CA - $3.2M Verdict Upheld: Police Planted Gun

[Kevlar]

A federal appeals panel today affirmed a $3.2 million award to an Oakland man and his girlfriend in a false arrest and imprisonment case in which the man claimed Oakland officers planted a gun on him.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Magistrate Judge Edward Chen did not abuse his discretion in awarding the money to Torry Smith and Patricia Gray on March 17, 2008.

Chen found that a civil rights trial that ended in November 2007 with a favorable verdict for Smith and Gray was fair, but reduced the jury's $6 million award to Smith and Gray to $3 million, saying that the amount awarded to Smith for emotional distress was excessive.

But he kept in place the jury's punitive damages award of $100,000 against each of the two Oakland police officers, John Parkinson and Marcus Midyett, who arrested Smith in 2004.

>snip<

Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris, who represents Smith, said.....he believes Parkinson's and Midyett's conduct "was so outrageous they should have been fired at the time and I still think they should be fired."

Oakland police spokeswoman Holly Joshi said today that both officers are still with the department; Parkinson is a sergeant and Midyett is an officer.

http://sfappeal.com/alley/2010/05/s...-who-says-oakland-pd-planted-a-gun-on-him.php.

 

[Scrivener]

They were found guilty in federal court of planting evidence at trial; the verdict was upheld on appeal and they are STILL on the force? What possible reason - including quotas - could there be for THAT?

 

[tele_mark]

 

[Scrivener]

Is there an actual POINT to posting that picture?

 

[Friday]

I dunno- does he really need one?

purdy.

 

[Scrivener]

I dunno- does he really need one?

Yes.

We have a Firearms section for eye candy shots.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They were found guilty in federal court of planting evidence at trial;

Were they found "guilty" at a criminal trial or merely the subject of a judgement at a civil trial? The former would probably disqualify them from police work, but the later may not even be an impediment due to terms of their union contract.

 

[richc]

Yes.

We have a Firearms section for eye candy shots.

Dude... you are such a buzz kill!

 

[terraformer]

Yes.

We have a Firearms section for eye candy shots.

That wasn't an eye candy shot...

Were they found "guilty" at a criminal trial or merely the subject of a judgement at a civil trial? The former would probably disqualify them from police work, but the later may not even be an impediment due to terms of their union contract.

It read as civil to me in the award, and a criminal jury trying the perp who found the story of a planted gun plausible. It didn't appear there was a criminal trial of the officers themselves.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It read as civil to me in the award, and a criminal jury trying the perp who found the story of a planted gun plausible. It didn't appear there was a criminal trial of the officers themselves.

A civil verdict is not a finding of guilt and, as such, there is an excellent chance the union contract prohibits the department from using that as the basis for an adverse employment action.

I wonder if the department or union covered the $100K per officer punitive damages.

The officers are a liability to the department, as a clever lawyer can quite possibly use this decision in his/her effort to impeach the testimony of the officers in similar cases where the entire case rests on the word and integrity of these individuals.

That wasn't an eye candy shot...

Could you please explain the relevance to this thread? Sciv and I appear to have missed it.

 

[Scrivener]

That wasn't an eye candy shot....

Really? Explain in what way, shape, manner or form it was remotely relevant to a thread about police planting evidence. Inquiring minds want to know.........

 

[Woodstock]

Two factors lead me to believe that maybe the cops DIDN"T plant the gun - the trial was in Oakland, where the cops aren't loved, and the appeals panel was from the 9th Circuit, where they're simply despised.

 

[Half Cocked]

They were found guilty in civil court of false imprisonment, and counselor, as you know the appeal has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They were found guilty in civil court

Civil court does not have a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty", but a "finding for the plaintiff" or "finding for the defendant" - a subtle but very real distinction.

 

[Bill Nance]

Considering the reputation of the Oakland cops, I don't find the claim or verdict surprising. I don't know how many of you remember the Rampart scandal in LA in the late 90s, but basically if you think of the movie Training Day, that's what was going on with a whole bevy of cops in a special unit of the LAPD. Planting a gun on a suspect or making totally bogus reports is not exactly unheard of. And ya, the f***ng union will no doubt fight like Hell to keep these guys on the payroll, no matter how corrupt they are until they get found guilty in a criminal case.

 

[Half Cocked]

Civil court does not have a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty", but a "finding for the plaintiff" or "finding for the defendant" - a subtle but very real distinction.

And I believe that my terminology was correct....... thanks anyways though.

 

[GSG]

I have absolutely no respect for dirty cops, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, this doesn't look that way IMO, based on the [STRIKE]fairytale[/STRIKE] news report.

From the article:

Smith, now 27, claimed in his lawsuit that he was falsely accused by the officers of possessing a rifle and that he was wrongly kept in jail for more than four months while an unjustified charge of parole violation was being processed. While in jail he was also awaiting two preliminary hearings, both of which resulted in dismissal of the charges.

Smith was arrested at his home in Oakland on Sept. 10, 2004, by Parkinson and Midyett, who said they saw him trying to hide an assault rifle under some stairs at the back of his house. He claimed the officers planted the rifle.

Sorry, but when it comes down to the word of a convicted felon who's out on parole and the two investigating officers, I'll generally give the cops the benefit of the doubt, especially in a civil trial.

Parkinson and Midyett also argued that they should only be liable for four days of damages for Smith, which was the period of time between when Smith was arrested and when the Alameda County District Attorney's Office charged him. After that, they argued, the case was in the hands of prosecutors.

But the appeals panel said it was appropriate for the officers to be liable for four months of damages because Smith's incarceration for an alleged parole violation was based largely on the officers' arrest report.

I'd like to know if the prosecutors were sued too. Not that blanket lawsuits add any validity to the case, but I find this bit interesting, and I'd like to see how it plays out.

Were they found "guilty" at a criminal trial or merely the subject of a judgement at a civil trial? The former would probably disqualify them from police work, but the later may not even be an impediment due to terms of their union contract.

Based on the article, it was a verdict handed down in an appeal to a civil case. What you're referring to is case law laid out by two Supreme Court cases, Brady v. United States, and Giglio v. United States, which modified and expanded the Brady decision. As it applies to this situation, if any witness, including a cop, has ever made false statements or lied in legal proceedings before, every time s/he testifies in a case this info must be provided to the defense. This is why law enforcement agencies won't hire anyone who's done this. (Some take it even further, Deputy Matthew Whitton was fired after his cute Bigfoot hoax, the department said that defense attorneys would bring up in every case that he'd lied very publicly, even though it wasn't in court).

I sincerely doubt that this will result in any of the cops losing their jobs. I have never heard of a civil case being used under Brady/Giglio, probably for the same reasons that the Supreme Court ruled the way that they did in the Small v. United States case*; since different courts have different standards, the only standards that they can rely on are the ones that they know, i.e. criminal cases. In criminal court, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in most civil courts, the burden of proof is only "the preponderance of the evidence." Legally this would make it similar to comparing apples to oranges, or Glocks to 1911's.

*On a note that'll probably be interesting to gun owners, the Small case ruled that felony convictions in other countries don't apply to the "felon in possession" charges here in the US, because of lack of uniformity in the laws of countries around the world. However, this doesn't apply to felony convictions in Mexico, as evidenced in the case Bean v. United States where a US FFL holder was caught accidentally bringing 200 rounds of ammo into Mexico. Because of an international treaty, US citizens convicted of crimes in Mexico can serve their time here in the US, which then makes you a felon in the eyes of the US laws, even though the legal standards are different.

A civil verdict is not a finding of guilt and, as such, there is an excellent chance the union contract prohibits the department from using that as the basis for an adverse employment action.

Cops get sued more than pretty girls get hit on at bars, this is common knowledge in the LE community. Getting sued is part of the game, and very often it's just the criminal tossing the cop the middle finger after they get convicted of their crime. While we're on the topic, this country needs some serious tort reform...

I wonder if the department or union covered the $100K per officer punitive damages.

LAPD? I doubt it, I ranted about them a little bit in this thread. The union might, but I really don't know.

The officers are a liability to the department, as a clever lawyer can quite possibly use this decision in his/her effort to impeach the testimony of the officers in similar cases where the entire case rests on the word and integrity of these individuals.

I disagree, as I pointed out above.

Could you please explain the relevance to this thread? Sciv and I appear to have missed it.

I'd like to know too. I'm guessing that the color blue has something to do with cops being meanie heads to other kids on the playground.

And ya, the f***ng union will no doubt fight like Hell to keep these guys on the payroll, no matter how corrupt they are until they get found guilty in a criminal case.

Love them or hate them, that's what unions do in every line of work, protect the individual's interests. Well, at least in theory.