On April 10, 2018, in the $76 Million case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, docket no. 16-1868, Chief Judge David Brooks Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed Appellant Marc Stephens Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica, Luis Felipe Restrepo, and Dennis Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Judge William J. Martini from the United States District Court in Newark.

Marc Stephens Judicial Misconduct Complaint, dated January 10, 2018, states: “The Judges for the District Court granted and the 3rd Circuit affirmed the defendants motion for summary judgment despite the record showing clear disputed facts. The judges refuse to correct their errors and send this case to trial. [I]n order to prevail, a party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “If the evidence “presents a sufficient disagreement” over a factual issue, summary judgment must be denied.”

The case is very simple. Marc Stephens is trying to get the court to reverse their errors of fact stating that Witness Natalia Cortes identified Marc’s younger brother, Tyrone Stephens, as a suspect during an incident which took place in the parking lot of 7-eleven on October 31, 2012.

The City of Englewood raised the argument that probable cause was established by the Englewood Police Department due to Natalia Cortes alleged identification of Tyrone Stephens.

Marc submitted evidence on record proven that the Englewood Police Department police report reveals that Tyrone Stephens’, a juvenile at the time, photo ‘was not’ in a photo array, and Natalia Cortes did not identify anyone.

The evidence reads as follow:

“According to detective Cubullos report she states, “On 11/13/12, I met with Natalia Cortes at the Englewood Police Department to show her the same photo array that Det. McDonald had provided”…During said photo array, Natalia was unable to pick anyone out. McDonald advised me that the individual that was placed in the photo array was a possible suspect Victory Sarhano..”No photo of any other juvenile suspect was used in this photo array”, Doc: 003112688916, defendants SA177. EXHIBIT 4.”

“Photo array eyewitness identification worksheet for Natalia states the following: “Did the witness identify any photo as depicting the perpetrator?” The answer checked is “No”, SA186, #20 also same ECF Doc. 42, page 9. #20. EXHIBIT 5 .”

During Tyrone Stephens probable cause hearing Natalia Cortes testified the following:

Jordan Comet (Q). Did you witness Mr. Stephens fighting that night? Natalia Cortes (A). I didn’t quite see anybody’s faces who were actually fighting. SA234, Doc 003112432109, Page: 80, para #9, #7-10. EXHIBIT 7.

The judges are clearly in error, and as Marc states, “intentionally ignoring” his evidence.

The court is supposed to send the case to trial because there is a clear disagreement of the facts.

The jury decides the case, not the judges.

Chief Judge Smith states in his opinion that, "Merit-related allegations are not appropriately raised in a judicial misconduct proceeding, page 2.

Marc Stephens judicial misconduct complaint points out case law from the Judicial Council which states:

“[W]e need not reject the possibility of an exceptional case developing where the nature and extent of the legal errors are so egregious that an inference of judicial misconduct might arise”. In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1982).

Judge Smith then states, “Because the allegations do not constitute cognizable misconduct, they are subject to dismissal. The record has been reviewed and there is no evidence of Judicial Misconduct”, page 3.

Marc Stephens' judicial misconduct complaint points to case law which states:

“The seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”.

“[Error] involving the denial of basic fundamental rights may constitute judicial misconduct”. In re Dileo, 83 A. 3d 11 - NJ: Supreme Court 2014 at 15-26. In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172, 178 (La.1997).  (“A single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct.” (citing Jeffrey M. Shaman, Judicial Ethics, 2 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 9 (1988))). See Alvino, supra, 100 N.J. at 97 n. 2, 494 A.2d 1014.

Marc also provided evidence from the 3rd circuit, and articles from the New York Times, proving that Judge William J. Martini has been repeatedly removed from the bench for “usurping the jury’s role”, “unwillingness to conduct a fair trial”, and for “Bias”.

Marc Stephens has 42 days from the date of the Judges Order to file a Petition for Review. The review would include the judges of the entire Third Circuit Judicial Council.

The case has already been submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States which granted Marc Stephens an extension.


Copy of Judge Smith’s Opinion and Order

Copy of Marc Stephens’ Judicial Misconduct Complaint