El oficial David Tafur declara en el juicio de Juan Estrella contra Union City

El juicio de Juan Estrella contra la Ciudad de Union City está levantando serias preguntas sobre discriminación, disciplina y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía.

Y la jueza Kalimah Ahmad tomó la decisión correcta al permitir que el oficial David Tafur testificara ante el jurado.

Ahora el jurado pudo escuchar directamente al hombre que dice haber escuchado personalmente una declaración muy preocupante de la exjefa de Policía Nichelle Luster.

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ”

Anteriormente, Estrella había declarado que Tafur le contó que Luster supuestamente había comparado a los dominicanos con “animales” durante un Desfile Dominicano en Union City.

Pero ahora Tafur mismo subió al estrado y declaró bajo juramento.

Según Hudson County View, Tafur dijo que estaba aproximadamente a cinco pies de Luster cuando escuchó el comentario.

Tafur fue claro:

“Yo sé lo que escuché.”

También explicó que no lo reportó en ese momento porque era joven y tenía miedo de poner en peligro su trabajo.

Estas acusaciones son extremadamente serias.

Cualquier comentario degradante contra los dominicanos debe ser condenado.

Ningún jefe de Policía, funcionario público o empleado del gobierno debe hablar de esa manera sobre la comunidad que tiene la responsabilidad de servir.

¿POR QUÉ IMPORTA TANTO EL TESTIMONIO DE TAFUR?

Tafur también habló sobre cómo él y Estrella fueron disciplinados después de participar en el mismo incidente.

Según su testimonio, Tafur recibió una reprimenda verbal mientras que Estrella recibió una suspensión.

Tafur es colombiano.

Estrella es dominicano.

Y Tafur dijo algo muy importante sobre lo que hicieron ambos oficiales:

“Él no hizo nada diferente.”

Entonces la pregunta es sencilla:

¿Por qué dos oficiales involucrados en el mismo incidente recibieron castigos diferentes?

Eso es precisamente parte de lo que Estrella está alegando en este caso: que recibió un trato diferente por ser dominicano.

Union City niega las acusaciones y argumenta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella justificó las diferencias en disciplina y en las decisiones de promoción.

Ahora será el jurado quien decida..

UNION CITY SIGUE HABLANDO DEL HISTORIAL DE ESTRELLA

El abogado defensor de Union City, Phillip Morrow, ha cuestionado repetidamente a Estrella sobre sus problemas disciplinarios anteriores y los acuerdos que firmó.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a presentar esa defensa.

Pero existe otra pregunta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella simplemente no puede contestar:

¿Dijo o no dijo la futura jefa de Policía esas palabras sobre los dominicanos?

El historial disciplinario de Estrella no determina lo que Tafur escuchó.

Tafur declaró que estaba allí.

Declaró que escuchó personalmente el comentario.

Y lo hizo bajo juramento y frente al jurado.

¿Y QUÉ PASA CON EL ALCALDE BRIAN STACK?

El alcalde Brian Stack también es acusado en este caso y ha servido como Director de Seguridad Pública de Union City.

Según testimonios anteriores reportados durante el juicio, Stack indicó que dependía de las recomendaciones del jefe de Policía para las promociones.

Luster, por su parte, declaró que Stack tenía la autoridad final para decidir las promociones y que ella hacía recomendaciones.

Entonces los residentes tienen derecho a preguntar:

¿Quién era realmente responsable?

Si la jefa recomendaba a quién promover y el Director de Seguridad Pública seguía esas recomendaciones, ¿qué tipo de revisión independiente realmente existía?

Estas son preguntas legítimas que los residentes de Union City merecen ver contestadas.

LA JUEZA HIZO BIEN EN PERMITIR ESTE TESTIMONIO

La decisión de la jueza Ahmad permitió que el jurado escuchara directamente a Tafur.

Eso era importante.

No se trata simplemente de Estrella diciendo lo que otra persona supuestamente le contó.

Tafur apareció personalmente.

Juró decir la verdad.

Fue interrogado por ambas partes.

HABLA LA ABOGADA DE ESTRELLA

Cuando la abogada Yasmin Estrella salía del tribunal después del testimonio del oficial David Tafur, dio una declaración a los medios:

“Esperamos que el jurado haya visto lo que debió haberse visto hace mucho tiempo. Como testificó hoy el oficial Tafur, la verdad tenía que decirse, y hoy se dijo en el tribunal y el jurado la escuchó.”

Los medios le preguntaron a la abogada de Estrella:

“¿Qué fue lo que dijo?”

La abogada respondió:

“‘Estos dominicanos son animales.’ Esto es lo que… la jefa Luster… esto es lo que la exjefa de Policía de Union City piensa sobre los dominicanos. Espero que la gente de Union City esté prestando atención a este juicio.”

UNION CITY DEBE PRESTAR ATENCIÓN

Este caso ya no se trata solamente de una promoción a sargento.

Se están haciendo preguntas serias sobre discriminación, disciplina, promociones y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía de Union City.

Un oficial actual de Union City declaró bajo juramento que una mujer que posteriormente llegó a convertirse en jefa de Policía hizo un comentario degradante sobre los dominicanos.

Eso merece atención.

La comunidad dominicana es una parte fundamental de Union City y del Condado de Hudson.

Nadie debe ser tratado como inferior por su nacionalidad.

Y hablar una y otra vez del historial disciplinario de Juan Estrella no hace desaparecer el testimonio de David Tafur.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a defenderse.

Los abogados tienen derecho a cuestionar a los testigos.

Pero los residentes también tienen derecho a exigir respuestas de Nichelle Luster, Brian Stack, el Departamento de Policía y la Ciudad de Union City.

Todavía no existe un veredicto final.

Pero ahora existe una diferencia muy importante:

Juan Estrella ya no es simplemente quien dice lo que Tafur le contó.

David Tafur llegó al tribunal.

Subió al estrado.

Declaró bajo juramento.

Y frente al jurado dijo:

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ.”

Ahora le corresponde al jurado decidir.

Officer David Tafur takes the stand in Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial

The discrimination trial of retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella against the City of Union City and other defendants has produced some of its most serious testimony yet.

And Superior Court Judge Kalimah Ahmad made the right decision by allowing current Union City Police Officer David Tafur to testify before the jury.

Before Tafur appeared before the jury, Judge Ahmad conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning proposed testimony from Tafur and another officer. She ultimately permitted Tafur to testify while excluding the other officer’s proposed testimony.

That ruling allowed jurors to hear Tafur’s account directly rather than simply hearing what Estrella said Tafur had previously told him.

“I KNOW WHAT I HEARD”

Earlier in the trial, Estrella testified that Tafur told him that former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster had referred to Dominicans as “animals” at a Dominican Day Parade.

Then Tafur himself took the witness stand.

According to Hudson County View’s reporting, Tafur testified under oath that he was approximately five feet away from Luster at a Dominican Day Parade before the COVID-19 pandemic when he heard her equate Dominicans with “animals.”

Tafur stood by his recollection:

“I know what I heard.”

He testified that the parade had not yet begun, making it possible for him to hear the remark. He also explained why he did not report it at the time: He was young and did not want to jeopardize his career.

Tafur further testified that hearing such a remark made him wonder what was being said about other Hispanics.

The allegation is disturbing.

If a jury ultimately finds that a person who rose to become Union City’s chief of police made such a statement, Union City residents deserve answers about how someone holding those views could have reached the highest position in their Police Department.

No community—Dominican or otherwise—should be spoken about that way by a public official entrusted with authority over its residents.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION JUST GOT BIGGER

Tafur’s testimony was not limited to Luster’s alleged remark.

He also testified about an incident that involved both himself and Estrella.

According to Tafur, the two officers handled the same incident involving a woman who alleged racial bias after receiving a parking ticket. Tafur testified that he received an oral reprimand while Estrella was suspended.

Tafur is Colombian. Estrella is Dominican.

And Tafur told the jury about their conduct:

“He didn’t do anything different.”

That testimony goes directly to an important question raised by Estrella’s case: Was discipline applied consistently?

Estrella contends that his disciplinary history was used against him to deny him promotion to sergeant while non-Dominican officers were treated differently.

Union City disputes that allegation. The defense maintains that Estrella’s disciplinary record legitimately distinguished him from other officers and has argued that progressive discipline explains why Tafur and Estrella received different penalties.

That is precisely why Tafur’s testimony matters. The jury now has a firsthand witness who participated in one of the incidents being used to compare the treatment of the two officers.

UNION CITY KEEPS RETURNING TO ESTRELLA’S DISCIPLINE

Union City’s defense attorney, Phillip Morrow, has repeatedly examined Estrella’s disciplinary history and settlement agreements.

The defense is entitled to present that evidence, particularly because Union City maintains that discipline—not Estrella’s Dominican national origin—explains why he was bypassed for promotion.

But disciplinary history does not answer a separate and deeply troubling question raised by Tafur’s testimony:

Did the future chief of the Union City Police Department actually make the alleged remark about Dominicans?

Whether Estrella had previous discipline cannot determine whether Tafur heard what he says he heard.

And Tafur did not merely repeat a rumor on the witness stand.

According to the reporting, he testified that he was there, approximately five feet away, and personally heard the remark.

That testimony now belongs before the jury alongside the defense’s evidence.

MAYOR BRIAN STACK ALSO HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

Mayor Brian Stack is not merely a spectator in this case. He is a named defendant and also served as Union City’s Director of Public Safety.

Stack previously testified that he relied upon the police chief’s recommendations concerning promotions.

When questioned about what independent review he conducted concerning Estrella, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he followed the chief’s recommendation.

Luster, meanwhile, testified that Stack was ultimately the authority who decided promotions and that she made recommendations.

That creates an obvious question for Union City residents:

Who was actually accountable for making sure promotion decisions were fair?

If the chief made the recommendation and the Public Safety Director routinely followed it, residents have every right to scrutinize how meaningful the oversight really was.

THIS IS WHY TAFUR NEEDED TO TESTIFY

Judge Ahmad’s decision allowed the jury to hear evidence directly from the person who says he witnessed the alleged remark.

That is exactly where this evidence belongs: in the courtroom, under oath, subject to cross-examination and evaluated by the jury.

Tafur was questioned by both sides.

The defense challenged his credibility and brought up that he is currently on restricted duty and has been the subject of an investigation that was referred back to the municipality.

Tafur nevertheless testified that he has no personal financial interest in Estrella’s lawsuit and expects possible retaliation because of his testimony.

ESTRELLA ATTORNEY SPEAKS

As Attorney Yasmin Estrella was exiting the court after Tafur’s testimony, she released a statement to the media stating,

“Well we are hope the jury saw what should have been seen a long time ago. As Officer Tafur testified today, the truth needed to be said and it was said today in court and the jury heard it.”

The media asked the attorney for Estrella,

“what did he say?” Attorney for Estrella responded,

“These Dominicans are animals, this is what…Chief Luster…this is what, the chief of police, former chief of police from Union City thinks about Dominicans. I hope the people of Union City are watching this trial.”

UNION CITY RESIDENTS SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION

This case is bigger than whether one retired police officer should have received a sergeant’s promotion.

It raises questions about discipline, promotions, national-origin discrimination, accountability and leadership inside the Union City Police Department.

A current Union City police officer has now testified under oath that a woman who later became the department’s chief made a degrading remark about Dominicans.

That allegation should be condemned, not minimized.

Dominicans make up an important part of Union City and Hudson County. No resident should have to wonder whether the people exercising governmental authority over them harbor contempt for their nationality or ethnicity.

And no amount of discussion about Juan Estrella’s old disciplinary record makes Tafur’s testimony disappear.

The defense has every right to challenge Estrella’s allegations and Tafur’s credibility.

But the public has every right to ask hard questions of former Chief Nichelle Luster, Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack, the Union City Police Department, the City of Union City and the attorneys defending the City’s position.

The jury has not yet rendered its verdict.

But one thing has changed dramatically:

The jury no longer has to rely solely on Juan Estrella saying what David Tafur told him.

David Tafur walked into court himself.

He took the oath.

He faced cross-examination.

And he told the jury:

“I know what I heard.”

Now the jury—and the people of Union City—can judge the testimony for themselves.

THE BUCK STOPS WITH BRIAN STACK

Union City Police Trial Raises Serious Questions About Who Really Controls Promotions — and Why the Mayor Now Points Back at His Chiefs

UNION CITY, N.J. — We waited to report about this lawsuit. We wanted to obtain a great amount of information to provide a very detailed report with key information.

After weeks of testimony in retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial, one question has become increasingly difficult for Union City Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack to escape:

Who actually controls promotions in the Union City Police Department?

Listen to the testimony of former Chief Nichelle Luster and several current and former Union City police officers, and the answer repeatedly leads back to Stack.

Listen to Stack himself, however, and responsibility suddenly appears to travel in the opposite direction.

Stack acknowledges that he is the public safety director. He acknowledges reviewing and approving police promotions. He acknowledges signing the Civil Service documents that make those promotions official.

Yet when confronted at trial with questions about why some officers with significant disciplinary histories were promoted while Estrella was bypassed, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he simply relied upon his police chiefs.

That creates one of the most striking contradictions to emerge from this trial.

For decades, Stack has occupied the position at the top of Union City’s public-safety structure. But when the promotion process itself came under scrutiny in a courtroom, his testimony effectively portrayed his role as something far more limited: the official who signs what the chief puts in front of him.

If that characterization is accurate, it raises an obvious question:

What exactly was Stack reviewing and approving?

And if it is not accurate, an even more serious question follows:

Who should ultimately be held accountable for the promotion decisions made under his authority?

IT STARTED WITH JUAN ESTRELLA

Estrella’s battle began publicly in April 2022, when he filed an eight-count lawsuit alleging that then-Police Chief Nichelle Luster had used allegedly bogus or petty disciplinary accusations to interfere with his promotion to sergeant.

Estrella, who is Dominican, alleged that he was bypassed despite reaching a promotable position on the New Jersey Civil Service list.

The original lawsuit contained another allegation that would eventually become extremely important.

Estrella claimed he had been told that Stack would promote him.

His July 2022 amended complaint went considerably further, identifying numerous Union City officers who Estrella alleged had more serious disciplinary histories but nevertheless received promotions.

Four years later, those officers and their records have become a central part of the trial.

The defense maintains there was nothing discriminatory about the decision. Union City has relied in part upon New Jersey Civil Service’s Rule of Three, under which the appointing authority is not necessarily required to promote the highest-ranked candidate.

The city contends Estrella was bypassed because of his disciplinary history and problems following departmental rules—not because he was Dominican.

Estrella’s attorneys have responded with a simple but potentially powerful question:

If discipline made Estrella unsuitable to supervise officers, why did significant discipline apparently not prevent numerous other Union City officers from being promoted?

SERGIO DEROJAS: WHO PROMOTED YOU?

Before the testimony of Ret. Lt. Sergio DeRojas, attorneys and the judge discussed a critical concern with Sergio’s disciplinary history. The discussion lead to question when DeRojas was interviewed during deposition, DeRojas admitted to “sexual assault” toward a former police dispatcher but was subsequently only disciplined for “sexual harassment”. Implicating that the police department, internal affairs and the city deliberately and purposely downgraded the complaint against DeRojas to avoid criminal prosecution.

The judge was concerned over DeRojas verbal admission and the handling of that case and expressed the differences between assault and harassment. Judge also noted DeRojas can still face appropriate prosecution for those actions.

Retired Sgt. Sergio DeRojas acknowledged at trial that he had been suspended at least twice before being promoted.

Plaintiff attorney Ernest Ianetti asked him directly:

Who made the decision to promote him?

DeRojas answered:

“The director of public safety, Brian Stack.”

DeRojas was adamant that he never discussed his promotion with Stack. He described their relationship as friendly but limited.

That distinction matters.

There is no basis from DeRojas’s testimony alone to claim that he personally negotiated a promotion with Stack.

But when asked who made the decision, DeRojas didn’t identify the police chief.

He identified Brian Stack.

DeRojas also acknowledged that he had more disciplinary matters than awards.

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ: 105 DAYS DIDN’T END HIS PROMOTIONAL CAREER

Then came retired Sgt. Ruben Rodriguez.

Rodriguez acknowledged a 105-day suspension for conduct unbecoming before becoming a sergeant.

He also acknowledged two additional suspensions involving neglect of duty and mishandling evidence.

Yet Rodriguez ultimately became a supervisor.

And according to the testimony reported from the trial, Stack, as public safety director, signed off on that promotion.

Again, Rodriguez did not claim he discussed the promotion personally with Stack.

But once again, Stack occupied the position of final governmental approval.

Rodriguez eventually retired after he faced criminal charges for falsifying a police report.

RICHARD “RICHIE” PEREZ

Former Capt. Richard Perez served under multiple police chiefs and received promotions despite having disciplinary history.

Ianetti confronted Perez with the pattern.

Three separate chiefs had recommended him notwithstanding that history.

And who was sitting above those chiefs?

Brian Stack.

Asked whether Stack, as public safety director, signed off on those recommendations and promotions despite Perez’s disciplinary history, Perez answered:

“I believe so.”

Asked whether Stack did so notwithstanding that disciplinary history:

“Correct.”

Perez eventually rose all the way to captain.

JUAN LOACES: A 180-DAY SUSPENSION

Former Lt. Juan Loaces presented an even more dramatic comparison.

Loaces testified about a 180-day suspension stemming from an incident in which he was present when another officer fired a paintball gun at someone from a vehicle.

Loaces disputed personal responsibility for the underlying conduct on the witness stand, although he acknowledged signing a disciplinary settlement containing sustained charges, including conduct unbecoming an officer.

A 180-day suspension nevertheless did not permanently prevent Loaces from moving through the department.

He ultimately became a lieutenant, nd became an ICE officer after retirement for a short period of time. Loaces denied currently being employed by the federal government, however, previous circulating pictures shows Loaces wearing a tactical vest with ICE markings along with other ICE Officers in Newark Airport.

That fact goes directly to one of the questions Estrella’s lawyers are putting before the jury:

How severe did discipline have to become before Union City considered an officer permanently unsuitable for promotion?

And was that standard applied consistently?

WILLIE SIERRA AND THE SAME QUESTION

Former Capt. and Internal Affairs supervisor Willie Sierra testified about the department’s disciplinary records and promotion procedures.

Published coverage of his testimony again identified Stack as having the final say in Union City police promotions.

Sierra’s involvement also brings historical context to the controversy.

Years before Estrella’s lawsuit, Sierra and other Union City officers were involved in separate litigation alleging political retaliation and favoritism involving police promotions.

Sierra ultimately settled his individual case.

The earlier allegations do not prove Estrella’s current national-origin discrimination claim.

But they demonstrate something important:

Arguments about political influence, promotional authority and Brian Stack’s role in Union City police promotions did not begin with Juan Estrella.

They have been raised in litigation before.

THEN CAME GLENN GASTON

Perhaps one of the most troubling disciplinary comparisons presented during the current trial concerns Glenn Gaston.

Gaston acknowledged under oath that he had sustained charges involving untruthfulness concerning an incident in which he was injured while off duty but represented the injury as occurring on duty.

Despite that sustained finding, Gaston continued advancing through the Union City Police Department.

That matters because truthfulness is not an insignificant characteristic for a police officer.

New Jersey’s Brady-Giglio policies specifically recognize that a sustained finding that a law-enforcement employee was untruthful or demonstrated a lack of candor may constitute impeachment information that prosecutors must evaluate for disclosure.

According to an account from an individual who listened to Gaston’s court audio, Gaston additionally acknowledged being subject to Brady-Giglio disclosure/list procedures.

That particular assertion should presently be treated with caution because a publicly available transcript or official prosecutor record independently confirming Gaston’s individual Brady-Giglio status has not been identified.

But there is no need to exaggerate what has already been publicly reported.

Gaston acknowledged a sustained untruthfulness finding under oath.

And he was nevertheless promoted.

That alone presents an obvious comparison with the city’s argument that Estrella’s disciplinary history rendered him unsuitable for supervision.

Gaston is known in the police Department as an “EDP” (Emotional Disturbed Person) according to internal police sources. A term used by officers to describe an individual with psychological concerns.

ESTRELLA’S OWN EVALUATIONS

Then the jury heard about Estrella’s performance.

Lt. Christopher Rengel confirmed an evaluation of Estrella containing no “unacceptable” ratings.

Even more strikingly, Gaston himself had previously written favorably about Estrella.

That evaluation described Estrella as having a great attitude toward the department and police work, good attendance, professional appearance and disposition, and a willingness to complete his responsibilities.

Yet Luster maintained that other information—particularly discipline—caused her to conclude Estrella should not become a supervisor.

Luster testified that disciplinary histories should be considered according to factors including recency, severity and the cumulative record of the officer.

That may be a legitimate management philosophy.

But it becomes far more difficult to understand when placed next to officers who received suspensions of 105 days or 180 days, or a sustained untruthfulness finding, and nevertheless climbed through the ranks.

That is precisely the inconsistency Estrella’s lawyers want the jury to examine.

THEN NICHELLE LUSTER SAID SOMETHING IMPORTANT

When retired Police Chief Luster took the witness stand, the question of authority became much clearer.

She testified that she did not possess final authority over police promotions.

She made recommendations.

Who possessed ultimate authority?

According to Luster:

Brian Stack.

As public safety director, Luster testified, Stack was the ultimate authority who decided which Union City police officers were promoted.

That is not an allegation from a political opponent.

It is reported sworn testimony from the former chief of the police department Stack supervised as public safety director.

And it aligned in significant respects with testimony from other officers identifying Stack as the official who made, approved or had the final say over promotions.

Then Stack took the stand.

And suddenly the responsibility became somebody else’s.

STACK: I JUST RELIED ON THE CHIEF

Stack acknowledged that his responsibilities as public safety director included reviewing and approving police promotions.

He acknowledged signing the documents.

He acknowledged reviewing disciplinary documents that came before him.

But when Ianetti began digging into what Stack actually did when reviewing promotional recommendations, Stack repeatedly returned to essentially the same answer:

“I rely on the recommendation of the chief.”

Stack testified that he could not remember ever rejecting a police chief’s recommendation concerning a suspension or promotion.

Think about the significance of that testimony.

The man occupying the position of public safety director for more than two decades—the official signing promotion documents and possessing formal approval authority—could not identify a promotion recommendation he remembered rejecting.

When Ianetti challenged whether Stack was effectively abandoning his responsibility to independently review recommendations, Stack disagreed.

But when pressed to identify what actual independent review he performed in Estrella’s case, his answer returned to the chief:

“I followed the recommendation of the chief as I’ve done since I became the director of public safety.”

That answer creates a serious accountability problem regardless of which interpretation the jury ultimately accepts.

If Stack exercised genuine discretion, then he cannot simply erase his role by pointing downward at the chief whose recommendation he approved.

If Stack exercised virtually no discretion and automatically approved whatever chiefs recommended, then legitimate questions arise about what meaningful purpose his review and approval served.

Either Stack was the final decision-maker or he was a rubber stamp.

Neither possibility makes his responsibility disappear.

STACK EVEN WANTED ESTRELLA PROMOTED

Stack’s testimony becomes even more complicated regarding Estrella personally.

Stack testified that Luster was extremely firm that Estrella should not become a supervisor because of his disciplinary history.

Stack said he initially wanted Estrella promoted.

He asked Luster to reconsider.

She refused.

Stack ultimately accepted her recommendation.

But Stack also testified that he did not know exactly what Luster reviewed in reaching that decision.

He did not know whether she consulted Estrella’s supervisors.

And when questioned about whether police chiefs historically discussed officers’ disciplinary histories with him when recommending promotions, Stack answered:

“Not that I could remember.”

That is extraordinary in the context of the defense being presented.

Union City says Estrella’s discipline justified bypassing him.

Luster says discipline was an important component of her recommendation.

Yet Stack—the official who approved the ultimate decision—testified that he could not remember chiefs discussing disciplinary histories during other promotions.

The obvious question becomes:

Why did discipline suddenly carry such enormous weight when Juan Estrella reached the promotional list?

That question becomes even more difficult when placed next to DeRojas, Rodriguez, Perez, Loaces and Gaston.

ESTRELLA’S VERSION PUTS STACK DIRECTLY IN THE ROOM

Then Estrella took the stand.

According to Estrella’s sworn testimony, after his disciplinary matters had closed, he approached Luster about becoming sergeant and was told he needed to speak with Stack.

Stack subsequently contacted Estrella’s father and arranged to meet with them.

According to Estrella, Stack told him:

“We all make mistakes. But I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella testified that he questioned Stack to make sure he understood correctly.

Stack allegedly responded:

“Yes, I promise I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella says that promise disappeared after Stack and Luster clashed over his promotion.

According to Estrella’s testimony, Stack later told him he could not promote him because he had argued with Luster about the matter and that Luster had threatened to “go public.”

Estrella testified that Stack told him he would promote him after Luster retired.

Those remain Estrella’s allegations and sworn testimony. The jury must determine credibility and ultimately decide what occurred.

But the testimony raises an unavoidable question.

If Stack truly had essentially no substantive role in promotions beyond following a chief’s recommendation, why would Estrella have been directed to Stack in the first place, and why would Stack allegedly be discussing whether Estrella would be promoted?

EVERY ROAD SEEMS TO LEAD BACK TO STACK

Consider the testimony collectively.

DeRojas identified the director of public safety, Brian Stack, when asked who made his promotion decision.

Rodriguez’s promotion was signed off on by Stack.

Perez acknowledged Stack signed off on promotions despite his disciplinary history.

Sierra’s testimony was reported as identifying Stack as having the final say.

Luster—the former chief herself—testified that Stack was the ultimate authority who decided promotions.

Estrella testified that Stack personally promised him a promotion.

And Stack himself acknowledged that he reviewed and approved promotion recommendations and signed the necessary documents.

Then, when confronted with responsibility for the system, Stack emphasized:

The chief recommended it.

That may ultimately be accepted by the jury as a legitimate explanation.

But it does not erase the contradiction.

For years, promotions went across Stack’s desk.

Stack signed them.

Officers with substantial disciplinary histories advanced through the department while Stack occupied the public-safety position.

Now that one of those promotional decisions is being examined before a jury, Stack’s defense effectively asks the public to believe that the chiefs were making the real decisions and he merely trusted their judgment.

That deserves scrutiny.

THE MYSTERY WITNESS:

This week, the plaintiff identified a potential witness who is reportedly willing to testify that they have firsthand knowledge of former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster allegedly making derogatory comments about Dominicans. The defense is attempting to prevent the witness from testifying, while separate allegations have reportedly surfaced that defense attorneys attempted to improperly influence or interfere with the witness. The judge will decide on this matter in the upcoming days.

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY?

There is an even broader issue here than Estrella.

Stack has simultaneously served as mayor and public safety director for years.

Yet he acknowledged having no other law-enforcement experience.

Stack’s defense emphasized that he does not run the day-to-day operations of the police department and appropriately relies on experienced police chiefs.

That is reasonable as far as operational policing is concerned.

A mayor should not be deciding how detectives conduct investigations or how patrol officers respond to calls.

But promoting police officers is not routine patrol supervision.

It determines who receives governmental authority, who supervises other officers and who eventually occupies the command structure of a police department.

If Stack reserves formal authority to review and approve those decisions, his accountability cannot logically disappear simply because a police chief made the initial recommendation.

Otherwise, what does “approval” actually mean?

If the answer is merely signing whatever appears on his desk, then perhaps the more fundamental question is why Union City’s political leadership retains that authority at all.

THE CONTRADICTION THE JURY NOW HAS TO CONFRONT

The evidence has not established that every disputed promotion was corrupt.

It has not established that every officer who supported Stack received preferential treatment.

And it has not yet established that Estrella was discriminated against because he is Dominican.

Those are distinctions that must remain clear.

The case is ongoing.

But something important has already happened.

Under oath, witnesses have exposed a system in which responsibility for promotions appears to move depending upon who is answering the question.

Police officers identify Stack.

The former chief identifies Stack.

The documents require Stack’s approval.

Stack acknowledges approving them.

But when the consequences of those decisions are examined, Stack points back toward the police chiefs.

That should concern anyone interested in transparent government.

Political power accompanied by plausible deniability is not meaningful accountability.

If Brian Stack possesses the authority to approve police promotions, then Brian Stack should answer for the promotions he approves.

If he does not actually exercise that authority and simply approves whatever a chief recommends, then Union City should explain why the public safety director’s approval exists in the first place.

He cannot logically occupy both positions simultaneously:

the official powerful enough to approve every promotion, yet somehow too removed from the process to bear responsibility for any of them.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION REMAINS

And then there is the fundamental question that started this entire trial.

A 105-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

A 180-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

Other officers with multiple disciplinary matters advanced.

A sustained untruthfulness finding did not necessarily end an officer’s promotional career.

Yet Union City maintains that Juan Estrella’s disciplinary history justified denying him a supervisory position.

Maybe the city can persuade the jury that meaningful differences existed between those officers and Estrella.

That is what trials are for.

But after weeks of testimony, Union City cannot reasonably expect the public simply to ignore those comparisons.

Nor should Stack be insulated from scrutiny simply because a police chief’s recommendation preceded his signature.

THIS TRIAL IS STILL GOING

The trial remains ongoing, and Estrella has not yet won his discrimination claim.

The court has already narrowed the litigation, and the jury will ultimately decide whether Estrella proves that national-origin discrimination caused his bypass.

Additional witnesses and evidentiary disputes could also materially affect the record.

That means conclusions about liability must wait.

But accountability does not require waiting for a verdict before asking difficult questions about testimony already given publicly.

The testimony concerning promotions, disciplinary histories and the chain of authority deserves examination regardless of which side ultimately wins.

Because after officer after officer, a former Internal Affairs commander, a former police chief and finally the mayor himself have testified about how this system operated, one question refuses to disappear:

IF BRIAN STACK HAS THE FINAL SIGNATURE, THE FINAL APPROVAL AND THE FORMAL AUTHORITY — WHY DOES RESPONSIBILITY ALWAYS SEEM TO BELONG TO SOMEONE ELSE?

That may ultimately become one of the most important questions to emerge from the Juan Estrella trial.