back around, the manner in which he did almost everything would have led a reasonable person to believe that that was not law enforcement.

Vincent Hill (04:08):
Right. And I'm glad you brought that word up reasonable, right? Because when you're talking use of force, especially deadly use of force, you have to take what the officer perceived as a reasonable threat against his life. But when it becomes unreasonable is if the officer did not come out of the vehicle, and again, I was a police officer for five plus years, when I got out of that vehicle, people knew I was the police, whether I had on a vest my uniform or something, or I came out and said, Hey, police. But I think what the defense is saying here is it was reasonable for Raja to assume Cory Jones was attempting to kill him because he's a law enforcement officer. And this guy, according to Newman Raja, as soon as he said police pulled a gun on him,

Katherine Smith (04:59):
I think the concern here, and I think as the prosecution laid out very well in their opening, is that Raja approached this from a reckless standpoint, had he approached it in a prudent manner that a reasonable police officer would have, it would not have created the circumstance which would have required any deadly force at all.

Vincent Hill (05:16):
Right. Pulling up behind him and putting on his vest and all of that good stuff.

Katherine Smith (05:20):
Exactly. When you recklessly create a circumstance, you can't then throw your hands up and say, well, I had to stand my ground. Right.

Vincent Hill (05:26):
Absolutely. So we want to hear from Andrew Sprague, who's a retired Palm Beach police officer. Let's take a listen to what he had to say.

Andrew Sprague (05:35):
He said you had your tactical vest on, right? And what was his response? No, I didn't have it on Sarge. What did you do that time? I sent him outside the crime scene with Sergeant Anderson, who's APBA rep. What is PBA, sir? It's the Police Benevolence Association. It's the Union for Law Enforcement and APBA rep acts as a liaison for an officer in this case involved in an officer involved shooting and the union attorneys. And so even though Sergeant Anderson was on scene as a law enforcement officer, he was also a union rep at that time and went with the defendant? Yes. And what was his role at that time? Just to stand by with Officer Roger until attorneys arrived. Attorneys from where? The union state attorney's office, sheriff's office shooting team.

(06:37):
And did you see the defendant earlier that evening at lineup? I did. What was he wearing at that time? A full uniform. Were you surprised to see him out of uniform when you arrived at PGA in 95? I had been gone for two weeks prior to this. This was only my second night back at work. I wasn't fully briefed on what his duties were, but seeing him in lineup in full uniform, I couldn't believe that he changed out of uniform at three whatever in the morning, two 30 in the morning for the shift ended at six. So just to change for that short amount of time, I was surprised.

Vincent Hill (07:18):
Okay. So that was Andrew Sprague. He was one of the sergeants on the scene that night. Back in October of 2015, he was actually Newman Rogers Sergeant Captain. Sorry, let me ask this Now. He talked about how he was surprised not to see him in uniform. So to me, and even when I watch Raja's video statement, it kind of seems like he made the whole story up about I was told to change into plain clothes because we were doing this burglary sting. And there you have his sergeant who was there at roll call. They call it lineup. Most police departments call it roll call, but you have his sergeant there saying, well, I was surprised to see him in plain clothes because when I saw him at roll call, he was in uniform. So do you think Raja was up to something he shouldn't have been up to that night? Why would he change in his supervisor not know about it?

Katherine Smith (08:05):
It's odd. I mean, in my experience, usually if there would be a major change in the role that the police officer would take, there would be a attack plan, a tactical plan or something that would indicate or a change in role. Police officers aren't typically supposed to go rogue. They're not allowed to take off their uniform and say, Hey, I'm going to cruise the street and see what happens. I'm just

Vincent Hill (08:25):
Going to ride around in the T-shirt and jeans.

Katherine Smith (08:27):
Exactly. So there's something, if there is not a attack plan, if there is not an order from another supervisor indicating that there was some other change, then I find that concerning.

Vincent Hill (08:37):
Yeah,

(08:37):
And

(08:37):
I'm glad you brought that up because Raja and his video statement actually said, well, it wasn't really an operation, we just kind of talked about it. So there was no tag plan. There wasn't a memo from the sergeant or the captain saying, Hey, we're going to do this burglary sting from this hour to this hour. Raja is going to be assigned to this car and this car, because I would love to see that on their log from that night to say, yeah, this is what he was told to do. But that's not the case.

Katherine Smith (09:05):
Right. And there should also be, I mean certainly in New York there are radio runs, there are other transfers that are either internal or external that would indicate communication between the police officers. And if not, I mean cell phone records certainly could be subpoenaed to show there would've had to have been some substantive communication to him to say change of plans.

Vincent Hill (09:23):
Exactly. Absolutely. And again, I've said it goes back to training. One of the things you don't do is jump out of the car and not say you're the police. And usually if someone has a gun, officers are trained to still go for cover even if you are armed. Let's take a listen to one of the other sergeant, and he actually talks about Newman Rogers training. Take a listen.

ATTOURNEY (09:45):
Defense attorney asked you if it was paramount to the safety of the officer at times to get out of his vehicle if he's approached by a dangerous situation.

OFFICER (09:52):
Absolutely.

ATTOURNEY (09:53):
Is it also paramount to the safety of an officer to approach a vehicle as if you're conducting a traffic stop?

OFFICER (10:01):
It can be, yes.

ATTOURNEY (10:02):
Is it paramount to the safety of an officer to actually get behind a vehicle when conducting a traffic stop for the safety of the officer?

OFFICER (10:11):
Can be, yes.

ATTOURNEY (10:12):
Is it paramount to the safety of the officer to make sure that they are clearly identifiable to a person that they're conducting a traffic stop on?

OFFICER (10:20):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (10:21):
This was not an undercover operation, was it?

OFFICER (10:25):
It was not

ATTOURNEY (10:27):
The purpose of the defendant to act as if he was undercover. Was it? Objection, leading. Sustained rephrase. Was it the purpose of this defendant to act as if he was undercover?

OFFICER (10:37):
No.

ATTOURNEY (10:38):
Was the purpose to be clearly identifiable as a law enforcement officer if necessary?

OFFICER (10:45):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (10:46):
And the instructions were they to put his vest on when he was exiting the vehicle to make contact? Is that the instruction

OFFICER (10:57):
To be readily identifiable

ATTOURNEY (10:59):
And if he exited his vehicle to make contact with anybody, was he supposed to be readily identifiable?

OFFICER (11:05):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (11:05):
And is that not only for the safety of him? Objection, leading. Sustained. Is that for the safety of him, sir?

OFFICER (11:13):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (11:14):
Is it also for the safety of anybody that he would come into contact with?

OFFICER (11:19):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (11:20):
And you said that obviously no one would know that that white unmarked van, I was letting you finish asking him to Wait a second. I haven't heard the whole question yet. Go ahead.

(11:34):
You previously

(11:35):
Testified that there is no way that somebody would be able to tell if that unmarked white van was a law enforcement vehicle, correct?

OFFICER (11:46):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (11:51):
Defense attorney asked you if there are times where something may suddenly change that will cause a law enforcement officer to act. Do you remember him asking you That? I do. And what was your response? Yes. And are those sudden changes at times because a citizen or a suspect might do something to an officer? Yes. Are there also times where things will suddenly change because of what the officer specifically does?

Vincent Hill (12:25):
Okay, so that was Sergeant Javier Garcia, and he was talking about how officers are trained, and he said, Catherine, this was not an undercover operation, and he should have been readily identified. And the only time in policing where I didn't go around saying I was the police officer is when I was working narcotics and I had a full beard and I went by the name Tyrone because I didn't want people that was truly my undercover name. I didn't want people to know I was the police for obvious reasons. But when you're out on this burglary detail, and if you had to get out on a burglar, you don't want to say, oh, hold on Joe Burglar, let me get my vest, my gun, my duty belt, and now let me chase you and approach you. So we got a big problem here. We say

Katherine Smith (13:11):
You, we do. And I chuckle because it's almost comical. The logic just doesn't support him being undercover for any reason. Undercover, as you know, is not something that's taken lightly. There are lots of precautions that are in place to protect that individual. There are often ghost officers who ghost the undercovers operations. Absolutely. There are cal transmitters so that the undercover can transmit secretly to the rest of his tack team who are there. Watching the undercover operation undercover doesn't mean you're in plain clothes and you're just doing whatever you want to do.

Nouman Raja (13:40):
I'm just driving around wherever I want to go.

Katherine Smith (13:42):
Right? And if I see somebody, Hey, I'm going to pull up on them and frighten them. That's not undercover operation. And to hide behind something that actually is afforded a truly legitimate governmental function and protection is really poor.

Vincent Hill (13:53):
Yeah, absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself. We're going to take a quick break. Again, Newman Raja, that courtroom is on lunch, but we'll have live testimony as soon as they come back. In the meantime, we will recap it for you. Stay tuned to the Law and Crime Network. We'll be right back. Hey, welcome back to the Law and Crime Network again. We've been covering Newman Raja, a former Palm Beach, Florida police officer who's on trial right now for manslaughter and the attempted murder of Corey Jones. Corey Jones was shot and killed by Newman Raja back in October of 2015. Now, on the morning of that shooting, just four hours after the shooting, Newman Raja gave a video statement to investigators. Let's take a listen to some of the things he said during that interview.

Nouman Raja (14:43):
And I didn't think there was anybody in there. And as I got close the vehicle and the door swung open

(14:50):
And this guy jumps on night, immediately got out of the van, and he's like, I'm okay. I'm okay, man. And at which point I said, Hey man, police, can I help you? And second, I said, police. He jumped back and I clearly remember him drawing and pointing a gun at me. I saw that silver muzzle, and he had, I can swear on this, he had a laser max laser in the guide rod in the gun. And I saw that red light of that laser max flashing at me, and I immediately just shouted, drop the gun. Sorry. Take

Sergeant Karpinski (15:22):
A deep breath. Let's do this. Okay.

(15:24):
Do you need

Nouman Raja (15:26):
A drink? No, I'm sure. Listen, I want you to take your

ATTOURNEY (15:28):
Time. Now, when he provided that walkthrough statement to you, Sergeant Karpinski, at the time he gave you that statement, were you aware that there was a roadside assistance call?

Sergeant Karpinski (15:42):
No.

ATTOURNEY (15:42):
Alright. So you had an idea that that existed?

Sergeant Karpinski (15:44):
No, ma'am.

ATTOURNEY (15:46):
At some point, did you become aware that there was a phone call?

Sergeant Karpinski (15:51):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (15:52):
Alright. And can you tell the members of the jury when were you made aware that Cory Jones was on the phone trying to get a tow truck? And apparently the line remained open when this incident went down?

Sergeant Karpinski (16:10):
During the course of the preliminary investigation, I believe we did some interviews where that became a possibility, but we were notified of the recording that next Friday. Okay.

ATTOURNEY (16:23):
And did you have an opportunity to listen to the recording?

Sergeant Karpinski (16:26):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (16:27):
Alright. When you listened to the recording, did you think back to the walkthrough statement that the defendant had given you prior to you learning that there was a roadside assistance call?

Sergeant Karpinski (16:41):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (16:41):
Alright. And when you compare those two things together, did you learn that there were some discrepancies in the statement that the defendant initially provided you?

Sergeant Karpinski (16:59):
Yes.

ATTOURNEY (17:00):
Object, your honor. Grounds, speculation.

JUDGE (17:04):
Speculation. Okay. On those basis, overruled. Go ahead.

ATTOURNEY (17:11):
You can answer the question.

Sergeant Karpinski (17:12):
Yes, ma'am.

Vincent Hill (17:14):
Okay. So that was the investigator that was actually there the morning, Roger Newman. Roger gave his video statement, and even he said he found discrepancies in his statement after he listened to the roadside assistance call that Corey Jones was on with at and t. Catherine, he found discrepancies. I found discrepancies. You found discrepancies. My five-year-old neighbor found discrepancies. A lot of people found discrepancies in this. So one of the things Newman Rogers said was, I immediately got out of the van and he's like, I'm okay, I'm okay. And then I said, Hey man, police, may I help you? But when you listen to the roadside assistance call, that's how it goes. You hear? Huh? You good? Yeah, I'm good. Really? Yeah, I'm good. Put your effing hands up. Hold on, hold on. So there's a huge discrepancy right there. And that statement alone,

Katherine Smith (18:02):
Absolutely. If things were had to have played out the way Raja was saying, we obviously would've heard more in the call. And it appears in the opening that they're saying that there's some aspects of the call that were unintelligible and that there was some content being conveyed prior to what we heard. But I'll tell you what, whenever you get evidence, video graphic or audio evidence and it doesn't help you, you say, well, then there's other stuff on there that didn't capture what I say happened. That's the only theory they can really go for when there's such a stark discrepancy.

Vincent Hill (18:36):
But the problem, even with that theory is in that video statement and it's later on. Newman Rogers says, I said it loudly so he could hear me. So if we could hear the mumbled, are you good? Yes. Really? If he said it loudly as he says he did, then we would hear that somewhere. We don't hear that. So there's a huge problem there.

Katherine Smith (18:58):
Absolutely. I am a bit confounded why the defense is pressing in the manner that they are, because it seems pretty compelling from the prosecution's standpoint that the evidence presented supports their theory of the case.

Vincent Hill (19:12):
Yeah, absolutely. So let's hear from Jimmy Palma. He's a firearms expert. Let's take a listen to his previous testimony.

Jimmy Palma (19:21):
I'm sorry, it's a Jimenez arms pistol, semi-automatic pistol.

ATTOURNEY (19:26):
And what is the caliber?

Jimmy Palma (19:27):
It is three 80 auto caliber.

ATTOURNEY (19:31):
And if you will please detail any examinations that you performed on that three 80 pistol, sir.

Jimmy Palma (19:37):
Yes. What I did first was I examined it again for safety, made sure that the safety was working. There was nothing unusual about the firearm. And then I obtained test fires from the gun. I took the firearm down and test fired it into the water tank.

ATTOURNEY (19:53):
Were you able to determine whether or not the firearm was functional?

Jimmy Palma (19:56):
Yes, it was Functional.

ATTOURNEY (19:57):
Was the safety operational?

Jimmy Palma (19:59):
Yes, it was.

ATTOURNEY (20:00):
So if the safety's on the gun is safe and is not firing, if the safety's off the gun is now live and can be fired?

Jimmy Palma (20:07):
That's correct.

ATTOURNEY (20:08):
And with this Jimenez Arms three 80, what side of the firearm is the safety located?

Jimmy Palma (20:14):
If I'm pointing forward, the safety is located on the left-hand side.

ATTOURNEY (20:19):
And what is the purpose of that, sir?

Jimmy Palma (20:21):
The purpose of that is so that with thumb, with a simple switch of a thumb, a right-hand shooter could put the firearm into safety or take it out of safety.

ATTOURNEY (20:30):
And are the large majorities of shooters predominantly?

Jimmy Palma (20:34):
I would say so.

ATTOURNEY (20:35):
Now, can guns be altered to move safeties to the right side for left-handed shooters?

Jimmy Palma (20:45):
From my experience, you can order a gun with a safety on the opposite end for a left hand shooter. Throughout all of your Experience, have you ever...

Vincent Hill (20:55):
 Okay, so that was a firearms examiner. He's actually talking about the three 80 that Corey Jones had. Now keep in mind, Corey Jones purchased that gun about two days before he was shot and killed by Newman Raja. He purchased it legally. He was licensed to carry that, and it's in Himenez three 80, which in my opinion, that's not a gun I would've purchased. But I know about guns. Cory Jones was a guy that really didn't know about guns. Which brings me to this point, Catherine, the safety was still on the gun, so he didn't even fire it. There wasn't a round in the chamber. So where was the imminent threat? And of course, to be fair, Roger wouldn't have known that the safety was on and there wasn't around in the chamber. But where was the imminent threat? The gun's on the ground, safety's on and not a shot fire.

Katherine Smith (21:38):
Right. I mean, it's important to note that there's no dispute. I mean, even the defense doesn't dispute that there were no shots fired. Usually when police officers are trying or need to use deadly force, there's something a little bit more present other than the alleged brandishing of a weapon.

Vincent Hill (21:53):
Yeah, absolutely. Alright, so there you have it again, Newman Raja, he's on trial for the murder of Corey Jones. I'm sorry, manslaughter in the attempted murder of Cory Jones. I know it's a very confusing case because Cory Jones was shot and killed by that former officer. We're going to take a quick break and all new hour of law and crime is on the way. Stay tuned. We have so much more to come live testimony in the Newman Roger Case after the lunch break. Stay tuned. We'll be right back.