Letter To Judge Hummel (8-19-22) Serious Crime Against Witness Kevin Murphy. Subpoena DCJS Records Necessary.

Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 184 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 3
Parry & Smith, PLLC

______________________
Attorneys and Counselors at Law

______________________
Jeffrey R. Parry, Esq. - partner [email protected]
7030 East Genesee Street

Fayetteville, N.Y. 13066
(315) 412-9126
(315)622-4829 – facsimile
- not for service of process -
August 19, 2022
Hon. Christian F. Hummel

James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse
445 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207 Via Electronic Filing
Re: Kevin Murphy v. The Onondaga County Sheriff’s Dept., et al.

Index No.: 18-cv-1218
Dear Judge Hummel,
In advance of our status conference now scheduled for August 22, 2022, it is
incumbent upon me to update you on improprieties that have already delayed the
progress of this case and threaten future progress. As well, I must report on
activities that, without exaggeration, compromise the integrity of both the legal
process and these proceedings. Due to the gravity of these issues, I assure the
Court that I am reporting in most conservative terms.
Specifically, I refer above to the unlawful discrediting of my client, Kevin

Murphy (hereinafter “Murphy”) before the Department of Criminal Justice
Services (hereinafter “DCJS”). As the Court may be aware, DCJS is the licensing
body that accredits peace officers and police officers in the State of New York.
Should a police officer be fired for cause or leave a position while under
investigation for some suspected wrongdoing, his accreditation is withdrawn by
DCJS. He may not function as a police officer thereafter.
1
Mr. Murphy retired from OCSD in good standing. At that time, there is
absolutely no question that Mr. Murphy was in good stead with DCJS and he went
on to pursue other professional opportunities. As well, Mr. Murphy commenced
litigation in two cases involving present and/or past members of OCSD and he is
an expert witness in ten other cases involving Onondaga County, the Onondaga
County Sheriff’s Department and/or several of the same county employees
involved herein. In short, the motive for discrediting Mr. Murphy is more than
obvious. Simply put, Mr. Murphy is critical to the prosecution of all of these suits
and his professional demise would, very predictably, shield the defendants from
liability.
It remains shocking however, that someone fraudulently notified DCJS

that Mr. Murphy was guilty of some sort of misconduct and, as a direct result,
his accreditation was terminated. Mr. Murphy discovered this fact
accidentally while doing a background check on a government employee. As
DCJS accreditation is a necessity if Mr. Murphy is to work as a police officer,
act in the capacity of an expert witness, maintain his security clearance and
otherwise earn a living, this came as a considerable shock. As well, and of at
least equal importance, the withdrawal of his accreditation would discredit
him as a fact witness and severely harm his credibility in every case in which
he is involved, especially this one.
On this point, little elaboration is required to predict the effect on a jury were
Mr. Murphy confronted by his illegitimate decertification in the midst of
testimony. Very simply, upon his testimony concerning his expert qualifications
opposing counsel would be able to impeach him, by surprise, by introducing
evidence as to his discreditation. Murphy would be left red faced before the jury
and the Plaintiff’s case entirely destroyed. Moreover, whatever testimony he did
put forth would be rendered useless both as an expert and a fact witness. No other
motive is even possible. Had we not discovered this fraud as we did and at the time
we did, the entire case would have been corrupted in defendant’s favor.
As a result, in this and other cases my office has spent an enormous amount
of time over the last several months investigating the circumstances of Murphy’s
decertification. There is no question that it was done for nefarious reasons and the
motive is plain. However, we have not as of yet narrowed it down to the actual
actors involved. In further pursuit of the actual perpetrators, a subpoena is being
submitted for your signature so that DCJS records may be acquired within the
context of the matter before you. We have taken this same step in another case.
2
As to Mr. Murphy’s status, we have recently succeeded in re-instating his

accreditation at the end of a DCJS investigation. However, this came at a present
and future cost; time taken from the normal and customary course of discovery in
the case before you and other cases as well.
Also, as the actions depicted are criminal in nature and as they undeniably
were taken to interfere with these and other proceedings, I am duty bound to bring
them to the Court’s attention. With that in mind, if I am successful in identifying
the actual perpetrators, I will be bringing their names and the circumstances of
their involvement to the attention of legitimate law enforcement authority and this
Court. I cannot predict however; the results of the delay this would cause and it is
within reason to anticipate that extended discovery dates to allow for further
investigation and preparation may be necessary although I do not request
them at present. Such a request may be forthcoming, of course, as may
motions to stem this and similar behavior. Illegal conduct has unquestionably
occurred in the context of other cases such that there is reason to be extremely
wary as this matter moves forward.
Plaintiff’s Complaint outlines other instances of similar wrongdoing and it

would be naive to think that the behavior of such individuals would change simply
because the matter was placed in suit. Specifically, plaintiff is prepared to prove
that witness tampering and the destruction of evidence have already occurred. As
well, the motive is clear; do away with Murphy’s credibility and you do away with
all of your problems.
Also, it should be mentioned that the effort to decertify Murphy was an

attempt at more than character assassination, it was an effort to destroy him
financially. A family man with several children, he likely would not survive a loss
of employment. Unquestionably, this is an unbridled attempt to tamper with a
federal witness through both slander and financial ruin.
Thank you for your anticipated understanding and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Parry

Letter To Judge Hummel (8-19-22) Serious Crime Against Witness Kevin Murphy. Subpoena DCJS Records Necessary.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter To Judge Hummel (8-19-22) Serious Crime Against Witness Kevin Murphy. Subpoena DCJS Records Necessary.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 184 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 3

Parry & Smith, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors at Law

7030 East Genesee Street

August 19, 2022

Hon. Christian F. Hummel

Re: Kevin Murphy v. The Onondaga County Sheriff’s Dept., et al.

Dear Judge Hummel,

Specifically, I refer above to the unlawful discrediting of my client, Kevin

It remains shocking however, that someone fraudulently notified DCJS

As to Mr. Murphy’s status, we have recently succeeded in re-instating his

Plaintiff’s Complaint outlines other instances of similar wrongdoing and it

Also, it should be mentioned that the effort to decertify Murphy was an

Thank you for your anticipated understanding and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

You might also like