The Juan Estrella v. City of Union City trial has reached a critical moment. Union City and its attorneys are fighting to prevent Union City Police Officer David Tafur from giving testimony that could be extremely damaging to the City’s defense.

According to the City’s own court filing, Tafur is expected to testify that he “was present when Chief Luster made a derogatory comment about Dominicans.” Tafur is also expected to testify about differences between discipline imposed upon him and Juan Estrella. 

This is a discrimination case. Juan Estrella alleges he was passed over for promotion because of his Dominican national origin. If an officer is prepared to testify under oath that a former police chief involved in this controversy made a derogatory statement about Dominicans, the jury deserves to hear him.

Why is the City fighting so hard to keep Tafur off the witness stand?

City attorney Philip Morrow is asking Judge Kalimah Ahmad to prevent Tafur from giving this testimony. The defense argues that the alleged statement was not disclosed during discovery and characterizes Tafur as effectively a “surprise witness” concerning that statement. 

But why should the answer be to silence the witness?

Put Tafur on the stand. Let him take an oath. Let him explain exactly what he heard, when he heard it, where it happened, and who was present.

Then cross-examine him.

Let Nichelle Luster respond.

And most importantly, let the jury decide who is telling the truth.

Instead, Union City is asking the judge to make sure the jury never hears this testimony in the first place.

That should trouble the public.

Then comes the threat of discipline

The City’s own filing attacks Tafur personally and tells the court about his disciplinary history and an Attorney General investigation. Most strikingly, the City’s attorneys tell the judge that Tafur “faces the possibility of a severe disciplinary sanction.” 

The timing and appearance are disturbing.

Here is a current Union City police officer prepared to give testimony potentially harmful to Union City’s defense—and the City’s attorneys are simultaneously reminding the court that this employee could face severe discipline.

According to insiders who have spoken with Tafur, City attorneys also attempted to contact him and tell him that he was personally being represented by the City’s attorneys. Tafur rejected that representation and reportedly viewed those attempts as intimidation.

There are now serious concerns that the City administration and Union City Police Department, including through Chief Walter Laurencio, could use additional disciplinary proceedings against Tafur in retaliation for his willingness to testify.

If government discipline is being used—or threatened—to pressure a witness because of testimony that could damage the government in court, that would be outrageous.

The City’s own argument shows why Tafur matters

Union City itself acknowledges that the ultimate issue remaining for trial is whether Estrella was denied promotion because of his Dominican national origin. 

The defense also acknowledges that Estrella’s disciplinary history is at the center of its explanation for why he was bypassed and that the issue includes whether that stated reason was actually a pretext for discrimination. 

So imagine being a juror.

You are being asked to determine whether national-origin discrimination played a role in a promotional decision, while an active police officer is allegedly prepared to testify that the former chief made a derogatory statement about the very national-origin group at issue.

Why shouldn’t that jury hear what Tafur has to say?

The City’s attorneys can attack his credibility in front of the jury. That is what cross-examination is for.

This is exactly why the public is losing confidence

The optics could hardly be worse.

The City wants potentially damaging testimony excluded. Its attorney attacks the witness’s credibility before he testifies. The City’s filing raises the possibility of severe discipline against that same officer. And now there are allegations of attempts to pressure or intimidate Tafur while he prepares to testify.

Enough.

Union City government and the Union City Police Department should not operate as though employees must choose between protecting their careers and telling the truth in a courtroom.

If Tafur is willing to testify under oath, let him testify.

If his testimony is false, expose it through evidence.

If it is true, the jury deserves to know.

The conduct of the City’s attorneys deserves scrutiny

We are also deeply disturbed by the allegations surrounding City attorney Philip Morrow’s handling of Tafur.

Attorneys are advocates, and aggressive advocacy is part of litigation. But there is a line between aggressively defending a client and improperly interfering with or intimidating a witness.

Anyone who possesses firsthand evidence of unethical conduct should consider submitting that evidence to the appropriate attorney-ethics authorities, the appropriate bar association and allowing them to determine whether professional rules were violated.

Nobody—attorney, police chief, mayor, or municipal government—should be above scrutiny.

Let the jury hear the evidence

Judge Kalimah Ahmad has an important evidentiary decision to make.

Our position is simple:

LET DAVID TAFUR TESTIFY.

Let the City’s lawyers question him.

Let the plaintiff’s lawyers question him.

Let Nichelle Luster defend herself against the allegation.

And then let twelve jurors decide what happened.

We believe the evidence presented by Juan Estrella deserves to reach the jury, and we are confident that when the jury is allowed to hear the complete story, it will ultimately side with the plaintiff.

Union City should stop trying to control what the jury gets to hear and start answering the evidence.

LET TAFUR TESTIFY.