Handling a Case (Continued from page 22)
Police training manuals universally pro- hibit blows to the head.11
Often as not,
the training records and departmental orders are admissible.12 If the case is one of excessive force
and involves more than a simple use of the hands by the officer, the lawyer may want to consider using an expert in police practices relevant to the instrumentality or practice which resulted in the use of force. This is particularly true in cases involving shootings, dog bites, and high speed pursuits. Police officers will offer various technical explanations for their actions. Often, jurors will accept these explanations on faith because they don’t know any better. An expert can clarify the technical aspects of the case and often undermine the officer’s account of the incident. If the judge grants summary judgment
on qualified immunity, you are forced to appeal. By reputation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a tough venue for plaintiffs in Sec. 1983 cases. I have had some luck, however, in cases where the Court has conscientiously searched the record and found genuine issues of fact which are shown clearly by the record. If you are successful on ap- peal, and then ultimately prevail at trial, the defense will ultimately have to pay
11 12
Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F. 2d 374, 379-80 (4th Cir. 1993).
For an excellent discussion of the issue whether such police general orders are admissible, see Judge Harrell’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Richardson v. McGriff, 361 Md. 437, 505-11, 762 A.2d 48 (2000).
the piper, including your attorney’s fees on the appeal. Finally, to achieve victory in these cases,
you must have a theory of the case which compels the jury to decide the case in your favor. One case in which I was involved illustrates this point. A Prince George’s County police officer, Officer Carlton Jones, shot and killed Prince Jones, Jr. (no relation), a 26-year-old African American Howard University student and fitness trainer. Officer Jones asserted that he shot in self-defense when Prince Jones rammed his car twice into the officer’s unmarked SUV. The shooting took place in a quiet residential street during the early morn- ing hours in Fairfax County, Virginia. Officer Jones was a narcotics officer working undercover. He looked the part of a criminal. We were fortunate to have a photograph of him taken shortly after the shooting. It depicted a menacing looking individual with long scraggly hair. That night, Officer Jones followed Prince Jones for several miles, from Maryland, into the District of Columbia and then into Virginia. It turned out that Officer Jones was mistaken and followed the wrong car, ignoring several facts about the car which would have told him that he had the wrong car. Our theory of the case was not so much that the officer followed the wrong car, but that the deadly encounter took place because the officer failed to do what any police officer should have done – he failed to identify himself to Prince Jones and thereby provoked Prince Jones to take defensive action. We knew that based on his background, Prince Jones had no reason to attack a police officer. He was driving to his girlfriend’s house and was not involved in criminal activity of any kind. He had also enlisted in the US Navy’s elite submarine program and was set to start his enlistment in a few
Pre Settlement Funding • Law Firm Financial Products
John Friedson President
P.O. Box 1339 Rockville, Maryland 20849
(301) 984-0600 Fax: (301) 984-0719 email:
john@creativefinancingsolutions.com www.creativefinancingsolutions.com
24 Trial Reporter
months. Prince Jones was not looking for trouble that evening. When Prince Jones got to Virginia, it was clear that he knew he was being followed by this menacing individual and that he pulled into a driveway to elude his pursuer. The officer drove past the driveway. Prince Jones then drove out of the driveway and turned away from the officer. Although the officer acknowledged that his cover had been blown, he immediately turned his car around to go in the direction of Prince Jones’ vehicle. At this point, Prince Jones stopped his vehicle and then put it into reverse, striking the officer’s SUV. The officer testified, however, that there was a break in the action: he stated that Prince Jones got out of his jeep and approached him, at which point he identi- fied himself as a police officer. According to the officer, it was after he identified himself that Prince Jones got back into his car and immediately rammed the officer’s SUV twice, at which point he fired his gun 16 times at Prince Jones. We simply knew that Prince Jones would not have attacked a police officer. A woman happened to look outside her window to the street in front of her house and saw the incident unfold. She testified that she saw the two vehicles side by side in the street, as if the drivers were speaking to each other, and then she saw Prince Jones’ vehicle pull away and the officer’s SUV turn around to follow the other vehicle when she saw Prince Jones’ vehicle begin to ram the SUV. What was critical to our theory of the case was that the woman did not see Prince Jones get out of his vehicle at any time. Her testimony directly contradicted the officer’s and enabled us to cast doubt on the officer’s testimony that he had identified himself as a police officer. In an interview with one of the jurors after trial, I learned that the jury did not believe that the police officer had identified himself as such. This was critical to the determina- tion that the officer was not justified in using lethal force against a person who was acting solely to defend himself against a potential threat. Find the theory which rings true and
fulfills the jury’s quest to render justice in the case. This is the way to win any case against the police. As a final parting thought, a lawyer
who prevails and vindicates his or her client’s constitutional rights will feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment and pride, knowing that in no small measure he or she has upheld the rule of law.
Winter 2007
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64