Jabbar Collins: The  Sins of Joe Hynes? 
         February 21, 2011
         There is nothing more harmful to society than an  unprincipled district attorney. 
         Unfortunately, that description seems to fit  Brooklyn’s longtime D.A., Charles J. Hynes. 
         Once an idealist and reformer, Hynes, in his two  decades in Brooklyn, has become the consummate opportunist.
         He is yet  another example of a once honorable law enforcement official too long in  office, whose ambition and ego have run amok. 
         These faults come into sharp relief in the case of  Jabbar Collins, an apparently innocent man framed by Hynes’s office for a  rabbi’s murder. 
         Convicted in 1995 of fatally shooting Rabbi Abraham  Pollock, Collins spent 16 years in prison before recent revelations of  prosecutorial misconduct led to his release. 
         Did Hynes feel pressure to get a conviction in the  rabbi’s slaying by Brooklyn’s powerful Orthodox Jewish community, with whom  Hynes has been especially cozy? 
         Whatever the answer, Collins’s conviction was overturned  in 2010 by federal judge Dora Irizarry, based on “compelling evidence” that the  DA’s office “had wrongfully withheld a key witness’s recantation, had knowingly  coerced and relied on false testimony and argument at trial, had knowingly  suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence and had acted affirmatively to  cover up such misconduct for 15 years.” 
         Irizarry termed the prosecutors’ conduct “shameful.”
         In a $150 million  civil lawsuit that Collins filed last week in federal court, he names as  defendants nine Brooklyn Assistant District Attorneys and  detective-investigators, including Hynes’s star assistant, Michael Vecchione,  who prosecuted Collins. 
         The lawsuit describes Vecchione as “the principal  defendant” who “orchestrated the 15-year cover up of the office’s misconduct.”
         Specifically, Collins’s lawsuit charges Vecchione and  others “for their misconduct in covering up and withholding documents and  information specifically requested by [Collins] over nearly 15 years, which  would have revealed Vecchione’s and the office’s wrongdoing and would have  provided the basis to overturn [Collins’s] conviction.”
         Hynes himself is not named. 
         “At the present time, there is insufficient evidence  that Hynes personally knew about these specific activities aimed at Jabbar  Collins when they occurred,” says Collins’s attorney, Joel Rudin.
         But the lawsuit  cites Hynes’s “history of indifference to such behavior by Vecchione and to  other prosecutors in the office and by Hynes’s consistent public approval and  ratification of such behavior.”
         Hynes refused, says the lawsuit, “to investigate or  impose meaningful discipline on dozens of prosecutors found in court decisions  to have engaged in misconduct, including deliberate misconduct.” 
         Joe Hynes sure didn’t start out like this. 
         Following his success as Special State Prosecutor in  the racially-charged Howard Beach case of the 1980s, he was considered a  possible mayoral candidate. 
        Instead, in 1989, he ran and was elected Brooklyn  District Attorney. 
         He later ran unsuccessfully for both attorney general  and for governor. 
         Then, realizing he was going no farther than Brooklyn,  he seemed to lose his moral compass. 
         He did a 180 on the death penalty; cozied up to the  politically connected Hasidic Jewish community; placed a former borough  president on his payroll as “Director of Community and Civic Affairs” at $125,000  a year; and actually indicted his election opponents. 
         He also made Vecchione  his go-to guy, assigning him the office’s most high-profile cases. 
         This back-fired  most notably after Hynes indicted former FBI agent Lindley DeVecchio for  allegedly passing confidential information to the Columbo crime family, leading  to four murders. 
         At a news conference, trumpeting the indictment, Hynes  called DeVecchio’s alleged actions “the most stunning example of official  corruption I have ever seen.” 
         It turned out, however, to be a most stunning example  of prosecutorial incompetence — one that Collins cites in his lawsuit.
         Hynes was forced to drop the case after veteran investigative  reporters Tom Robbins and Jerry Capeci presented Hynes with their long ago tape-recorded  interview of his star witness, mob moll Linda Schiro, which revealed her to be  a stone-cold liar. 
        Hadn’t Vecchione, as the lead prosecutor, debriefed Schiro? 
         Worse, did he — and by extension did Hynes — know that  Schiro was a liar, and yet still went forward with the case?      
        It remains  unclear why Hynes is enamored of Vecchione, whose judgment seems perpetually  clouded.