By Adam Taylor
A former D.C. police officer convicted of murdering another officer in 2012 filed a post-conviction appeal Wednesday, arguing that he was denied a fair trial because his former colleagues caused the jury to be swayed by the witness who identified him in court.
In a statement released by his attorneys, Ronald Hosko wrote that “the testimony that fell apart, which did not have a shred of evidence that I was the killer, certainly changed the trial. That is really what mattered,” and now—even after his conviction and 12-year sentence—he believes he is guilty.
Even during his days on the force, Hosko said he did not carry a weapon and refused to follow department procedures, including accessing police databases. And he claimed that he did not even want the job—he ran into trouble with the Department after he refused to follow proper procedure during the booking of an individual, in order to avoid paperwork.
“When he was taking an arrestee to the police station for booking … people in other cars told him: ‘Man, they don’t like black guys over there,’ which set off his security alarm in his mind,” his attorneys wrote.
Hosko argued that this incident was the reason he was “assigned a duty that he himself did not want.” Even so, he denied any involvement in the shooting of George “Gus” Floyd.
Hosko was found guilty of first-degree murder for his role in the 2012 murder of the police officer while he was on duty and driving in the inner city of D.C.
In its press release, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers called the case a “classic example of a conviction based upon a tainted eyewitness and a defective trial.”