The Central Park Jogger Case: What Price Justice?
        March 10, 2014 
        Lawyers for The Central Park Five have held two meetings with the city’s new  Corporation Counsel, Zachary Carter, and his staff to discuss a financial  settlement in a case that remains a wound in NYC’s racial psyche.
        One of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign promises was to settle the 25-year-old  Central Park Jogger case — rather than to delay and litigate, the strategy of  former Mayor Michael Bloomberg against anyone who sued the city. 
         Some may view the settlement’s terms as a harbinger of how de Blasio will lead New York.
         The Central Park Five refers to five so-called minority teenagers  who implicated each other in the beating and rape of a white female jogger in  the Park on April 19, 1989. They spent years in prison for a rape that even the  city acknowledges they did not commit.
         Lawyers who have dealt with Carter describe him as both diligent and more  responsive to plaintiffs’ concerns than his predecessor, Michael Cardozo. 
         “Zach Carter is open to the fact that, if there were wrongs, they need to be  addressed,” says attorney Sue Karten, who won a $3 million suit against the  city for the family of Anthony Baez, who died in 1994 at the hands of an  over-aggressive police officer in the Bronx. 
         Clearly, there were wrongs in the jogger case. But lawyers contacted by NYPD  Confidential, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that to win monetary  damages, the five must prove the police and prosecutors were not merely wrong  or negligent. They have to prove deliberate abuse and misconduct. 
         The confessions by the five teenagers are at the heart of both the criminal  case and the lawsuit, which claims racial discrimination and malicious  prosecution. Two of the teens were arrested in or near the park that night, and  the other three were brought in the next day based on information from more  than 35 teenagers the police questioned who were rampaging through the park in  what came to be known as “wilding.” 
         Each of the five confessed in specific detail to beating the jogger. Each  denied raping her but accused the others of having done so.
         “They can only recover if they can prove that the cops knew they  were eliciting a false statement,” said a lawyer who has sued the city in  similar police-related cases but is not part of the jogger case. “The fact that  they gave false confessions is not enough.”
         But a lawyer familiar with the case said: “How could the teenagers get all that  detail into their confessions if the cops hadn’t fed it to them? There is no  other source for the information other than the police. If the police fed them  this information, that makes it deliberate. And they covered up their  misconduct.”
         Complicating the talks is an insistence by some in the police department that  any settlement acknowledge the police did nothing wrong. 
         “Our report found, as did the trial judge and the District Attorney, that  neither the police in detaining and questioning the suspects nor the  prosecutors, in questioning them, were guilty of any misconduct, and that a clear  and unequivocal statement to that effect must be part of any fair settlement,”  said Michael Armstrong, who reinvestigated the case for the NYPD in 2002 after  Matias Reyes, a convicted rapist and murderer serving a life sentence,  confessed to the rape. DNA evidence confirmed his claim. 
         The problem now, says another lawyer who has sued the city, “is that there has  been a book and a movie. Politicians have taken it up its cause, which means  that there is pressure on the Corporation Counsel to settle.