On Tuesday, July 20 in the trial, The United States versus Quinoy, Judge Kenneth M. Karas delivered the charges to the jury in White Plains and deliberations began.
Quinoy faced three charges, two of which were for “excessive force” and one for “witness tampering.” By Thursday, June 22 at 2:30 p.m., at the insistence of the judge, the jury finally reached its conclusions on all three counts. The twelve-person jury found Sleepy Hollow Detective José Quinoy “not guilty” on count 2 of “excessive force” and “not guilty on count 3 of “witness tampering.” They delivered what is known as a hung jury (not unanimous) on count 1 of “excessive force.” Although the judge did not permit the jury voting breakdown on count 1, this publication was informed by two different sources close to the trial that the vote was 11-1 for acquittal on “excessive force.” In this case it reportedly pertained to the incident involving the beating of Mario Gomez.
On Tuesday, August 10 at 2 p.m. a conference will convene with the judge, defense team and prosecutors. Quinoy will remain on bail until that time although his travel restrictions have been relaxed. The conference is intended to discuss how things will proceed and if the government wants to retry the case, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
Anyone who has followed the events of the Sleepy Hollow Police Detective since his arrest and indictment cannot help but ask if the prosecution, aided by the Sleepy Hollow Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “shot themselves in the foot” so to speak. Detective Michael Hayes of the SHPD who wore a “wire” while speaking with Quinoy admitted to filing a false police report on the incident involving the beating of Mario Gomez. His handler, FBI agent Catherine Pena, was removed from the case as “lead agent” after one of the tapes Hayes had given her was either tampered with or discarded, casting credible doubt on the efficacy of the taping process and Pena herself.
In the end, a jury of twelve handed a defeat to the prosecution in each of the three indictments, and it may be that the verdict of “not guilty” could be construed as “guilty” to those charged with upholding the law, the law they conveniently ignored.