This piece is the fourth part of a series that examines the response to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pattern and practice investigation report on the City of Worcester, some of the biggest factors within the Worcester Police Department that led to the need for the investigation, and the near total inaction of the controlling majority of the Worcester City Council and administration officials to initiate significant reforms.
The first piece in the series, Worcester, MA: Gaslight City, USA, Part 1, looks at the perspective of the city government in response to the announcement of the DOJ investigation and since the release of the report, discussing the manipulative aspects and lack of transparency.
The second piece in this series, A Cult of Silence in Gaslight City, Worcester MA, discusses how restrictions put on the Human Rights Committee, the silencing of a city councilor by his colleagues, and the denial of a citizen petition by the city solicitor, have acted to control the narrative the city government wants to promote.
The third piece in this series, The City of Worcester’s Indifference to Wrongful Incarceration, discusses the case of Natale Cosenza, a man wrongly incarcerated for 16 years after an investigation by the Worcester Police Department, and contradictions in the city government’s various positions on the case.
This piece addresses the perspective of some in city government who recently started expressing a desire to “look forward,” or “focus on the future,” and similar sentiments. To illustrate why these sentiments are counterproductive to the restoration of trust between significant portions of city residents and the police department, I’ll use specific misrepresentations, misinformation, and outright lies from s0me individuals within the police department that caused harm to residents.
Healing the wounds of the past requires addressing the violations of trust and the harm done that created those wounds. A city government and police department unwilling to engage in the hard work of reconciling the harms of the past aren’t seeking to earn trust from the residents of the city; they are demanding it.
Wrongful Incarceration of Natale Cosenza
For more background on this case, see the third piece in this series, linked above.
After the civil trial in Natale Cosenza’s case, the attorneys for Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst and Detective John Doherty filed a “renewed motion for judgement as a matter of law.” The motion asked the court to vacate the jury verdict and order a new trial.
On Jan. 9, 2023, federal Judge Timothy Hillman filed his decision on the motion. President Barak Obama nominated Judge Hillman to the federal bench in 2011, and the U.S. Senate confirmed him in 2012. Hillman assumed senior status in 2022 and retired from active service in July 2024.
A judge throwing out a jury decision is rare and did not happen in this case. The standard is high and requires, as Judge Hillman wrote, citing U.S. v. Mass. Gen. Hosp. (1st cir. 2015), “courts may only grant a judgment contravening a jury’s determination when the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict adverse to that party.”
Judge Hillman also wrote that “the court must draw ‘all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict,” and “refrain from passing judgment upon the credibility of witnesses, resolving evidentiary conflicts, or evaluating the weight of the evidence.”
While Judge Hillman denying the motion is typical, the 14-page written decision he authored in January 2023 addresses key facts in the case to reach his conclusion that the jury’s decision was reasonable and he would not overturn their decision.
Fabrication
The survivor of this crime testified that the man with his face covered who attacked her was in his underwear during the attack.
The survivor did not stay in her apartment after the crime occurred. Weeks after the crime, she returned briefly to gather some clothing. When she eventually sorted through the clothing she gathered, she discovered a pair of gym shorts.
At the criminal trial, Hazelhurst testified he searched the apartment of the survivor on the day the crime occurred, Aug. 16, 2000, looking for anything out of place. He said he looked for “especially a pair of men’s shorts or pants,” but he “did not see those gym shorts.”
At the civil trial, Hazelhurst “testified he did a ‘cursory’ search, that he was just ‘looking around,’ and that he relied on an earlier Bureau of Criminal Identification (“BCI”) search to identify anything noteworthy.”
Judge Hillman wrote, “but the BCI investigator who processed the scene testified that she did not process that sort of evidence; she took fingerprints and photographs.”
The shorts included DNA evidence which did not match Cosenza. According to Judge Hillman, “Doherty testified that Hazelhurst was ‘concerned’ when the DNA test came back negative.”
Judge Hillman concluded that, “the jury was reasonable in finding that Hazelhurst fabricated his testimony about searching for the shorts,” in the criminal trial.
He also wrote:
“The jury was also reasonable in finding that the fabricated testimony caused Cosenza’s incarceration. Had Hazelhurst not testified that he looked for shorts or pants on August 16, 2000, the criminal jury would have considered shorts at the scene of the crime, with a DNA test that did not match Cosenza, testimony from [the survivor] that her family members did not recognize the shorts, and testimony from her nephew that no one entered her bedroom while she was away.”
Hazelhurst also did not document he conducted a search. Judge Hillman wrote, “the lack of documentation of a search until the DNA test came back negative, along with Doherty’s testimony that Hazelhurst was ‘concerned’ by the negative DNA test is enough- along with the evidence of fabrication for the jury to find that Hazelhurst intentionally fabricated the search to diminish the exculpatory value of the shorts.”
Hazelhurst’s testimony that he searched for the shorts played such an important role in the criminal trial prosecutors used it in their closing argument.
During the civil trial “Hazelhurst testified that, absent his search, the shorts were ‘about as close to an exoneration as you can get.”
Suppression of Evidence
Citing 2013 case law (Drumgold v. Callahan, 1st Cir. 2013), Judge Hillman wrote that “law enforcement officers have a … duty to turn over to the prosecutor any material evidence that is favorable to the defendant.” He conceded that case was relatively new, but added that, “it has been clear since at least the 1940s that officers cannot deliberately conceal exculpatory evidence” (Pyle v. Kansas, 1942).
When investigating the crime in 2000, Hazelhurst conducted a photo array, a “lineup” using images. Though the survivor said the man who attacked her was wearing a white cloth over his face and that she did not know him, Hazelhurst testified she had a visceral reaction when seeing Cosenza’s image.
A neighbor of the survivor had a negative interaction with Cosenza previous to the attack in 2000. Cosenza, who lived in the same apartment complex as the survivor, but in a different building, had knocked on doors asking for money. The survivor and Cosenza did not speak, but the neighbor and Cosenza did. This information was in a report which Hazelhurst reviewed prior to conducting the photo array.
Judge Hillman wrote:
“At trial the plaintiff argued that the additional details in the post-array witness statement, along with [the survivor’s} professed lack of knowledge as to who Cosenza or the person knocking on doors was, demonstrated that Hazelhurst provided [the survivor ] with that information after her identification, thus bolstering the identification by imputing to Cosenza a criminal or at least unsavory nature. Furthermore, Hazelhurst admitted that the information about Payton’s interactions with Cosenza was in the report he reviewed prior to conducting the photo array. Finally, that discrepancy was suppressed because at the criminal trial Hazelhurst testified that he ‘doubted that he bolstered [the survivor’s] testimony.” (emphasis added).
Judge Hillman concluded that, “it was the bolstering of the identification that helped cement Cosenza as the attacker in [the survivor’s] mind, leading to the confidence in her identification, a confidence that continued to this civil trial.”
Hazelhurst testified he understood bolstering was improper. When asked during the criminal trial if he fed the survivor negative information about Cosenza, Judge Hillman wrote that Hazelhurst testified testified “I doubt it. I don’t think so.” He concludes that, “a jury could infer Hazelhurst knew he bolstered, knew the bolstering was exculpatory and important to the case, and deceived the court—that it was not a memory lapse.”
Judge Hillman wrote that this evidence meets the legal standard for deliberate deception.
This case is complex. The case against Cosenza had additional issues not highlighted here. The full 14-page decision is available here. This Week in Worcester redacted the name of the survivor in the document.
Doherty retired from the Worcester Police Department. Hazelhurst remains employed by the department.
Multiple sources confirm that City Manager Eric Batista has said that those officers did nothing wrong.
The Assault of Chris Ayala-Melendez
Shortly after midnight on October 25, 2019, a call for all officers on duty to respond to the Beer Garden on Franklin Street went out over the police radio. A large group of people were fighting each other, and some fought responding officers. The chaotic scene led to several arrests, and multiple officers engaged in violent struggles to conduct the arrests.
Chris Ayala-Melendez was not at the Beer Garden, but lived in a building on Franklin Street next to it. He was walking home with his girlfriend when they came upon the scene.
Officer Shawn Tivnan arrested Ayala and charged him with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, and Disorderly Conduct. The relevant portion of Tivnan’s incident report said:
“I observed officers up against the building trying to protect arrestees as the crowd closed in. More officers arrived and attempted to disperse the violent crowd, several people pushed past in an attempt to go towards the officers with the arrestees.
One such male, later identified as Christopher Ayala-Melendez, pushed past officers and was yelling towards the arrestees. I gave him a lawful order to leave the area and he refused. I was able to gain control of his upper right arm with my right hand to stop him from interfering with officers attempting to restore order. I then attempted to escort Ayala-Melendez away from the affray. Ayala-Melendez broke free from my grasp and came towards me and K-9 Mattis, aggressively and assaulted me by pushing me with his hands on my right shoulder.
It should be noted that I was a fully uniformed police officer giving him a lawful command, with police K-9 at the heel position, wearing a harness labeled “WORCESTER POLICE” and a Worcester Police patch.
I then performed a palm heel strike to Ayala-Melendez’s upper body in an attempt to cease his assaultive behavior and create distance, causing him to spin. At the same time, per training, K-9 Mattis reacted to stop the assaultive behavior towards me and bit Ayala-Melendez in lower left back. I immediately gave commands to Ayala-Melendez to step away and get on the ground. At this time Ayala-Melendez’s sweatshirt began to rip as he moved away from K-9 Mattis and I again gave commands to Ayala-Melendez to get on the ground to which he refused. He was taken to the ground by other officers and into custody.”
Police Officer Edwin Guzman, who Ayala approached upon arriving at the scene, told the Bureau of Professional Standards (BOPS), the internal investigation unit with the Worcester Police Department, the following, according to the BOPS report:
“At some point, I was standing to the right of Officer Shawn Tivnan who was accompanied by his K-9. Shortly after, a male later identified as Christopher Ayala-Melendez attempted to walk by me, as he stated “I live over there” pointing to the area of 60 Franklin Street. I advised Mr. Ayala-Melendez he would not be able to reach his destination as the area had been taken over by the chaotic and aggressive crowd rendering the area unsafe. At this point, I was standing in front of Mr. Ayala-Melendez blocking his advancement. Mr. Ayala-Melendez continued to ask to pass through. Each time, Ayala-Melendez grew angrier with every one of his questions, as he finally stated, “I’m just trying to get to my fucking house”.
Mr. Ayala-Melendez then appeared to have either stepped on or touched PO Tivnan’s K-9 during his angry state as Officer Tivnan’s K-9 bite Mr. Ayala-Melendez. Mr. Ayala-Melendez was then taken into custody and taken away by several other officers. I remained in the area to continue to hold the crowd from converging on the other officers who were dealing with their combative suspects.
Although Mr. Ayala-Melendez was not part of the chaotic and hostile crowd, he failed in using common sense by not avoiding a clearly chaotic scene. Finally, Mr. Ayala-Melendez failed to heed my numerous commands to vacate the unsafe area.”
Surveillance video captured the event involving Ayala.
The entire encounter lasts under four seconds before Tivnan assaults Ayala. That’s what it is. An assault.
There was no time for either officer to issue multiple orders or for three verbal exchanges back and forth. It’s a lie.
For the officers on the scene at the beer garden, it was a difficult night. I could understand if Tivnan grabbing Ayala was a mistake. Charging him with crimes he never committed, which is nothing short of an attempt at wrongful incarceration, is a premeditated act.
As police officers are also subject to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 269 §13A, which makes filing a false police report a crime, both officers committed illegal acts.
The BOPS report acknowledges that Tivnan’s report and what is seen in the above video do not match, yet it exonerated Tivnan of unreasonable force and only found there was a policy failure related to the department’s K9 policies.
The findings were accepted by then-Chief Steven Sargent on July 2, 2020. Sargent reopened the file on Aug. 5, 2020, and sustained a violation related to submitting reports.
Both Tivnan and Guzman remain employed by the Worcester Police Department.
The Assault of Pastor Joseph Rizzuti
On Aug. 25, 2019, officers Daniel Heavey and Diony Nunez were investigating a complaint of custodial interference related to an 11-year-old girl. The father of the child claimed Rachel Rizzuti, the child’s mother, refused to return the child as scheduled.
Rachel Rizzuti is the daughter of Pastor Joseph Rizzuti.
The officers received information that the mother and daughter may be at Cornerstone Baptist Church, then on Waverly Street.
Nunez arrived at the church first. The BOPS report says that because worshipers occupied the church, Nunez asked to speak to the pastor.
Pastor Joseph Rizzuti engaged with Nunez, though Nunez did not yet know Rizzuti’s name. Nunez asked the pastor if Rachel Rizzuti was at the church with her daughter. According to the BOPS report on the matter, Nunez said:
“Upon hearing his daughter’s name Mr. Rizzuti’s demeanor changed and he suddenly became evasive and confrontational. He would not tell Nunez whether or not Rachael was at the church. Instead he began to question Officer Nunez as to why he what he wanted and why he was there. Nunez tried to explain that Rachael was not in any trouble and he only wished to speak to her about her daughter and to make sure the daughter was okay.”
Rachel Rizzuti approached and identified herself as the two men spoke, with her child alongside her. The BOPS report says Nunez spoke with Rachel about the custody arrangement for the daughter, then asked if he could speak to the daughter. Pastor Rizzuti, according to Nunez, interrupted and told his daughter to leave the church with her daughter.
According to the BOPS report, Nunez reported:
“Rachael then went to her vehicle with the daughter. Nunez followed her but she would no longer speak with him. She then got into her vehicle and drove off. Meanwhile Mr. Rizzuti continued yelling at Nunez from the sidewalk. He was now shouting and calling Nunez was a tyrant. Nunez then began to go to his patrol car in order to catch up with Rachael Rizzuti.
Nunez recalled that it was around this time that Officer Cappabianca arrived on scene. Officer Cappabianca then began to speak with Mr. Rizzuti about his shouting and advised Mr. Rizzuti to quiet down or he would be arrested for disturbing the peace. Soon Officer Cappabianca then decided to place Rizzuti Sr. under arrest and went to take hold of him. Nunez observed Mr. Rizzuti back away from Officer Cappabianca then run inside the church. Officer Cappabianca immediately ran after Mr. Rizzuti through the open door of the church. Nunez stated that he ran in to assist Officer Cappabianca.”
At the time of this incident, the Worcester Police Department had a select number of officers on a pilot program with body worn cameras. Officer Michael Cappabianca participated in that program.
According to the BOPS report:
“Officer Cappabianca’s footage begins upon his arrival on scene. There is no audio for the first 30 second of footage. It immediately depicts Officer Diony Nunez standing on the sidewalk outside of the church. The Church door is open. Officer Nunez is seen trying to speak with Rachael Rizzuti who is accompanied by her daughter Kianna Walker. Standing nearby is Joseph Rizzuti Sr. Soon Mr. Rizzuti is seen interrupting the conversation and appears to tell Rachael Rizzuti to leave. She then walks away from makes her way to her vehicle across the street.
Shortly after that the audio begins and Officer Cappabianca is heard advising Mr. Rizzuti to go inside because he is not involved in the incident. Mr. Rizzuti refuses and begins to raise his voice and calls Officer Cappabianca a tyrant multiple times.
Office Nunez is then seen trying to stop Racheal Rizzuti as she drives away in her vehicle. Mr. Rizzuti can be heard off camera still yelling at Officer Cappabianca. Officer Cappabianca goes to his patrol vehicle as if to get inside but then his attention is drawn back to Mr. Rizzuti who is still shouting at him.
Officer Cappabianca then returns to the sidewalk and asks Mr. Rizzuti if he is done yelling and to go inside before he gets arrested for disturbing the peace. Mr. Rizzuti refuses to go inside and continues to shout at Officer Cappabianca.
Officer Cappabianca is seen going towards Mr. Rizzuti He is briefly obstructed by Rizzuti Jr. who is also outside. Mr. Rizzuti turns in haste and runs inside the church, opening the church door as he does so. Officer Cappabianca then runs into the church after Mr. Rizzuti.”
Cappabianca’s body camera footage was released by MassLive. The description of events and the reality have significant differences.
When officer Cappabianca arrives, the audio hasn’t yet activated, but the video shows Rizzuti making a gesture of some kind. Then Cappabianca orders Rizzuti to stop standing on a public sidewalk and observing the police interaction with his daughter, which is taking place across the street.
Cappabianca has no authority to order Rizzuti inside. If he had such authority, based on Cappabianca’s unhinged behavior of a few seconds later, it would seem the arrest would have taken place then.
Given Rizzuti’s calm initial response to Cappabianca, he appeared to be far from screaming at anyone, as the BOPS report claims. The claim that Rizzuti interfered in the interaction is also at odds with the body camera footage. That interaction was taking place across the street.
After a moment, Rizzuti clearly becomes irritated with the way Cappabianca spoke to him, and then begins raising his voice. The direct cause of his ire is clearly Cappabianca.
At 31 seconds into the video, Cappabianca nearly touches the door handle of his patrol vehicle. If he was concerned about the potential of disturbing the peace in the middle of the day, all he had to do was remove himself from the situation and the disturbance would be over.
It’s the easiest de-escalation tactic possible. Leave.
Instead, Cappabianca chooses to re-engage with Rizzuti when there is no operational reason to do so.
Cappabianca’s words displayed what was important to him in that moment: “You aren’t gonna tell me what to do.”
That Rizzuti shouldn’t be concerned about his daughter is ludicrous. No off-duty Worcester Police officer would just fold up their tent and go inside, leaving their daughter to fend for herself in that situation.
At 42 seconds, Rizzuti demands a supervisor. That appears to the be the last straw for Cappabianca. As Cappabianca begins to engage in this nonsense arrest, you can hear the other officer warn Rizzuti, “you are going to get locked up.” While Cappabianca made his decision, the other officer apparently hasn’t seen enough yet for an arrest.
Then the horror of screaming and crying worshipers, including children, unfolds as Cappabianca makes his arrest for not liking what a person said.
Rizzuti elected to have a judge hear the case of the charges against him. That judge acquitted Rizzuti and his son, who was also arrested, of all charges. The civil case filed by Rizzuti remains ongoing.
What They Want You to Teach Your Daughters
On March 25, Officer Thomas Duffy, a 27-year veteran of the Worcester Police Department and president of the union that represents patrolmen, spoke before the city council about the U.S. Department of Justice pattern or practice investigation report.
As I’ve previously written, Duffy should have been charged for his 2016 crime, but a corrupt system protects the worst within it.
Duffy’s comments cut to the heart of the sick, demented ideology of some in law enforcement. Just comply, no matter what. Teach your daughters that they must follow the orders of a police officer, even if that order includes the officer unzipping his fly. Just comply and file a complaint later.
Except that happened. Multiple women who claim individuals within the police department sexually assaulted them have come forward. Our city told them they were liars. Some screamed that they were liars from inside city hall last December.
One Worcester Police officer faced charges for rape, was convicted, and sentenced to five to seven years in prison in 2015.
In August 2013, Rajat Sharda was working in uniform when he came upon a couple fornicating inside a vehicle. Sharda handcuffed the man inside the vehicle and ordered the woman to exit. The only thing covering her body was a blanket she wrapped herself in.
According to the survivor’s testimony, Sharda ordered her to open the blanket to show she had no weapons, but then held the blanket open. He asked her what she would be willing to do to avoid getting arrested, and asking if she would have intercourse with a police officer. After she refused, Sharda raped the woman using his fingers while he masturbated until he ejaculated onto the woman.
What is the difference between this case and other accusations of sexual assault that have persisted for years against some Worcester Police officers, which the DOJ report cited?
There was a witness, a man, present at the scene.
What if that man wasn’t there? What would have happened?
She would have been called a liar, just like other accusers. Maybe she would have talked to the DOJ and shown up at city hall last December to be called a liar.
Thomas Duffy would have been the first in line to say she was a liar.
Police are not a monolith and do not share a central brain. They are individuals.
However, when it comes to lobbying, which is part of what police unions do, they present a unified front. That unified front claims to be the victim of, well, everything, including “anti-police activists,” as Duffy loves to say. They claim they know what every other officer did, ever, in their whole life, on every city street, in every vehicle in the city, and in every residence. The accusations ignored by the city for years… they claim to know they are lies.
They don’t know. They have no idea if these things happened.
Yet they can lie in court, like Hazelhurst, and don’t face charges or lose their jobs. They can file false charges, like Tivnan, and keep their jobs. They attack residents for saying words, like Cappabianca, and face no discipline. They help family members of other officers escape detention, like Duffy, and then call other people liars.
Most importantly, they will fight to the bitter end against any real reform, because some don’t want to change.
Until city leadership deals with that, they should expect a huge part of this city to be embarrassed by this police department, scared about what they might do, and to consider them just another gang.
That’s not because they are all bad. They aren’t. But we have no way of knowing who to trust, because the city refuses to do anything about those known who don’t belong behind the badge. It certainly isn’t doing anything about those we don’t know about.
Good cops are great. Bad cops, especially criminal cops, shouldn’t be cops. Those offended by that are the first that should be out the door.
The next piece in this series will review comparisons between the Worcester Police Department and one of the most notorious police departments in the United States, the Minneapolis Police Department, and how the city government in Worcester is gambling with the potential of chaos on city streets.
