D.Utah: Shooting of def in court attempting to stab witness on stand with a pen was reasonable use of force

The CSO shooting plaintiff’s decedent in the courtroom was reasonable under all the circumstances as a matter of law, shooting him four times in quick succession after he came over the rail around the witness box. Decedent grabbed defense counsel’s pen and ran to the witness box and lunged for the shackled witness testifying against decedent in a case involving crimes of violence. He actually fell into the witness box, but the witness got away from his reach. The shooting was in 2014, and the video was released after the motion to dismiss was granted. Angilau v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39379 (D. Utah Mar. 9, 2018):

Plaintiffs here argue that Doe’s use of deadly force was unreasonable. The use of deadly force is reasonable where an officer in the defendant officer’s position would have had probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to others. Thomson, 584 F.3d at 1313; Plumhoff v. Rickard, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2021, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2014); see also Scott, 550 U.S. at 386. Having carefully reviewed the video of Mr. Angilau’s swift flight from counsel table, his vault over the witness stand with pen in hand, and his attempt to violently attack the shackled witness, the Court has little difficulty determining that Doe’s use of force to immediately stop Angilau’s attack was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. An officer in Doe’s position would have had probable cause to believe that Angilau posed a threat of serious physical harm to others. The entire incident was only seconds-long. Angilau, who was in custody, fled the defense table, reached the witness stand in less than two seconds, and did not cease his progress. Doe saw Angilau rushing V.T. with a sharp, pointed object in hand. Angilau’s rapid movement and attack placed Doe in a position of having to make a split-second decision. Doe did not carry any other weapons. Both Doe and V.T. were effectively boxed into a corner between the witness stand and the jury box, which left no room to safely escape any continuing attack by Angilau without also placing others in the courtroom in danger. While Angilau’s attack was directed at the witness, there were other innocent bystanders (the presiding trial judge, court reporter, jurors, and Doe) in harm’s way if Angilau’s attack had not been immediately stopped.

According to the plaintiffs, the severity of the crime was “mild,” no one was at risk when the last three shots were fired, and Angilau was not resisting or evading officers. (Doc. 78 at 25, 31-33). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, the word “mild” simply cannot be used to describe the situation in which an in-custody defendant leaves counsel table, grabs a pen from the table, runs across the courtroom, and leaps over the witness stand making a stabbing motion to attack an adverse witness who is shackled and in close proximity to other innocent bystanders. The circumstances also reflect that Angilau was attempting to attack the witness while evading the physical control and custody of the United States Marshal Service and any other courtroom officials. The attack was unsuccessful because of the shots that Doe fired, which stopped Angilau from harming the witness or others within the zone of danger.

The plaintiffs also argue that, even if the initial use of deadly force was permissible, Doe acted unreasonably in firing more than one shot at Angilau. The Supreme Court has rejected a similar argument, noting, “It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” Plumhoff, 134 S. Ct. 2022 (officers acted reasonably in using deadly force, including firing a total of 15 shots). In Plumhoff, the Court noted that all 15 shots in that case were fired during a 10-second span and officers had not “initiated a second round of shots after an initial round had clearly incapacitated [the fleeing suspect].” Id. The video and audio of Angilau’s attack and the shooting establish that Doe first fired Doe’s service weapon less than one second after Angilau began to cross over the witness stand, and all four of Doe’s shots were fired in rapid succession, in less than one and one-half seconds, from the first to the last shot, while Angilau was airborne postured to attack or was still in motion. As in Plumhoff, there was no second round of shots after Angilau was clearly incapacitated.

See also Video shows the moment a U.S. marshal killed a gang member lunging for a witness