For Law Enforcement Officers Accused Of Excessive Force, Juries May Be Their Best Allies

            As revealed by my impeccably crafted, scientific survey of recent jury verdicts, this week has been a great week for law enforcement officers (LEOs) accused of using excessive force and whose fate has rested in the hands of American jurors.  Okay, so maybe I exaggerated a little about the character of my survey—a Google search of the word “Jury,” filtered by recent “News,” selecting only those stories in which juries had not convicted LEOs or held them liable—don’t judge me.  Nevertheless, in at least four instances, juries declined to hold LEOs accountable for using excessive force:  

           

·         Jury Clears Tiverton Officers in 2012 Arrest of Fisherman

·        Federal Jury Finds for St. Louis County Police in Ferguson Protester’s Claims of Excessive Force

·        Hung Jury in Trial of Cheatham County Jailer Accused of Tasing Inmate Strapped to a Restraint Chair

·         Hung Jury Forces Mistrial for Harris County Deputy Charged with Brutality

These cases suggest that juries are either properly not holding LEOs accountable, meaning that plaintiffs and prosecutors are failing to produce evidence adequate to persuade jurors of officers’ culpability; or juries are improperly not holding officers accountable, meaning that despite plaintiffs’ and prosecutors’ adequate proof of culpability, jurors are nevertheless failing to hold LEO’s appropriately accountable.  Heck, maybe some of both is occurring. 

That American juries acquit, or otherwise fail to hold accountable, LEOs accused of excessive force more than they convict/hold liable LEOs accused of excessive force is not a new phenomenon.  Regarding lethal shootings by LEOs since 2005, 13 were convicted of “murder or manslaughter in fatal on-duty shootings,” according to a 2016 Huffington Post article.

According to a 2018 CNN article, of the 80 LEOs that had been arrested for murder or manslaughter for on-duty shootings between 2005 and April 2017, only 35% were convicted, while the rest were either pending or not convicted.  In Texas, 2018 marked the first time a LEO was convicted of killing someone in an on-duty shooting since 1973.

Though the findings regarding officer-involved killings represent only a subset of claims of excessive force by officers—namely, the use of lethal force by shooting—I suspect that the trend is also similar for other subsets of force, such as those illustrated by the four articles at the beginning of this post.  Supposing that across all claims of excessive force, juries routinely and disproportionately excuse officers from appropriate accountability, then one must ask whether the system of trial by jury, though constitutionally guaranteed, is socially appropriate in this context.  Perhaps judges should be the sole adjudicators of guilt or innocence, liability or non-liability at trial.

Before I depart, I leave you to consider the following: Should juries or judges be empowered to decide whether LEOs are criminally guilty or civilly liable for excessive force?  Does your answer depend on whether the force used, or claimed to have been used, was lethal or non-lethal?

Disclosure:  I am a former Texas cop, turned law student, turned very amateur blogger (this is my first post, woo hoo!!—Read: whew!!)