Mike Deak

@MikeDeakMyCJ

Court: Jury should have considered self-defense in bar owner's assault conviction

Witnesses gave 'widely divergent' accounts of what happened in Cagney's Pub

SAYREVILLE – A state appellate court has overturned the conviction of a bar owner on charges that he assaulted a police officer because the trial judge denied the businessman an opportunity to argue self-defense against police who injured him.

In overturning the conviction of Cagney's Pub owner Michael Mauro Jr., 38, the judges relied on a 1970 state Supreme Court ruling that a citizen can use "reasonable force" for protection if a police officer is using "excessive and unnecessary force." The precedent protects the citizen from criminal prosecution even if the officer is injured.

Mauro was sentenced to four years probation after he was found guilty of assaulting Sgt. Robert Lasko and resisting arrest during an incident at the bar in January 2009.

The Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office argued that Mauro, who was intoxicated, resisted arrest and interfered with police officers who were conducting a routine "bar check" for violations.

But Mauro contended that Lasko assaulted Mauro and that the "bar check" was either contrived or retaliatory, happening a day after an allegedly drunk Sayreville police officer got involved in a brawl in the bar's parking lot.

A bar bouncer testified that a "stampede of police officers" came into the bar, kicked Mauro in the face while another sprayed mace in his eyes and mouth. When Lasko had Mauro handcuffed and was sitting on his back, the bouncer said, the officer took Mauro by the ears and "smashed" his face against the concrete floor.

The bouncer testified that he had a "gut feeling" that there was going to be problems at the bar the day after the parking lot brawl because he knew police were coming, court papers say.

The appellate panel said that witnesses gave "widely divergent" versions of the incidents on the following night.

The appellate panel ruled that the testimony of the bouncer, if accepted by the jury, would provide a "rational basis for a claim of self-defense."

The judge should have directed the jury to resolve questions about self-defense, the appellate panel ruled.

"We have a reasonable doubt whether the verdict would have been the same if the jurors had the opportunity to consider self-defense," the appellate judges wrote.

Lasko testified that on the night after the brawl he went inside the bar at 2:01 a.m. and saw 20 to 30 people inside. Lasko approached those who did not appear to be working and asked for their driver's licenses.

Lasko said that Mauro, who was sitting at the bar, ran toward him and started yelling. Mauro backed off, then ran at the officer again and waved his hands in a threatening manner, Lasko said.

At that point, Lasko said he warned Mauro that he would be arrested if he did not get out of the way, but Mauro did not move and Lasko went to arrest to him. Mauro then, in Lasko's words, "went absolutely berserk," threatened to kill the officer and a struggle ensued.

But a different version of events was given by the bouncer who testified that police burst into the bar and Lasko cursed as he demanded the bar's paperwork.

When Mauro asked Lasko what "(expletive) paperwork" he wanted, the officer, without saying that Mauro was under arrest, grabbed Mauro by the throat and both fell to the floor, according to the bouncer's testimony.

Mauro filed a lawsuit suit in federal court against the officer, but that suit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that Mauro can refile the suit after his criminal case is resolved.

The criminal case now will now return to Superior Court.

Staff Writer Mike Deak: 908-243-6607; mdeak@mycentraljersey.com.