A provocative article released Wednesday on Harvard University's "Nieman Foundation for Journalism" website seriously questions the federal prosecution of former New York Police Commission Bernard Kerik.
The lead article on the site's "Nieman Watchdog" page, headlined "Another Look at the Kerik Case",
suggests prosecutors and the federal judge overseeing the case may have suppressed evidence proving Mr. Kerik's innocence.
After prosecutors dropped corruption charges, Kerik pleaded guilty last year to charges that included tax fraud and lying to White House officials. In February, Federal Judge Stephen Robinson sentenced Kerik to four years in prison.
Since the sentencing, serious questions about the handling of the case by both prosecutors and the judge have arisen.
As the Nieman site reports: "The judge in the corruption trial of Bernard Kerik, acting at the request of prosecutors, suppressed testimony that could have been helpful to the former New York police commissioner. Taking a hard look at these events is Andrew Kreig, founder of a project that examines high-visibility white collar crimes."
The article, by legal expert Andrew Kreig, a Washington, D.C., public interest lawyer, details the corruption case made against the 9/11 hero and reveals that, despite efforts to smear Kerik with alleged ties to mobster, no evidence was ever uncovered substantiating any link.
Kreig writes: "In his fall from 'Top Cop' to convict, Kerik has been the subject of hundreds of adverse news stories, many linking the charges against him to innuendo about alleged mob ties. But only after Kerik’s guilty plea did authorities say in a footnote on page 45 of a brief in February that they had no evidence he’d knowingly associated with anyone in organized crime."
Read the full Kerik case story on the Harvard's Neiman Journalism website -- Click Here Now.
© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.