C.O. previously fired for prisoner abuse was involved in scuffle that led to inmate’s suicide
TRENTON » A high-ranking Mercer County corrections officer who had been fired more than a decade ago but later got his job back is one of the officers involved in a scuffle with an inmate who hanged himself inside his cell at the Hopewell Township jail in 2016, records show.
Mark Lyszczak, a 24-year veteran who earns $113,401 a year, put former inmate Anthony Gyorffy into a compliance hold and sprayed him with a chemical agent April 16, 2016, at the jail, according to the use-of-force report he filled out the same day.
Gyorffy’s family has brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the county after they claimed the 22-year-old Bordentown man was beaten, harassed and assaulted by unnamed corrections officers a day before he hanged himself in his jail cell April 17, 2016.
The lawsuit claimed multiple corrections officers were involved, which was what inmates told a prisoner rights advocate about an attack on Gyorffy.
The Trentonian requested from the county all use-of-force reports filed by corrections officers in Gyorffy’s case but received only one filed by Lyszczak.
The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office investigated the alleged beating of Gyorffy, who hanged himself with a bedsheet a day after his encounter with Lyszczak.
Gyorffy’s family was shocked by his sudden suicide which came three days before he was set to be released from the jail after he was accepted into drug court.
Gyorffy died April 27 when he was taken off life support. The county medical examiner ruled the death a suicide but noted in Gyorffy’s autopsy he had several bruises on his body, back abrasions and two fractured ribs, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Trentonian.
Two detectives from the MCPO were at the autopsy, which was conducted by now-retired medical examiner Dr. Raafat Ahmad.
Gyorffy had contusions on his left leg and ankles, some as large as one and a half inches. He also had a “one inch horizontal dent” underneath his chin, “healed mild” abrasions, a small fraction of his C1 vertebrae and “healing fractures” on two ribs, the autopsy report stated. Dissection of bruises showed “hemorrhages in the subcutaneous tissues of the wrists, right hand, both legs, both ankles, upper back and mid back abrasions.”
Ahmad ruled the manner of death as suicide caused by “anoxic brain injury,” noting Gyorffy, whose history of drug use included heroin, cocaine and marijuana, had brain swelling.
Prosecutors closed the case without filing charges against Lyszczak or anyone else. The case was referred back to correction center leaders for “any administrative action deemed necessary,” a county prosecutor spokeswoman said.
It’s unclear if the county took action against Lyszczak for his role in subduing Gyorffy, who he claimed had resisted his control and carried out a “physical threat/ attack on officer or another,” according to the use-of-force report.
The officer reported calling a “Code 6,” which is radio chatter used by corrections officers to summon backup or help.
That seems to suggest officers may have been involved in helping to physically get Gyorffy’s under control.
In addition, the commanding officer who signed off on the report wrote, “Inmate refused verbal command” forcing “staff” to “go hands on with inmate.”
But if that’s the case, the corrections officers either didn’t fill out use-of-force reports as they were required or those reports were not produced by the county.
A two-page report authored by Lyszczak approved by another lieutenant whose signature was illegible was the only document provided to The Trentonian.
Lyszczak’s handwriting on the document is hard to decipher but it appeared to state the inmate “would not let go of the grill gate and began to kick and fight.”
Lyszczak, who didn’t respond to a request for comment through Facebook messenger, said he sprayed Gyorffy in the face with a “1 second burst of OC,” or Oleoresin Capsicum, better known as pepper spray, the report states.
A section of the report filled out by a nurse at the jail documented injuries to the corrections officer and inmate, although it was unclear which observations were of Lyszczak and Gyorffy.
The report stated, “AAO x3,” seemingly shorthand for “alerted and oriented.” The x3 notation appeared to show whoever was observed was “alert and oriented” to “person, place and time.”
Other observations included, “Steady gait,” “clear speech,” “superficial scratches” and “no injuries.”
Abuse Allegations
Nearly a decade before his dustup with Gyorrfy, Lyszczak had been involved in a fight at the jail that had cost him his job, according to records reviewed by The Trentonian.
After being fired, he was reinstated with back pay by an administrative law judge who ruled in 2011 that a corrections officer who testified against Lyszczak was not believable while others who testified for Lyszczak were more credible.
Law judge Edward Delanoy Jr. noted in the decision one of the inmates claimed under oath at a municipal court hearing years later that he had been directed by the inmate who Lyszczak allegedly struck on what to say.
“While inmate J.L. had an injury consistent with being hit in the head with a radio, it has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence this was caused by petitioners’ unlawful action,” Delanoy ruled, noting Lyszczak didn’t have a past of mistreating inmates. “As a result, I conclude that respondent has not met its burden of proof that petitioner is guilty of the charges by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the finding of guilt on those charges should be reversed.”
The Civil Service Commission affirmed the decision, records show, and Lyszczak, who was accused of inmate abuse, unbecoming conduct and other offenses, was cleared.
For his part, Lyszczak claimed he was attacked by three inmates inside the jail April 1, 2006.
The following account is based on a review of records.
Similar to actions he took in Gyorffy’s case in 2016, Lyszczak indicated he called for a “Code 6” while in the protective custody wing of the A-pod. A corrections officer testified seeing Lyszczak strike an inmate, J.L., over the head with his county-issued radio while the inmate was handcuffed.
The corrections officer, Frank Paal, also claimed to have heard Lyszczak ordering COs to “introduce J.L. to the walls” while they headed down a stairwell.
Edwin Rodriguez, who was an investigator with the jail’s internal affairs unit, had been told the inmates threw water on Lyszczak. Lyszczak believed he had been doused with urine, which is commonly hurled at corrections officers.
The inmate who Lyszczak was accused of striking with the radio needed “wound-closing staples” to mend a gash on the back of his head. The inmates, who were hit with administrative assault charges, claimed that Lyszczak hit them with pepper spray; in turn, they threw water on him.
Paal claimed he was holding one of the inmates against the wall. Some of the discrepancies in his account gave the IA investigator Rodriguez pause but he didn’t probe them once the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office became involved in the investigation.
Investigators hoping to uncover the inmate’s DNA on Lyszczak’s radio came up empty when the test came back negative, according to the decision.
Paal was working a double shift on the night in question. He and a partner, Brian Waters, were overseeing 39 inmates, many of whom were out of their cells watching sports. Around 8:30 p.m. they got a Code 6 call and darted upstairs.
When Paal got to the cell where the melee happened, he started coughing from the overpowering pepper spray and heard the inmates screaming. Paal placed one of the inmates against the wall with his hands behind his back.
Paal claimed that Lyszczak used his right hand, and reaching around Paal’s face, hit the inmate on the left side of his head with his radio.
Paal claimed he later heard another CO yelling “cameras, cameras, cameras” in the stairwell.
Waters testified he saw Lyszczak scuffling with inmates inside the cell and that Paal closed the gate on his fingers in the chaos.
Corrections officer Michael Kownacki was one of ten officers who responded to the Code 6. He didn’t see Lyszczak hit the inmate with his radio, while CO Daniel Ottobre disputed Paal’s suggestion that Lyszczak called for the inmate to be thrown against the walls.
Nurse Matthew Polyak examined the inmate who was sent to the hospital to get four staples for his head wound. He didn’t remember the inmate complaining about being beaten.
Phyllis Oliver, who was an IA seargent at the time, watched tape of the melee after she received word from inmates complaining of excessive force being
used against them by corrections officers.
Oliver saw an inmate being dragged out of the cell by his collar and five or six officers dragging an inmate down the catwalk and escorting two others.
Oliver printed roughly three dozen photos and tried to make a recording of the video but later learned the recordings no longer existed when she tried to view them again.
Not ‘Short Tempered’
Corrections officer Samuel Tucker testified that he had never known Lyszczak to be “short tempered or violent” with inmates.
CO Lawrence Lobue disputed Paal’s testimony that a CO had shouted “cameras, cameras, cameras.”
Lyszczak, who began working as a corrections officer in 1993 and was promoted to sergeant in 2001, said he had been at the jail in the past when he saw another officer get badly hurt by inmates.
That may have been on his mind on the day in question when inmates started banging on a cell door wanting to be let out for their allotted hour.
When the inmates wouldn’t stop, Lyszczak entered the cell and saw three inmates standing by their bunk beds.
Lyszczak’s radio was in his hand when he said an inmate threw something in his face, blinding him and forcing him to call for a Code 6. He pepper sprayed the inmates who attacked him.
Colleagues told Lyszczak he was “screaming like a little b----.”
Lyszczak shouted at the inmates to “get the f--down” and claimed he hit the inmates in self-defense.
In his April 1, 2006 report, Lyszczak didn’t claim he was “assaulted by any inmates.” But a second report stated he was “savagely assaulted” by the inmates.
Lyszczak filed institutional charges against the three inmates, who were found guilty. No criminal charges were brought against them.
It was suggested that Paal may have disliked Lyszczak because Lyszczak had talked to him about paperwork and hygiene issues.
Delanoy found Paal “clear on some facts, but confused, questionable, and nearly unbelievable on others.” He called some of his testimony “troubling” and “highly suspect.”
Delanoy noted Lyszczak’s version was also “somewhat inconsistent.”
“In his initial report dated April 1, 2006, petitioner did not mention that he was under attack, stating only that the inmates began to push on the cell door so as to block petitioner from securing it. Several weeks later, after becoming a target of the investigation, petitioner decided to press charges against the inmates,” he contended before ultimately ruling in Lyszczak’s favor.