A Madison AL police officer convicted of violating the civil rights in February 2015 of an elderly Asian Indian national out for a walk gets a judgment of acquittal. The officer was convicted by a jury of using excessive force in taking him down and injuring his spine when he had trouble communicating in English. Two juries hung before the third convicted. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court still cannot conclude that there was either excessive force under the totality of circumstances or an intent to violate civil rights. United States v. Parker, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4764 (N.D.Ala. Jan. 13, 2016):
\n<\/p>\n
[Excessive force:] The standard for considering a motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal requires the Court to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Government. When evidence is subject to multiple interpretations, some of which favor the Government and some of which favor the defense, the Court has construed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. However, when evidence is unfavorable to the Government, but is not ambiguous, the Court is not required to ignore it. When critical gaps appear in the Government’s case, the Court is not required to turn a blind eye to them. On the contrary, the law requires the Court to consider the objective reasonableness of Officer Parker’s use of force within the totality of the circumstances. The Court has viewed the full expanse of evidence concerning the use of force and is left with the firm conviction that the evidence concerning use of force in this case is not adequate to support a unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When, as here, “a hypothesis of innocence is sufficiently reasonable and sufficiently strong, then a reasonable trier of fact must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt about guilt.” United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 1982) (Anderson, J., concurring) aff’d, 462 U.S. 356 (1983). Viewing the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the Court has determined that that evidence could not be accepted by twelve jurors as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of Officer Parker’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
[Intent:] As with the Government’s use-of-force evidence, Officer Parker answered each piece of evidence that the Government offered concerning willfulness and established a hypothesis of innocence that is sufficiently reasonable and sufficiently strong that a reasonable trier of fact must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt about Officer Parker’s alleged specific intent to deprive Mr. Patel of his Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This will probably be appealed by the government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Madison AL police officer convicted of violating the civil rights in February 2015 of an elderly Asian Indian national out for a walk gets a judgment of acquittal. The officer was convicted by a jury of using excessive force … Continue reading