Bernard awarded $10 million after jury finds police framed him for murder

[SDG 3319]

Quote

A federal court jury awarded $10 million in damages Friday to a San Francisco man who spent six years in prison before his murder conviction was thrown out.

Jamal Trulove accused four San Francisco police officers of framing him for a 2007 killing at the city’s Sunnydale public housing complex. An eight-member jury in Oakland heard three weeks of testimony and deliberated for two days before unanimously finding Friday that the two lead homicide inspectors on the case, Michael Johnson and Maureen D’Amico, had violated Trulove’s rights by fabricating evidence against him and withholding evidence that might have helped him.

Jurors found no wrongdoing by a third inspector, Robert McMillan, or by Officer John Evans, the crime-scene investigator. All four officers are now retired. The city is responsible for the damages.

“It’s about time,” said Kate Chatfield, a lawyer for Trulove. “Justice is not (merely) being acquitted for a crime you did not do. This was finally justice.”

Trulove, now 33, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for the murder of a friend, Seu Kuka, who was shot in the back in July 2007.

The main evidence against him came from a neighbor who testified that she saw Trulove chase down Kuka and shoot him after a late-night argument. Her first identification was tentative, but she affirmed it after seeing Trulove three months later as a guest on the reality TV show “I Love New York 2.”

 

A state appeals court overturned Trulove’s conviction in 2014, after finding that the prosecutor had made an unfounded claim to the jury, telling jurors that the neighbor had been threatened and risked her life by coming forward.

A second trial resulted in a jury acquittal in 2015.

In his damage suit, Trulove accused police of coercing the witness to identify him.

In a ruling Feb. 27 that allowed the case to go to trial, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers cited evidence that Johnson, one of the inspectors, questioned the eyewitness shortly after the killing, pointed to a clipboard and asked, “Are you sure it wasn’t Jamal Trulove?” The witness replied that she didn’t know, the judge said.

Later, Gonzalez Rogers said, Inspector D’Amico showed the witness a single photo of Trulove rather than the usual police practice of presenting photos of different people and asking the witness to identify the perpetrator. Johnson, the judge said, showed the same witness a suggestive photo array consisting of Trulove and others she had already discounted as being the shooter.

There was also evidence that the officers were aware of another possible suspect who was never investigated, the judge said.

The city’s lawyers denied that the officers had coerced the witness and also argued that their alleged misconduct was irrelevant because San Francisco prosecutors, using the evidence the officers presented, made an independent decision to charge Trulove. Therefore, the lawyers contended, the officers’ actions had no effect on the case.

But Gonzalez Rogers said the decision to prosecute Trulove didn’t necessarily exonerate the officers, because it wasn’t clear that the prosecutors who made that decision had been aware of evidence of the officers’ “coercive and suggestive conduct.”

During the trial in his damage suit, Trulove testified about his life in prison. Chatfield said he described “the fear from the time you get up ... the daily humiliation,” and the four years he spent without visits from his family because he was held in a remote location.

She said he now works at an after-school program for at-risk children in San Francisco.

John Coté, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the verdict was disappointing. He noted that Trulove had initially sued 14 officers, most of whom were dismissed as defendants, and had sought $26 million in damages.

“We are analyzing the jury’s findings and will determine from there how to proceed,” Coté said. “Our goal is always to ensure that justice is served.”

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SF-man-awarded-10-million-after-jury-finds-12813726.php

Apologies for the formatting.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

We really need to start charging police with the same crimes a civilian would be charged with under the same circumstances.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

Bit hard to tell from what's online, but it seems like there's a fairly substantial chance of reversal of that verdict on appeal on qualified immunity issues.

 

Also says the city is liable, which is not the usual situation in these cases (perhaps there is an arrangement under which SF indemnifies its police against civil rights claims, or even a law in Cali.

[SDG 3319]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bit hard to tell from what's online, but it seems like there's a fairly substantial chance of reversal of that verdict on appeal on qualified immunity issues.

 

Also says the city is liable, which is not the usual situation in these cases (perhaps there is an arrangement under which SF indemnifies its police against civil rights claims, or even a law in Cali.

that might be part of the problem...

[Bernard 879]

Cops convicted of committing perjury or fabricating evidence should get automatic life in prison. 

Bernard

[RexWilson 1348]

Could you handle 6 years in prison in exchange for $10 mil?

[FartingMonk 3608]

i'd do it.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

2 hours ago, SDG said:

In a ruling Feb. 27 that allowed the case to go to trial, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers cited evidence that Johnson, one of the inspectors, questioned the eyewitness shortly after the killing, pointed to a clipboard and asked, “Are you sure it wasn’t Jamal Trulove?” The witness replied that she didn’t know, the judge said.

Later, Gonzalez Rogers said, Inspector D’Amico showed the witness a single photo of Trulove rather than the usual police practice of presenting photos of different people and asking the witness to identify the perpetrator. Johnson, the judge said, showed the same witness a suggestive photo array consisting of Trulove and others she had already discounted as being the shooter.

The reason I say this presents qualified immunity problems is that cops have it until it is proven that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.  While bad lineups, coercing witnesses, and failing to investigate other suspects are bad police practice, they tend to go to admissibility of evidence (bad lineup) and credibility of the investigation, issues raised at trial before the jury for their evaluation.  They are not of "constitutional dimension," as far as I know.  There were also some claims of Brady violations (withholding exculpatory evidence), and those are clearly constitutional and if attributable to cops and not prosecutors, would pierce sovereign immunity.

 

Judicial reporting is horrible, though.

[SDG 3319]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The reason I say this presents qualified immunity problems is that cops have it until it is proven that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.  While bad lineups, coercing witnesses, and failing to investigate other suspects are bad police practice, they tend to go to admissibility of evidence (bad lineup) and credibility of the investigation, issues raised at trial before the jury for their evaluation.  They are not of "constitutional dimension," as far as I know.  There were also some claims of Brady violations (withholding exculpatory evidence), and those are clearly constitutional and if attributable to cops and not prosecutors, would pierce sovereign immunity.

 

Judicial reporting is horrible, though.

I have a small brain; will Bernard ever see a dime or not?

great post btw. I post these things because the Shaggy Surly legal eagles always do such a great job of breaking them down for us uninformed. 

[TwiceHorn 31514]

13 minutes ago, SDG said:

I have a small brain; will Bernard ever see a dime or not?

great post btw. I post these things because the Shaggy Surly legal eagles always do such a great job of breaking them down for us uninformed. 

Based on what is reported, no.  Seems like an aberrational jury verdict that may go down on appeal.  But, there could be more to the story.

However, the judge should know what she's doing.  She graduated UT Law, apparently in my class.

Edited April 8, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[XYZ 2154]

Why weren’t the cops criminally charged? 

[Brothahorn 10087]

The real lesson here is stay the fuck off reality tv.

[shadetree 66]

Cops convicted of committing perjury or fabricating evidence should get automatic life in prison. 
Bernard

Agreed. Same thing for DA’s who withhold evidence.

[RPM 26329]

20 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

We really need to start charging police with the same crimes a civilian would be charged with under the same circumstances.

And automatically make charges against police 1 level higher than a civilian because they should hold themselves to a higher standard. Then make the police unions and pension funds pay the damages instead of taxpayers. Shit would change fast.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

14 hours ago, XYZ said:

Why weren’t the cops criminally charged? 

From what is reported, above, the cops didn't do anything criminal. Bad lineups, suggesting a suspect to a witness, and failure to investigate other suspects is fairly SOP.

 

It's bad police work that a defense attorney should have teed off on, but not illegal in a criminal sense or constitutionally unlawful. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[scottsins 1968]

The reason I say this presents qualified immunity problems is that cops have it until it is proven that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.  While bad lineups, coercing witnesses, and failing to investigate other suspects are bad police practice, they tend to go to admissibility of evidence (bad lineup) and credibility of the investigation, issues raised at trial before the jury for their evaluation.  They are not of "constitutional dimension," as far as I know.  There were also some claims of Brady violations (withholding exculpatory evidence), and those are clearly constitutional and if attributable to cops and not prosecutors, would pierce sovereign immunity.
 
Judicial reporting is horrible, though.

Bad lineups and witness coercion could be viewed as deprivation of Due Process, but I haven’t seen any case law in that regard.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

14 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Bad lineups and witness coercion could be viewed as deprivation of Due Process, but I haven’t seen any case law in that regard.

 

Yeah, I did some quick looking and there's nothing real apparent, which would probably be necessary (like wikipedia apparent) to establish "clearly protected constitutional right."  I'll be interested to see an appellate opinion on this.  Tried to find the QI opinion, but couldn't.

[XYZ 2154]

Why is egregiously bad police work exempted from prosecution? How is fabricating incriminating evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence not a crime?

[TwiceHorn 31514]

It's the concept of sovereign immunity, which holds that governmental functions would grind to a complete halt if actions of officials and officers could be subjected to suit and liability for every tortious or potentially tortious act committed in the course of carrying out their duties.

Judges and prosecutors have complete or absolute immunity from suit for actions taken pursuant to their duties.  Cities, counties, states, and the federal government, as entities, enjoy nearly absolute immunity from suit.  There are statutory exceptions in, for example, the Federal and Texas Tort Claims Acts, that permit suit and limited recovery of damages for specific tortious acts carried out by governments and government officials.

Cops have "qualified immunity, " which is immunity from suit (not just damages), unless and until their actions are shown to be a violation of clearly established constitutional law.  It is a wholly "common law" (judge-made, not statute) doctrine, thus it would be difficult to modify or change it by legislation at either the state or federal level.  However, special crimes and civil causes of action that waive immunity could be established by the state/federal legislatures.  

Also one notable thing about claims against police.  The normal tort doctrine of respondent superior, whereby an employer is liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, does not apply.  It is also very difficult to make city/county/state police entities liable for the constitutional torts of cops (the entity must be shown to have a policy of doing whatever bad thing the cop did).  That means, in the usual case, the cop found liable for a civil rights violation under 42 USC 1983 (applies to state/county/city cops)  or Bivens (applies to federal officers) doctrine, usually has nothing but personal assets to satisfy any judgment.

Edited April 9, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[scottsins 1968]

On 4/8/2018 at 8:22 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It's the concept of sovereign immunity, which holds that governmental functions would grind to a complete halt if actions of officials and officers could be subjected to suit and liability for every tortious or potentially tortious act committed in the course of carrying out their duties.

Judges and prosecutors have complete or absolute immunity from suit for actions taken pursuant to their duties.  Cities, counties, states, and the federal government, as entities, enjoy nearly absolute immunity from suit.  There are statutory exceptions in, for example, the Federal and Texas Tort Claims Acts, that permit suit and limited recovery of damages for specific tortious acts carried out by governments and government officials.

Cops have "qualified immunity, " which is immunity from suit (not just damages), unless and until their actions are shown to be a violation of clearly established constitutional law.  It is a wholly "common law" (judge-made, not statute) doctrine, thus it would be difficult to modify or change it by legislation at either the state or federal level.  However, special crimes and civil causes of action that waive immunity could be established by the state/federal legislatures.  

Also one notable thing about claims against police.  The normal tort doctrine of respondent superior, whereby an employer is liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, does not apply.  It is also very difficult to make city/county/state police entities liable for the constitutional torts of cops (the entity must be shown to have a policy of doing whatever bad thing the cop did).  That means, in the usual case, the cop found liable for a civil rights violation under 42 USC 1983 (applies to state/county/city cops)  or Bivens (applies to federal officers) doctrine, usually has nothing but personal assets to satisfy any judgment.

I don’t have any first hand experience, but I wonder if any criminal statutes pertaining to “official oppression” would ever apply.  They are rarely invoked in practice.

[TwiceHorn 31514]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

I don’t have any first hand experience, but I wonder if any criminal statutes pertaining to “official oppression” would ever apply.  They are rarely invoked in practice.

Good question.

It is, unfortunately, only a Class A misdemeanor.

 

Quote

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.

 

[Texas_Rocks 346]

The “concept of sovereign immunity” and a firearm on the hip kicks ass. It’s really no wonder that so many cops just do whatever the fuck they want to without concern for right or wrong.

This is one crazy fucking country.

[Potatohead 1]

Based on the case in the link below, it is certainly possible for an officer's conduct that produces a false identification to be a violation of a clearly established right.  Whether the officer's conduct in the case in the OP meets these standards will likely be determined on appeal, unless the parties settle.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1523028.html

In keeping with Geter I and II, we conclude that knowing efforts to secure a false identification by fabricating evidence or otherwise unlawfully influencing witnesses constitutes a violation of the due process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. A plaintiff need not undertake the impossible task of satisfying the Brathwaite test where an officer's intentional conduct was designed to artificially produce precisely the sort of witness certainty that otherwise justifies the admission of suggestive lineups and the criminal defendant has been exonerated in the meantime. Moreover, we find that any reasonable official would know that framing an individual for a crime they did not commit by securing such an identification represents a constitutional violation. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed on his Fourteenth Amendment claim.

With respect to the Fourth Amendment, Curtis's efforts to secure Good's arrest notwithstanding the fact that Curtis affirmatively knew he manufactured probable cause constituted a clearly established violation of Good's Fourth Amendment rights at the time of the arrest such that the appeal on this claim must also be dismissed.