Phila. D.A. opposes new trial in a Cujdik case

The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has gone on record as opposing a new trial for a North Philadelphia man serving a three- to six-year prison term whose drug arrest was the work of narcotics Officer Jeffrey Cujdik and his former confidential informant.

In what could be the opening move in dozens of cases built by Cujdik and informant Ventura "Benny" Martinez, the Prosecutor's Office contends that newspaper reports about Cujdik are "irrelevant" and that legal challenges should be put on hold until a federal-local investigation of the allegations is completed.

The office's chief of appeals, Hugh J. Burns Jr., wrote in a March 3 filing in a state Superior Court appeal by Jose Ferran that Martinez's published allegations that Cujdik and he made up information to obtain search warrants had no bearing on the case.

Burns' motion maintained that Ferran's attorneys did not "identify or offer to introduce evidence of any kind. Instead, he relies on newspaper articles reporting allegations and the fact that the commonwealth is investigating the allegations."

Burns argued that no action should be taken on Ferran's bid for a new trial until the probes were over.

"The problem is that when you start disclosing bits of information from your investigation, it becomes impossible to effectively investigate," he said yesterday.

On Friday, the Public Defender's Office asked Common Pleas Court to throw out 24 criminal convictions based on interviews in which Cujdik's former paid informant said search warrants had been secured using false information.

Cujdik's attorney has maintained that the 12-year police veteran did nothing wrong and that Martinez lied in interviews with investigators and in the Feb. 9 interview with the Philadelphia Daily News that Ferran cited in his bid to have his case overturned.

Officials have reassigned Cujdik, 34, to desk duty.

The District Attorney's Office has said it will individually evaluate the cases and decide whether to support or oppose the defendant's motion.

The Superior Court filing in the Ferran case could be the first indication that the Prosecutor's Office will oppose any move to dismiss charges until after the federal and local investigations.

Burns said his position would likely be used in all Cujdik-Martinez cases until the probes ended.

He said he had filed a similar response in another Superior Court appeal involving a Cujdik arrest. Curiously, according to court records, that case involves Cujdik's use of two other confidential informants, not Martinez.

The Superior Court first granted the defense request and remanded the case to Common Pleas Court but, after Burns' filing, rescinded the order April 1 and kept the appeal.

For those whose convictions are being reexamined - especially the half-dozen serving prison terms - the expectations for a quick judicial review now seem less likely.

The Ferran case is unique among the 24 petitions filed Friday by Assistant Public Defender Bradley S. Bridge.

Unlike the others, Ferran was convicted of possession with intent to deliver about four grams of cocaine in a Jan. 22, 2008, nonjury trial, and he appealed his conviction to Superior Court.

Bridge has said he mistakenly filed the Ferran petition with the 23 others and would withdraw it because of the pending Superior Court appeal.

According to court records, the case against Ferran - arrested under the alias Roberto Gonzales - was based almost entirely on Ferran's word against Cujdik's.

Cujdik's sworn affidavit asking a judge for a search and seizure warrant says Confidential Informant No. 103 - Martinez - told him in January 2007 about a Latino male who sold cocaine from his house in the 1600 block of North Fourth Street.

That information was followed by controlled buys of $20 worth of cocaine by Martinez at the address on Jan. 3 and Feb. 4, 2007.

On Feb. 6, 2007, police searched Ferran's house and allegedly found 10 packets of cocaine and material and chemicals used to cut the drug for sale.

According to court records, Ferran testified that on Jan. 3, 2007, he was in New Jersey and then went food shopping with the mother of his three children; on Feb. 4, 2007, he said, he hosted a Super Bowl party at his house, and no one arrived or left until the game ended.

In convicting Ferran, Judge Ellen Ceisler wrote that the defendant and his girlfriend had given contradictory testimony that led her to make a "credibility determination in favor of the police."

The two drug buys that supported the search warrant for Ferran's house were fiction, Martinez now says.