He spent six years in prison until another man confessed to the murder.
BY CATHLEEN F. CROWLEY, The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)
PROVIDENCE -- Jeffrey Scott Hornoff’s murder conviction is gone but not forgotten.
Lawyers for Hornoff, a former Warwick police detective, appeared in Superior Court, Providence, yesterday morning to argue that Hornoff deserves to be reinstated to the police force because he was fired for a murder he did not commit.
Warwick has refused to reinstate Hornoff or repay him for the six years he spent in prison. Though the conviction has been erased, the Warwick city solicitor argued that Hornoff’s firing was proper because he was a convicted felon at the time.
Presiding Justice Joseph F. Rodgers Jr. listened to the lawyers for 45 minutes, but did not make a ruling. Rodgers said he needed time to consider the complicated issues the lawyers raised, most of which dealt with the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.
In 1996, Hornoff was found guilty of the 1989 murder of Victoria E. Cushman, a woman with whom he had had an affair. He received a life sentence.
The Warwick Police Department fired Hornoff in 2000, two days after the state Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction. But in an astounding turn of events, Hornoff was set free last year after Todd J. Barry, a Cranston carpenter and former boyfriend of Cushman, confessed to the murder.
Robert N. Feldman, a lawyer for the former detective, made it clear that Hornoff doesn’t want to return to police duty, but wants to be reinstated in order to receive back pay and other benefits. (Hornoff recently completed training to become a teacher’s assistant and said he is considering applying for a position with the Warwick School Department.)
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was to determine whether Hornoff should be reinstated under the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights statute. If necessary, back-pay issues would be considered later.
The Bill of Rights is a law intended to protect officers from arbitrary discipline. The bill allows police departments to suspend officers without pay if the officer is indicted for a felony, but if the officer is acquitted or a conviction is overturned on appeal, the officer is entitled to reinstatement and back pay.
According to the statute, an officer can be fired when the conviction becomes final, and once that occurs, the bill no longer applies to him or her.
The lawyers parried over the definition of “final.”
Warwick’s city solicitor, John G. Earle, argued that Hornoff’s conviction was final when the state Supreme Court rejected his appeal, so the city fired him and the Bill of Rights ceased to apply.
But Feldman said that the reason for the termination -- the murder conviction -- no longer exists so the firing is null and void. Hornoff is still suspended without pay, Feldman said.
The record of Hornoff’s conviction was expunged, which means Hornoff could legally testify under oath that he has never been convicted of a felony. In fact, clerks at the Superior Court will not even acknowledge the existence of the case file. The file is sealed.
Earle, however, said the city’s actions should be judged according to the what happened at the time; when he was fired, Hornoff was a convicted murderer.
In his brief supporting reinstatement, Hornoff’s lawyer countered: “The ‘reality as it existed at the time’ of his termination by the City was that Mr. Hornoff was actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and fired.”
Both lawyers raised other issues to help their arguments.
Feldman said Hornoff was dismissed prematurely because he still had the right to petition the state Supreme Court for a new hearing or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Earle said Hornoff should have made that objection at the time of his termination, but did not. Feldman said Hornoff had more important things on his mind, such as his life sentence for a murder he did not commit.
Earle cited another reason that the city should not have to reinstate Hornoff: he committed an act of “moral turpitude.” While Hornoff was under suspension and awaiting trial, he allegedly used a fake police identification card to get discounts on movie tickets. Hornoff pleaded no contest to a charge of obtaining money under false pretenses in January 2000.
“Clearly, this was an intentional attempt to deceive and defraud,” Earle said. “Clearly, it was an act of dishonesty.”
Warwick’s city ordinances forbid officers who have committed crimes of “moral turpitude” to serve on the police force.
But the judge noted that the Police Department did not punish Hornoff for the misdemeanor. Earle said the department did not pursue any disciplinary action because Hornoff was already serving a life sentence for a capital offense.
In his brief, Feldman said the city is welcome to reinstate Hornoff and fire him for using the police ID, “if he doesn’t resign first.”
Retired Charlestown Police Chief Michael T. Brady sat in the back of the courtroom listening with curiosity.
Brady wasn’t just a casual observer. He was a member of the commission that reviewed and revised the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights in 1995, the same statute that Hornoff is citing to get his job back. (Rodgers, the Superior Court presiding justice, was also on the commission.)
“Never in our wildest dreams did we ever think about the possibility that a police officer . . . would be tried and convicted of a felony that he or she did not commit,” Brady said.
The bill does not address Hornoff’s situation, but clearly, he has suffered an inequity, Brady said. The retired police-chief-turned-lawyer said he would like to see a settlement between Warwick and Hornoff.
“It’s not a fair statement to say, ‘Oh well, this one fell through the cracks,’ ” he said.