ZMO Law PLLC and the Law Offices of Daniel A. McGuinness PC represent the family of Miguel Richards, a 31-year-old Bronx man who was shot and killed in his own bedroom by New York City Police Department patrol officers in 2017.

A few things about the case are undisputed — and appalling. Miguel’s landlord called the police after he had not heard from Miguel for a while. Then he broke into Miguel’s bedroom. Two officers, Redmond Murphy and Mark Fleming barreled into the room, which was dark. Miguel was standing in the corner wearing sunglasses and holding a knife in his left hand. The police left the room, drew their guns, and turned on their body-worn cameras.

That was the start of a standoff that lasted about 15 minutes. During that time, the officers shouted at Miguel, threatened to shoot him, and radioed specifically for a Taser electroshock weapon.

Miguel just stood there, in his own bedroom. He ignored the officers. His right hand cannot be seen on the video. He was wearing sunglasses, and it almost seemed like he did not hear what the officers were saying to him.

Near the end of the standoff, a team of Emergency Service Unit officers, specially trained to handle situations like this, showed up. They told Murphy and Fleming they were going downstairs to “suit up,” that is, don protective gear so they could bring the incident to a peaceful conclusion.

But Murphy claimed he thought he saw a gun and another patrol officer, Jesus Ramos, showed up with a Taser. Fleming and Murphy sent Ramos into the bedroom, no helmet, no ballistic shield, no gun drawn. Just a Taser with a red laser sight.

Just as Ramos went in, Murphy and Fleming opened fire. They hit Miguel seven times. He died a few minutes later.

But this is where it gets really weird, as the Daily News reported today.

In court papers filed earlier this month, our office alleged that the video evidence from the body cams showed that Fleming went into the bedroom twice after the shooting. The first time, he looked around frantically for a toy gun that Murphy had said he thought he saw. According to the court papers, Fleming could not find a gun, and none is seen on the body cams.

So Fleming went out of the room and another officer, John McLoughlin, seemed to hand him an object. McLoughlin just happened to be involved in another shooting of a civilian in the same precinct a few years earlier; his partner was indicted in that incident. After interacting with McLoughlin, Fleming is seen going back into the bedroom and this time, his body camera shows a gun in the exact place where no gun was seen earlier. The Daily News story includes a video from the body cams that shows how the gun planting unfolded according to the court papers.

That’s not quite the end of the story. Three months after the shooting, Fleming was interviewed by the NYPD Force Investigation Division. He claimed he saw the toy gun after the shooting and was asked what he did with it. He told the NYPD investigators that he “left it right where it was.” The NYPD investigators did not follow up. They did not ask him why the gun could not be seen on the video, why he entered the bedroom twice, or what happened when McLoughlin seemed to hand him an object.

Fast forward three years. ZMO Law PLLC’s colleague Daniel McGuinness, co-counsel on the case, took Fleming’s deposition. Cornered by the videotape and Dan’s sharp questions, Fleming came up with a brand new story, years after the fact. He now claims that the gun was actually under the dresser, hidden from view. He put his foot under the dresser and slid it out. The gun did not come from his hand, Fleming maintained under oath, it came out from under the dresser.

New York City has moved to throw out Miguel’s family’s case seeking damages for what Fleming, Murphy and Ramos did to their son. They say there are no material facts in dispute and that the claim that Fleming planted the gun is “absurd” and “insulting.” It will be up to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York to decide if the case goes to the jury.

For more information, please see our letter opposing summary judgment and our detailed recitation of the facts.