Three Convictions Overturned in Louima Torture Case 

DAVID STOUT NY Times 28feb02

[ Chronology below | Federal Court of Appeals Decision 28feb02]

A federal appeals court today overturned the convictions of three New York City police officers who had been found guilty of torturing a Haitian immigrant in a stationhouse nearly five years ago.

Abner Louima

From left: Thomas Bruder Charles Schwarz Thomas Wiese.

The convictions of the three — Charles Schwarz, Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder — were set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan.

The panel found there was insufficient evidence that the three had obstructed justice. It said too that Officer Schwarz's conviction for civil rights violations had to be thrown out because he was denied effective counsel and the jury was exposed to prejudicial information during deliberations.

The victim, Abner Louima, was tortured in a police station bathroom after he was arrested in a fracas at a Brooklyn nightclub on Aug. 9, 1997. Prosecutors said he was handcuffed, pinned down and then sodomized with a broomstick.

Whatever the uncertainties about who did exactly what, and when, there was no doubt that Mr. Louima was badly injured. He spent two months in a hospital for treatment of a ruptured bladder and colon.

The stationhouse incident and subsequent legal proceedings focused a harsh light on relations between New York City police officers and members of minority groups.

Today's ruling does not affect the guilty plea of Officer Justin Volpe, who admitted abusing Mr. Louima with the broomstick and was sentenced to up to 30 years in prison.

Nor does it affect the $8.7 million settlement Mr. Louima agreed upon last July after months of negotiations between his lawyers and the city and police union. The settlement was the biggest ever in a New York City police-brutality case.

It was not immediately clear today whether federal prosecutors would seek new trials, and, if so, when.

But Mr. Bruder's lawyer, Stuart London, said he was elated. "It's a sweet day when you can show the government was wrong and it was wrong from the beginning," Mr. London told The Associated Press.

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel held that prosecutors failed to prove that the three defendants intended to obstruct a federal grand jury. The panel said the government relied almost totally on Mr. Bruder's supposedly false statements to investigators, but that Mr. Bruder was unaware his statements would be repeated to grand jurors — and thus there was not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy.

Mr. Schwarz was sentenced in June to 15 1/2 years for his role in the attack. Officers Wiese and Bruder received five-year sentences for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about Mr. Schwarz's role, but have been free on bond pending appeal. In all, four officers were convicted in three trials and two pleaded guilty.

Mr. Schwarz and Mr. Volpe were tried for conspiracy to deprive Louima of his civil rights by sexually assaulting him while Officers Schwarz, Bruder and Wiese faced conspiracy to obstruct justice charges in a separate trial.

Sanford Rubenstein, a lawyer for Mr. Louima, told The A.P. that if there is a new trial for Schwarz, "we look to the federal government to retry the case and we will be supportive of their efforts as we have in the past."

Joseph Tacopina, attorney for Mr. Wiese, told The A.P. he had not seen the opinion.

"Justice has been served. It was clearly the right decision. Hopefully now Thomas Wiese, Thomas Bruder and Charles Schwarz can resume their normal lives with this and even possibly return to the force," he said.

Last September, Federal Judge Eugene H. Nickerson, who presided over the case, rejected Officer Schwarz's bid to win a new trial, saying that the testimony of a former police sergeant who came forward after four years on Mr. Schwarz's behalf was riddled with misperceptions and inaccuracies.

The decision by Judge Nickerson focused on the account of Patrick Walsh, a former Brooklyn police investigator, who appeared in Federal District Court in Brooklyn in August 2001 to challenge the testimony of the chief witness the government used to convict Mr. Schwarz and send him to prison for 15 years.

That witness, Sgt. Eric Turetzky, has repeatedly testified that he saw Mr. Schwarz leading Mr. Louima toward a bathroom in the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn on the night of the assault. Mr. Walsh, however, claimed under oath that during an impromptu interview only six days after the attack, Sergeant Turetzky admitted that he was not sure whether Mr. Schwarz or another officer, Thomas Wiese, had walked Mr. Louima toward his eventual ordeal.

Judge Nickerson died on New Year's Day at the age of 83.

Mr. Schwarz has been in prison for more than two and a half years and has been moved at least five times, including to federal prisons in Massachusetts, Colorado and, most recently, Springfield, Mo. He has filed court papers complaining about being mistreated in prison.

Torture Case Officer Gets New Trial 

AP 1mar02

NEW YORK -- He has been convicted -- twice -- in the Abner Louima torture case, fired from the police force and been behind bars for nearly three years. Now Charles Schwarz will get another day in court.

And this time, the situation ``will be dramatically different,'' his attorney, Ronald Fischetti, said Friday.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court ordered a new trial for Schwarz, all but assuring that another Brooklyn jury will hear competing theories of who took part in the torture of Louima in a police station bathroom.

This time, the defense can try to use an additional officer's statement that Schwarz wasn't there.

The same ruling also appeared to open the way for two other officers once implicated in the case to try to rejoin the police force.

Schwarz, 36, has denied he was in the bathroom when Officer Justin Volpe sodomized Louima, a Haitian immigrant, with a broken broomstick in 1997. But after Volpe pleaded guilty, a jury convicted Schwarz in 1999 of violating Louima's civil rights by holding him down during the assault.

Schwarz won a reprieve when the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that his lawyer had a conflict of interest and that the jury was tainted by news reports about the case.

The three-judge panel also threw out the obstruction conviction of Schwarz and two other officers, Thomas Bruder and Thomas Wiese, who were accused of orchestrating a cover-up. Bruder and Wiese cannot be retried.

It was unclear when Schwarz -- who is expected to seek bail next week -- would go on trial. But prosecutors said they were ready to prove their case again.

``The government is committed to seeing to it that justice is done,'' said U.S. Attorney Alan Vinegrad.

Prosecutors declined to answer further questions, including whether they thought their job would be harder next time.

Fischetti said the defense was armed with new evidence backing its theory that Wiese, not Schwarz, was in the bathroom.

The government's case still hinges on the testimony of Louima and another officer who worked with Schwarz, Eric Turetzky.

Louima has testified that the second assailant was the same officer who drove him to the station house. Records show the driver was Schwarz. Turetzky has backed Louima's account by testifying that he saw Schwarz leading a handcuffed Louima to the bathroom.

Fischetti said Friday that he would challenge the identification by calling Volpe to the stand. Volpe, who is serving a 30-year sentence, already testified that Wiese -- not Schwarz -- entered the bathroom, but did not participate in the assault.

Wiese himself confirmed that version of events in a statement made to state prosecutors shortly after the assault, Fischetti said, but that statement was excluded at trial. It should now be allowed as evidence because Wiese is no longer a defendant, the lawyer said. Wiese also could be subpoenaed as a defense witness.

As for Wiese and Bruder, they could be eligible for reinstatement as officers and back pay, their lawyers said.

Bruder ``is considering coming back as a viable option,'' said his attorney, Stuart London. ``He's always viewed himself as a professional police officer.''

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not comment on whether he believes Wiese and Bruder have a right to return to the force.

70TH PRECINCT Residents Say a Ruling Feeds Into Their Mistrust 

ANDY NEWMAN / NY Times 1mar02

he news of the overturned police convictions in the Louima case took a while to filter through the Haitian neighborhoods of central Brooklyn yesterday, and the ruling was technical enough that the legal reasoning behind it was not immediately clear.

But in the bakeries and record stores and restaurants along Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues, there was a sense among some that, in the words of Jensen Desrosiers, "There's something fishy going on."

Mr. Desrosiers, 25, was the drummer to whose beat Abner Louima danced at Club Rendez-Vous on Aug. 9, 1997, before his fateful trip to the 70th Precinct station house. And yesterday afternoon, as Mr. Desrosiers sat in the darkened club — now called the Cenegal — he said that the ruling would reinforce a widely held perception in the Haitian community that police officers could get away with hurting Haitians. "If there's a Haitian involved, the cops are going to be much quicker to pull the trigger," he said.

This impression was strengthened by the fatal shooting by the police in January of a 23-year-old Haitian- American, Georgy Louisgene. While the shooting did not cause an uproar, primarily because Mr. Louisgene lunged at officers with a knife in one hand and a metal hook in the other, it at the very least stirred Haitian- American emotions.

In the offices of a weekly newspaper, The Haiti Progres, Yvon Nicolas, an advertising salesman, called the appellate court's ruling unbelievable. "I think people are going to feel a lot of mistrust now," he said.

"The mistrust is already there because of what happened with Louima, and Dorismond, and this kid," he added, referring to Patrick Dorismond, fatally shot by an officer in 2000, and to Mr. Louisgene. "So now it's even going to be worse."

In Manhattan, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Mr. Louima's close adviser throughout the case, said the decision showed "an outrageous disregard for the protection of citizens against admitted police abuse" and raised the possibility of "a multiperson crime for which only one person" — Officer Justin A. Volpe — "pays the price."

"We must deal with the fact that there is no question that physically one person could not have done this alone," he said.

Mr. Sharpton said he would hold a demonstration on Saturday at his headquarters in Harlem, with more to follow.

Mr. Desrosiers said tonight's show at the Cenegal would also be a protest of sorts. "Haitians like to party and protest at the same time," he said.

But while there was some anger in Flatbush, there was also a countervailing sense that more than four years after the attack, more than two years after Officer Volpe's conviction and seven months after Mr. Louima accepted an $8.75 million settlement from the city and the police union, some of the rage was gone.

"This ruling is not going to be welcomed, but the tension is a little down," said the Rev. Philius H. Nicolas, pastor of Evangelical Crusade Church in East Flatbush and Mr. Louima's uncle. "As for the family, we are not out to revenge; we only wanted justice. And if the judges feel they're doing justice to these guys, so be it."

Jean Dume, a graphic designer and radio talk show host on Radio Lakay, a Haitian station based above a bakery on Church Avenue, was more blunt in his assessment. "I don't think there's going to be any big reaction," he said. "The guy got his money. He's left town." Mr. Louima has moved to Florida.

A D.J. at the station, Theodore Wilkinson, read a bulletin on the ruling on the noon news but said he could not predict what would happen. "We have to wait till they diffuse the news and see," he said.

The acting director of the National Coalition for Haitian Rights, Dina Paul Parks, said the Haitian-American response to the ruling would depend largely on the diplomatic skills of the mayor and police commissioner.

"This ruling really reopens some very painful wounds," she said. "We've had some progress in terms of brokering a constructive dialogue between the police and the community.

"What Kelly and what the administration say really will determine how much of that process keeps moving forward," she added, referring to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

Pierre Dejean, a manager at the Cenegal, said it might take a very, very long time for justice to work itself out. "Here in the universe we are guided by God," said Mr. Dejean, 70, "but besides God there is the law. Whatever decision they make I or no one else can say why, but there is a God who saw everything."

Racial Passion Stays Muted at a Reversal 

CLYDE HABERMAN / NY Times 1mar02

wice now in this young year federal judges have summoned the ghosts of racial ordeals that tormented New York City's soul.

The first time was in early January, when a federal appeals court ordered a new trial for two black men convicted in the 1991 killing of a Hasidic Jew in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Then yesterday appellate judges overturned the convictions of three white police officers in the 1997 torture case of Abner Louima, the black Haitian immigrant.

In both instances the judges had their legal reasons. But it seems a safe bet that most New Yorkers would have preferred that the courts let the ghosts of those cases stay where they'd been: out of sight, and increasingly out of mind.

Still, even if these ghosts continue to haunt us, they probably lack the power to frighten as they once did. Most New Yorkers have moved on, and at a pace that has conspicuously quickened since Sept. 11. After the January ruling, people in Crown Heights, blacks and Jews, said a great deal had changed since 1991. They saw no reason to turn back the clock.

Similarly, Mr. Louima's old neighborhood in Brooklyn reacted to the news yesterday with reserve.

Of course, popular moods can always change. They will if the Rev. Al Sharpton, the would-be president, has his way. Mr. Sharpton was in familiar high dudgeon yesterday, denouncing the latest ruling in the Louima case and threatening new protests. (Strange, but he was not heard complaining in January about the Crown Heights case.)

The judges' decision, Mr. Sharpton said, was "a shocking display of how the judicial system continues to fail to protect citizens from police abuse." Never mind that the courts, especially the federal courts, have traditionally been where black Americans turned to find a measure of the justice long denied them. Never mind, for that matter, that critical aspects of the Louima case have been murky from the start and that the man who brutalized Mr. Louima, Justin A. Volpe, remains behind bars serving a 30- year sentence.

Although it may not fit Mr. Sharpton's agenda, it is just possible that race relations have improved and that black New Yorkers are not as automatically hostile to the police as some would like them to be. There were signs of that even before Sept. 11, when police officers began to sport unaccustomed halos.

In a New York Times poll last August, 33 percent of blacks surveyed (and 53 percent of Latinos, by the way) said the New York police were doing a good or excellent job. In April 2000, when the Louima, Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond cases throbbed far more intensely, the comparable figure was 12 percent (and 26 percent for Latinos).

As for general race relations in the city, 38 percent of African-Americans and 41 percent of Latinos thought they were generally good last August, compared with 59 percent of whites.

For sure, those numbers left plenty of room for improvement. But they were a lot better than the 16 percent of blacks and of Latinos, and the 35 percent of whites, who felt upbeat in early 2000.

ON another racially charged topic, police shootings, the statistics speak for themselves. Last year, the Police Department says, 11 civilians were shot to death by officers. The figure for 2000 was 14. For 1999, it was also 11, and that included Mr. Diallo.

By comparison, 41 civilians were shot dead by the police in 1990, when crime was rampant. And to show how much the rules of engagement have been tightened for officers, the toll in the early 70's averaged 63 a year.

As for that other hot-button subject, racial profiling, Sept. 11 altered many attitudes. In April 2000, 84 percent of all New Yorkers said that profiling was never justified. That figure plunged to around 50 percent in a Times survey taken a month after the terrorist attacks. Among blacks, 24 percent thought profiling was acceptable; among Hispanic respondents, 31 percent.

Of course, it is easy to drown in statistics. And polls are never more than a snapshot, accurate perhaps for that moment but not the next. Sometimes, all it takes is one questionable police shooting to reignite passions.

But that does not seem to be where New Yorkers are right now.

In East Flatbush yesterday, the Rev. Philius H. Nicolas, who is Mr. Louima's uncle, said that his family was not interested in revenge. "We only wanted justice," he told a Times reporter. "and if the judges feel they're doing justice to these guys, so be it."

And Mr. Louima? He left town long ago.

Convictions Overturned on 3 Officers in Louima Attack 

ROBERT D. McFADDEN / NY Times 1mar02

federal appeals court in New York yesterday threw out the conviction of a white former police officer for taking part in the 1997 station- house torture of the Haitian immigrant Abner Louima, and overturned verdicts that the officer and two others had conspired to obstruct justice.

It was yet another stunning day in a case that became a national symbol of police brutality and distrust of government by minorities, one that tarnished the Giuliani administration and the Police Department and, through successful prosecutions, cracked the blue wall of silence that has long protected officers at the expense of justice.

The ruling leaves the main defendant convicted in a brutality case that was the most politically explosive in the city's history. That former officer, Justin A. Volpe, pleaded guilty, acknowledging that he rammed a broken broomstick up the rectum of a handcuffed Mr. Louima in the bathroom of a Brooklyn station house. He is serving a sentence of 30 years.

In reversing jury verdicts in two lower courts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan did not assess the guilt or innocence of the three former officers in what happened at the 70th Precinct station house on the night of Aug. 9, 1997.

It held that Charles Schwarz, who was convicted of holding Mr. Louima down in the bathroom and was sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison, was denied a fair trial because his lawyer, Stephen C. Worth, had conflicts of interest representing him, and because the jury was exposed to prejudicial information during deliberations. Mr. Schwarz will get a new trial on the charge of taking part in the torture.

And the court reversed the obstruction-of-justice convictions against Mr. Schwarz, 36, and former Officers Thomas Bruder, 34, and Thomas Wiese, 38, on the grounds that prosecutors had presented insufficient evidence to prove such a conspiracy. The three will face no further legal action on that charge, which was struck down with no possibility of a retrial.

The reversals generated a flurry of news conferences and a storm of reaction yesterday — from the defendants and their lawyers, from prosecutors, from Mr. Louima and his lawyer, from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, from police and Patrolmen's Benevolent Association officials, and from an array of state and city politicians. In the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, where the attack occurred and where Mr. Louima and his family once lived, there was a muted mix of suspicion and upset, acceptance and a desire to move on.

Mr. Louima, who now lives in the Miami area, said nothing. But his lawyer, Sanford A. Rubenstein, said his client would participate if another trial arose. Mr. Louima was arrested in a melee outside a Brooklyn nightclub and tortured after Mr. Volpe mistook him for someone else who had struck him.

"Abner Louima is the victim of perhaps the worst case of police brutality in the history of the nation," Mr. Rubenstein said. "He is attempting now to live his life with his family as normally as possible."

A civil suit by Mr. Louima led last year to an $8.75 million settlement by the city, whose $7.125 million share was the largest ever in a brutality case, and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which was accused of conspiring in a cover-up. It never admitted wrongdoing, but its $1.625 million share in the settlement was humbling: the first time a police union anywhere in the country had paid a brutality claim.

Ronald P. Fischetti, Mr. Schwarz's chief lawyer, expressed hope that his client would be freed on bail next week and said he was thrilled. "This is a great day for the Schwarz family and a great day for the institution of justice." He said he looked forward to a new trial before "a jury that will hear all the evidence in the case, which the first jury did not hear."

Mr. Worth, who represented Mr. Schwarz at the torture trial, said he was pleased with the decision. "Beyond that," he said, "I believe it would be inappropriate to comment as Chuck is still facing a new trial. But I certainly disagree with any suggestion that I did not act in his best interests."

Mr. Wiese, his voice giddy with relief, said: "I feel like I was reborn. I had just checked my lottery tickets. I lost, but now I guess I won. I'm still in shock." He said he had not decided whether to attempt a return to police work. He and Mr. Bruder have been out on bail pending the appeal. As for other work, he said, "It's hard to fill out an application when you're a convicted felon in the Louima case."

Mr. Wiese's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, said: "Justice has been served. It was clearly the right decision." He expressed hope that the former officers could resume normal lives, and perhaps even return to the force. He said his client would seek to recover the police salary he had lost over the past two years. "He was only fired because of a crime he did not commit, so we will try to get that money back," he said.

Mr. Bruder's lawyer, Stuart London, called it "a sweet day when you can show the government was wrong and it was wrong from the beginning." He said that his client was entitled to have his job back. "My position is that he should be brought back immediately."

Mayor Bloomberg, in a City Hall statement, recalled that the Louima case had "shocked and disgraced our city" and said that the ruling was "a reminder that we need to do everything we can to prevent such incidents."

Mr. Giuliani, whose administration had been battered by the fatal police shootings of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond as well as the Louima case, had been quick to denounce the torture of Mr. Louima and he praised the verdict when Mr. Schwarz was convicted. Yesterday, through his spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, he said only, "This matter is still before the courts where it will ultimately be resolved."

Alan Vinegard, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York who was chief prosecutor in the original case, said that his office was prepared to retry Mr. Schwarz. He also noted that the appeals court recognized abundant evidence that the three men had tried to "impede the investigations" of state and local authorities but had found insufficient evidence to justify convictions of conspiring to obstruct the federal grand jury.

Zachary Carter, the United States attorney who began the prosecution, said he disagreed with the appellate decision but was confident that Mr. Schwarz, even with the benefit of "counsel who is single-minded in his commitment," would be convicted at a new trial. On the dismissal of the obstruction charges, he said the ruling was narrow, but in language that supported the allegation that there had been a cover-up conspiracy. "It's obviously frustrating," he said, "but that's how our system works."

In the Schwarz case, the court noted that Mr. Worth and his law firm had a $10 million contract with the P.B.A. to represent other officers as well as perhaps the union itself in civil litigation. The specific conflict arose, the court said, when Mr. Worth based his defense of Mr. Schwarz on the contention that Officer Volpe acted alone.

"Worth had a strong personal interest in refraining from any conduct to which the P.B.A. might object," the court said. "Because Louima had consistently maintained that he was assaulted in the bathroom by at least two officers, Schwarz had an obvious strategic interest in implicating another officer in the bathroom assault."

The court added: "Such a defense, however, could have hampered the P.B.A. in its defense of the Louima civil suit. As a result, Worth faced an actual conflict between his representation of Schwarz, on the one hand, and both his professional obligation to the P.B.A. and his self-interest, on the other."

Mr. Schwarz was warned of this and other possible conflicts by the trial judge, Eugene H. Nickerson, but chose to keep his lawyer.

After Mr. Schwarz's conviction on June 8, 1999, three members of the jury signed statements saying that, despite their best efforts to avoid an avalanche of publicity in the case, they had learned that Mr. Volpe had pleaded guilty and confessed that another officer was in the bathroom. While Mr. Schwarz was not mentioned, the court said the information may have tainted the verdict.

In the other part of its ruling — reversing the obstruction convictions — the appeals court acknowledged that there had been abundant evidence at the trial of phone calls, meetings and other contacts among the officers, all of it suggestive of a conspiracy to cover up what had happened. But the court said the specific charge against the men — conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury proceeding — had not been proved.

Prosecutors, the court said, had relied almost exclusively on purportedly false statements that Mr. Bruder voluntarily made to federal investigators. These had to do with where various officers were at the time of the assault, and tended to absolve everyone but Mr. Volpe.

To obtain a conviction, the court said, the government had to show that these statements were intended to reach and mislead the grand jury. But Mr. Bruder did not know his statements would reach the grand jury, the court said, and thus there was insufficient evidence to support the charge.

The court said that prosecutors were free to bring a new trial against Mr. Schwarz, who has served less than three years of a nearly 16-year sentence and has been held in seven prisons around the country. The federal prosecutor in Brooklyn said late yesterday that his office was ready to retry the case.

Mr. Schwarz — whose case has become a cause célèbre among writers and other supporters who argue that Officer Wiese was present during the assault — is expected to be returned to New York next Wednesday, and may seek to be released in a bail hearing.

While Mr. Schwarz may be retried on the torture charge, the court said the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution prevented any retrial of the three former officers on the obstruction charges. Thus Mr. Bruder and Mr. Wiese, who were dismissed from the force when convicted, face no further legal action in the case, and might seek reinstatement.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said he had not had a chance to read the decision and declined to comment. Other police officials said the former officers would have to apply for reinstatement. At the time that Mr. Wiese and Mr. Bruder were indicted, disciplinary charges were filed against both by the department, but they have not been adjudicated and could be reopened if the men apply, a police official said.

New Turn in the Louima Case 

EDITORIAL / NY Times 1mar02

The unanimous decision by a federal appeals court yesterday to reverse the convictions of three officers in the Abner Louima torture trial will force prosecutors to revisit a case that has, over the last five years, appalled and torn the city. The attack on Mr. Louima, a Haitian immigrant, in a Brooklyn police station in the summer of 1997 was unusually vicious. A police officer sodomized Mr. Louima with a broken broomstick, causing grave internal injuries. No less troubling, it appeared that other police officers had conspired to prevent the attacker or attackers from being brought to justice.

Mr. Louima's main attacker is already behind bars, and yesterday's decision will not affect that. Justin Volpe, who wielded the broomstick, pleaded guilty in 1999 and was sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. Also unaffected is the $8.75 million settlement Mr. Louima reached in his civil lawsuit against the city and the police union. The appeals court reversed only the conviction of Police Officer Charles Schwarz, who was charged with holding Mr. Louima during the attack, and the convictions of Mr. Schwarz and Officers Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

On the conspiracy charges, the appeals court said there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. But this is less of an endorsement of the defendants than it sounds. There was plenty of evidence, the court stated, to find that Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Bruder and Mr. Wiese agreed to impede investigators by putting out a false account of what occurred. The convictions were reversed because they were charged under a technical law against obstructing grand jury investigations, which required specific knowledge that a grand jury investigation was under way. If the they had been charged under a federal statute against misleading federal investigators, the court stated, "we have no doubt that such a jury verdict would be upheld."

Mr. Schwarz's conviction for participating in the attack was reversed on the ground that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, because he also represented the police union, which faced potential civil liability in the case. The appeals court also held that the jury was contaminated because one member heard, and told others, about statements from Mr. Volpe's attorney that were not in evidence. There has long been controversy over whether Mr. Schwarz was the officer who helped Mr. Volpe commit the crime, but yesterday's procedural reversal does not reach the merits of that issue. Prosecutors say they are ready to try Mr. Schwarz. They should also consider whether to retry the obstruction case under a broader statute.

Shock, Then Giddy Disbelief for Former Officers' Families 

ALAN FEUER / NY Times 1mar02

The Champagne was chilling in the conference room, and the yellow roses needed a vase. Andra Schwarz, however, did not care. She was talking on the telephone to her husband, Charles, long-distance. It was the first time they had spoken since he had heard the news.

"We're in shock, we're ecstatic," she gushed into the receiver. "Everybody's here, Chuck. It's like a big party. It's like a dream come true."

Mrs. Schwarz was standing in the Midtown office of Charles Schwarz's lawyer wearing a dark blue T-shirt that said "Free Chuck Schwarz" on the front and "Served With Honor, Framed by Politics" on the back. The lawyer, Ronald P. Fischetti, was drinking Moët & Chandon in the next room. Mrs. Schwarz was too excited, or perhaps too stunned, to drink.

For nearly five years, she has argued to anyone within a 10-foot radius that her husband is innocent. She has said he received an unfair trial in the Abner Louima brutality case, and yesterday, an appellate court agreed. She said her head was still spinning. She said it did not feel real. "We've always had hope," she told a battery of news reporters in Mr. Fischetti's packed conference room. "It was just a matter of when. I still feel like I'm dreaming. It's going to take a while before I actually wake up."

Mr. Schwarz was arrested on Aug. 15, 1997, for holding down Abner Louima in a grimy station house bathroom while another officer, Justin A. Volpe, sodomized Mr. Louima with a broken broomstick. Mr. Schwarz was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He has served two years and eight months of his term, mostly in solitary confinement, in seven different federal prisons and jails. The authorities said he was kept out of the general population for his own protection.

Since the day of his arrest, Mrs. Schwarz had led an effort to clear his name. She has organized fund-raising parties in Staten Island churches and Brooklyn comedy clubs. She has coaxed journalists, actors, bricklayers, clergymen and politicians to join his cause. She got the news of the ruling around 10 a.m. yesterday, she said, when Mr. Fischetti's paralegal called her at home in Staten Island. The paralegal, Phyllis Malgieri, was screaming, "We won! We won!" Mrs. Schwarz started screaming, too. She was so loud, in fact, that her dog went crazy. That's what she remembers best: screaming and yelling and calming down the dog.

The appellate ruling does not immediately free her husband, although it does grant him a second trial. The ruling tossed out the convictions of Mr. Schwarz's two co- defendants, Thomas Bruder and Thomas Wiese, who were sentenced to five years in prison for obstructing justice but had remained on bail awaiting their appeals.

Mr. Bruder refused to come to the door of his home in Hicksville, Long Island, yesterday and a family member said he had no comment on the judge's ruling. His lawyer, Stuart London, said Mr. Bruder was overjoyed but a little shellshocked by the sudden reversal in the case.

"I told him, `You can breathe now, Tommy,' " Mr. London said. "He told me, `I don't know if I remember how to breathe.' "

The big question now is whether Mr. Bruder and Mr. Wiese will try to get their police jobs back. (Mr. Schwarz must wait until after his potential second trial.) Mr. Wiese's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, said he would try to recover the salary Mr. Wiese would have made over the last two years. With the suddenness of yesterday's news, neither Mr. Wiese nor Mr. Bruder seemed ready to decide whether they wanted to rejoin the force.

In a telephone interview a few hours after the decision, Mr. Wiese still sounded giddy with relief. "I feel like I was reborn," he said. "I had just checked my lottery tickets. I lost, but now I guess I won."

He said he had done some sporadic construction work since his conviction and has had a tough time finding a steady job. "It's hard to fill out a job application when you're a convicted felon in the Louima case," he said.

After more than two years of working pro bono, Mr. Fischetti has practically become a part of Mr. Schwarz's family. He bounded into his office yesterday, his face on fire with a giant smile, and shouted, "It's unbelievable! We won!"

Later, on the phone, he told Mr. Schwarz that they would win at a new trial. "I can't thank you enough," said Mr. Schwarz, his voice a whisper on the speakerphone.

When Mrs. Schwarz arrived, she ran to the phone and said, "Hi, Chuck! Hi, Sweetie!" She told him that his entire family had heard the news. Then she told him to get some rest because she would be seeing him soon.

Louima Case Chronology 

NEW YORK TIMES 28feb02

Aug. 9, 1997: After a night of dancing to live music at Club Rendez-vous on Flatbush Avenue, Abner Louima, a 33-year-old Haitian immigrant, joined a swirling crowd outside the club, watching two girls fight. In the confusion, Mr. Louima ended up in a scuffle with police officers and was handcuffed and placed in the back of an unmarked police car. Later, while in custody at the 70th Precinct stationhouse, Mr. Louima was beaten and tortured, according to prosecutors.

Aug. 10, 1997: Relatives of Mr. Louima report allegations of abuse to the Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit. Although Mr. Louima, bleeding severely, had been taken by ambulance from the 70th Precinct to Coney Island Hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery, no officer at at the 70th Precinct had reported the incident.

Aug. 13, 1997: Police Officer Justin Volpe, the 25-year-old son of a retired police detective, is charged with aggravated sexual abuse and first-degree assault after turning himself in to Internal Affairs Bureau officers. A second officer, Thomas Bruder, 21, was transferred to desk duty as the investigation continued.

Aug. 14, 1997: Police Commissioner Howard Safir sweeps the 70th Precinct clean, reassigning its 2 top supervisors, suspending a desk sergeant and placing 10 other officers on desk duty. In an interview from his hospital bed, Mr. Louima describes the attack to reporters, saying the wooden handle of a toilet plunger had been shoved into his rectum and then into his mouth, while his attackers shouted racial slurs. He also quoted one of his attackers as saying, "This is Giuliani time, not Dinkins time."

Aug. 15, 1997: A Brooklyn grand jury hands up an indictment of Officer Volpe and also indicts Police Officer Charles Schwarz on charges of aggravated sexual abuse and first-degree assault.

Aug. 16, 1997: Thousands of demonstrators, many waving toilet plungers or Haitain flags marched through Flatbush, Brooklyn to the 70th Precinct in a loud but peaceful protest against the police.

Aug. 18, 1997: Police Officers, Thomas Wiese, 33, and Thomas Bruder, 34, are charged with beating Mr. Louima in their patrol car. The Louima family also announces plans to file a $55 million lawsuit charging that negligence by the city resulted in Mr. Louima's extensive injuries.

Aug. 29, 1997: Thousands of protesters, many waving toilet plungers, marched from Brooklyn to City Hall chanting "Shame on you, shame on you" and wagging fingers at police officers who lined the route.

Oct. 10, 1997: Two months after being attacked, Mr. Louima leaves Brooklyn Medical Center.

Feb. 26, 1998: The four officers charged in the Louima case are indicted on a variety Federal civil rights charges, along with a fifth officer, Michael Bellomo, as the Federal Government formally takes over prosecution of the case.

March 26, 1998: Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani dismisses most of the recommendations of a task force that he created to examine relations between New York City residents and the Police Department. The task force had been formed as a result of the attack on Mr. Louima.

Nov. 16, 1998: A Federal grand jury adds a charge of conspiracy and obstruction of justice to the cases against Officers Schwarz, Wiese and Bruder, saying they tried to prevent Officer Volpe from being charged in the attack against Mr. Louima.

May 4, 1999: The trial of the five police officers begins before Judge Eugene H. Nickerson in Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

May 10, 1999: In testimony at the trial, Mr. Louima admits that he lied when he told a grand jury that during the attack one of his assailants had said, "This is Giuliani time."

May 12, 1999: Detective Eric Turetzky testifies against his fellow officers, saying Mr. Louima's pants were "down below his knees" as Officer Volpe, his uniform in disarray and holding a three-foot-long stick, escorted Mr. Louima from a restroom at the 70th Precinct.

May 25, 1999: His defense crumbling in the face of devastating testimony, Officer Volpe pleads guilty to his role in attacking Mr. Louima. The trial against the other four officers continues.

June 8, 1999: Officer Schwarz is convicted in joining in the torture of Mr. Louima, but Officers Wiese, Bruder are acquitted of beating Mr. Louima, and Officer Bellomo is acquitted of trying to cover up the incident. The three officers still face charges of conspiring to obstruct justice.

July 28, 1999: Judge Nickerson rejects a motion by Charles Schwarz's lawyers for a dismissal and a new trial, ending the first phase of efforts by Mr. Schwarz to overturn the guilty verdict against him. Supporters say the efforts will continue in the appeals courts.

August 1999: Justin Volpe tells Federal officials that the second officer in the bathroom when he attacked Mr. Louima was Thomas Wiese, not Charles Schwarz. Mr. Volpe says that Officer Wiese stood by the door and watched the attack but did not participate.

December 13, 1999: "Short of intentional murder, one cannot imagine a more barbarous misuse of power," Judge Nickerson says, as he sentences Justin Volpe to 30 years in prison. Judge Nickerson said he chose a sentence of 30 years rather than life without parole because Mr. Volpe would probably have to be segregated from other inmates for his own protection, which could be considered additional punishment.

February 7, 2000: The second trial begins with Charles Schwarz, Thomas Bruder and Thomas Wiese charged with conspiring to cover up the attack on Mr. Louima.

March 1, 2000: Judge Nickerson, granting a prosecution request, instructs jurors that they can convict the three defendants even if they believe that Charles Schwarz did not take part in the actual attack on Mr. Louima.

March 6, 2000: The three men are convicted of covering up the brutal assault on Mr. Louima. Family members of the defendants vow, through tears, to fight the verdict.

April 17, 2000: Former police officer Rolando Aleman, one of two officers charged with lying about what they saw on the night Mr. Louima was attacked, pleads guilty to making false statements.

June 5, 2000: The third and final trial in the Louima case begins, with Police Officer Francisco Rosario charged with lying about what he saw inside the 70th Precinct on the night of the attack.

June 21, 2000: Officer Rosario is convicted of making false statements.

June 27, 2000: Judge Nickerson sentences Charles Scwarz to 15 years and 8 months in prison for participating in the attack on Mr. Louima and for conspiring to cover it up. The judge also sentences Thomas Bruder and Thomas Wiese to five years in prison for conspiring to obstruct justice.

February 9, 2001: Roland Aleman is sentenced to two years of probation and Francisco Rosario is sentenced to three years of probation for lying about what they saw on the night of the attack.

July 12, 2001: Mr. Louima settles his lawsuit against the city and the police union, with the city agreeing to pay him $7.125 million and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association agreeing pay $1.625 million. The payment is the largest ever by the city to settle a police brutality case.

July 19, 2001: In a hearing before a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for Mr. Schwarz discuss an affidavit containing testimony by a police officer identified only as Officer F, which is said to contradict testimony against Mr. Schwarz by Detective Turetzky. The three-judge panel agrees that the affidavit, if true, contains information that could potentially exonerate Mr. Schwarz.

July 26, 2001: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals orders Judge Nickerson to consider the new evidence contained in the affidavit.

Aug. 15, 2001: Retired Police Sergeant Patrick Walsh, the so-called Officer F, testifies before Judge Nickerson, saying that he was "1000 percent sure" that Detective Turetsky, the government's chief witness, had been uncertain that Mr. Schwarz was the officer who escorted Mr. Louima to a stationhouse bathroom on the night of the attack.

Sept. 5, 2001: Judge Nickerson denies Mr. Schwarz's bid to win a new trial, saying Sergeant Walsh's testimony was riddled with misperceptions and inaccuracies.

Jan. 1, 2002: Judge Nickerson dies at the age of 83, from complications related to ulcer surgery.

Feb. 4, 2002: Mr. Schwarz files legal papers asserting that prison authorities are holding him in inhuman conditions.

Feb. 28, 2002: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the conviction of Mr. Schwarz, returning the case for possible retrial in a lower court. The court says Mr. Schwarz was denied effective counsel and that jurors were exposed to prejudicial information. The appeals court also overturns the convictions of Thomas Wiese and Thomas Bruder on charges of conspiring to obstruct justice, saying there was insufficient evidence.