Cop in perjury scandal testifies, partner taken off street

The Philadelphia Police Department today confirmed that Officer Patrick Banning, the partner of a narcotics officer under investigation after admitting to lying under oath, was taken off the street on Aug. 8 and assigned to desk duty, pending an Internal Affairs investigation.

City Paper revealed on Aug. 6 that the partner, Officer Christopher Hulmes, admitted during a December 2011 hearing to lying — on a search-warrant application and in open court — in a drug and gun case involving Arthur Rowland. Banning's name appears on the 2010 search-warrant application for Rowland's car and a home where he apparently resided. Both Banning and Hulmes have been assigned to administrative work in the Differential Police Response Unit, a frequent holding pen for officers under review.

Officer Hulmes today testified in a pre-trial motion in what appeared to be the first time since being taken off the street and placed under investigation. Public Defender Eric Zuckerman filed a motion to suppress evidence — a small amount of heroin — allegedly obtained from defendant Richard Hill near the corner of Hope and Somerset streets. Hulmes allegedly provided the surveillance. Zuckerman argued that the officer's admitted perjury in the Rowland case made his testimony not credible against Hill.

"This really hinges on whether we can believe the word of Officer Hulmes," said Zuckerman, adding that the officer's lying "has brought down the integrity of the system."

Under cross-examination, Hulmes admitted making claims under oath that were not true in Rowland's case. He repeatedly evaded answering direct yes or no questions, repeatedly making the unproven claim that he had lied to protect the identity of a confidential source.

"I was trying to conceal the source at that point. My main concern was not having the source killed," said Hulmes. "Would I do it the same way again? No. It's a mistake I made."

Assistant District Attorney Lauren Murray contended that the fact that Hulmes had admitted lying in the Rowland case did not mean that he was a liar all of the time. "Is that fair?" she asked.

Zuckerman contended that Hulmes' professed willingness to lie under oath, whatever the reason, made it impossible for the judge to take his word at face value.

Judge Francis Shields called it a "serious issue," and said he would issue his ruling on the motion to suppress evidence on Friday.

Defense attorneys have criticized District Attorney Seth William's office for failing to hand over evidence of Hulmes' lying during the two-and-a-half years since Common Pleas Court Judge James Murray Lynn granted a motion to suppress evidence in Rowland's case and blasted Hulmes' lying in January 2012. Defense attorneys say that evidence of Hulmes' lying is so-called Brady material, potentially exculpatory evidence, which, by law, the prosecution should have turned over to the defense.

After City Paper's story on Hulmes was published, the D.A. handed over transcripts from Rowland's hearing and related Internal Affairs investigations to defense attorneys. Multiple cases involving Hulmes were then postponed at defense lawyers' request. According to a Daily News report, one defense lawyer claimed that his client, facing major drug charges, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor possession charge because of Hulmes. Another lawyer, Douglas Dolfman, this week withdrew his client's guilty plea because Hulmes' admitted lying "seriously put into question his credibility in any court proceeding."

In recent weeks, attorneys have been eagerly waiting to see whether prosecutors would continue to call Hulmes to testify, given his battered credibility. Attorneys say that Hulmes had testified in preliminary hearings, where witness credibility is not at issue.

Today, facing challenges in an unknown but large number of narcotics cases in which Hulmes had been called to testify or might be called to testify in the future, the D.A.'s office signaled that it would be backing the embattled officer. The D.A.'s Office has frequently declined or ignored requests for comment from City Paper.

It is unclear whether the D.A. will continue to call Officer Banning to testify.

In December 2011, Officer Hulmes testified that he had changed the time that he had set up surveillance of alleged drug activity and to altering his account of the events that led up to Rowland allegedly being found with a gun, money and crack. Judge Lynn harshly criticized the District Attorney's Office for putting Hulmes on the stand.

"You cannot put an officer on the witness stand who is going to say, 'I lied to an issuing magistrate,'" said Lynn. "You cannot do that."

Zuckerman also questioned Hulmes today about testimony he provided at a parole board hearing for Rowland, during which Hulmes later admitted to having claimed that Judge Lynn only granted the motion to suppress because he and Rowland's defense attorney, Guy Sciolla, were allegedly friends. In a deposition made to attorney Holly Dobrosky as part of a civil rights suit filed by Rowland and Paul Ricks (Ricks was arrested with Rowland), Hulmes said that he made the claim without any knowledge it was true. It was "purely out of frustration," he said, after Sciolla allegedly had called him a liar, told him that Banning was "dirty," and said that he knew Rowland had drugs in the car.

"It continues to strain the grant of any credibility to Officer Hulmes to suggest that after I have proven him to be a liar, not once but at least three times in the same case, that I would then turn around and suggest to him that there were drugs in the car," says Sciolla. "That starts to give you some insight into how this man thinks."

The City settled the civil case with Rowland and Ricks for $150,000 in March 2013, and Hulmes' admitted lying could make taxpayers vulnerable to future suits.

Hulmes' admitted lying comes in the wake of federal indictments charging Philadelphia narcotics officers with running a conspiracy to rob and physically abuse drug dealers. It has also put Seth Williams under heightened scrutiny, demanding that he explain why he prosecutes cases that depend upon the testimony of police officers with questionable credibility.