O.C. jury gives 'historic' win to Black Lives Matter protestor in lawsuit over attack by L.A. police
O.C. jury gives 'historic' win to Black Lives Matter protestor in lawsuit over attack by L.A. police
The trial was held in Orange County instead of Los Angeles after the case was transferred to U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter after his appointment in 2022.
O.C. jury gives 'historic' win to Black Lives Matter protestor in lawsuit over attack by L.A. police
A jury’s $375,000 award to a protestor shot by Los Angeles police with rubber bullets was hailed as historic because it’s the first verdict stemming from the police response to the protests over George Floyd’s murder in May 2020.
But the verdict carries another distinction: It was rendered not in Los Angeles but in Santa Ana, after the originally assigned judge, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, transferred the case to Orange County-based U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter in April 2022 shortly after Slaughter was appointed. The move was part of a standard calendar-building procedure for new judges.
Nominated by President Joe Biden, Slaughter is the first Black federal judge in Orange County. The trial that concluded last Thursday was his first trial since he joined the federal bench from Orange County Superior Court, where he was a judge for eight years.
Orange County juries aren’t generally known for being friendly to civil rights litigants, which makes the decision to hold Officer Peter Bueno liable for violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment barring unlawful search and seizure a bit more remarkable. Does that mean plaintiff Deon Jones could have gotten more than $375,000 if his case had been tried before a Los Angeles jury? The conventional wisdom in the local legal community says not necessarily: L.A. juries are generally considered easier on liability but tougher on damage amounts.
Either way, the significance of the verdicts delivered Thursday morning can’t be overstated. The first was a $250,000 liability verdict, the second was a $125,000 punitive damages verdict. They followed a seven-day trial that included testimony from Jones and Bueno as well as videos showing Los Angeles police officers attacking Jones and other protestors.
“The trial also included testimony from eyewitnesses of the shooting as well as LAPD officers and other witnesses who testified that the officer violated LAPD’s use of force and other official policies,” according to a press release from the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, which represented Jones. Thursday’s verdict “puts law enforcement on notice that there will be serious consequences if they abuse their authority by using their weapons against innocent protesters in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.”
Gibson Dunn partner Orin Snyder said Jones sued “to hold the defendant accountable for shooting him in the face with a rubber bullet at a protest without any justification on May 30, 2020.”
“Justice has now been done. The defendant is being held accountable. We are grateful to the Court and the jury for their time and attention to this important case,” said Snyder, who is Jones’ lead attorney and is based in New York City. “We are proud to have stood with Mr. Jones during this long-fought battle to vindicate his constitutional rights. The jury today sent a strong message that there will be consequences if the police abuse their authority and commit acts of violence against innocent protesters.”
Still, the verdict wasn’t a total loss for Bueno and the Los Angeles Police Department: Jurors rejected Jones’ claim that Bueno retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. They also rejected Jones’ claim that Bueno discriminated against him because of his viewpoint, and that Bueno violated Jones’ right to record the police. They also didn’t reach enter a verdict regarding Jones’ claim that Bueno’s conduct “shocked the conscience” and therefore violated Jones’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection and due process.
Janine Jeffery of Reily and Jeffery Inc. in Woodland Hills defended Bueno. (As the Los Angeles Times reports, the portions of the case involving the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department are to be tried separately.)
Court documents show Snyder and his team took issue with a question Jeffery asked Jones in cross-examination about whether he wanted to “keep up the fight to dismantle the system of white supremacy,” to which Jones answered “Yes, ma’am.”
Snyder complained about the question to Judge Slaughter after the jury left at the end of the day, and Jeffery “subsequently agreed not to question any other witnesses on the topic,” according to a brief from Jones’ lawyers.
Jeffery said she was reserving her right to refer to the testimony in her closing argument, but Slaughter invited her to submit a proffer explaining why the testimony is relevant and she never did so. Jones’ lawyers argued that meant she waived her right to refer to the testimony, and they asked Slaughter to strike it from the record entirely.
“The testimony is highly inflammatory while having no proper evidentiary purpose,” according to their March 7 brief. “Whether Plaintiff wants to ‘dismantle the system of white supremacy’ has no bearing on whether he is biased against Officer Bueno or even the police more generally.”
Jones’ lawyers had previously asked Judge Slaughter to bar Jeffery from mentioning the Black Lives Matter movement in trial.
“In short, BLM is a hot button issue. The very mention of BLM generates entrenched passions on a variety of levels,” according to their motion.
They continued:
“Why, then, does Officer Bueno want to inject BLM into this trial? BLM is not a party to the litigation. Mr. Jones is not a leader or member of BLM. BLM has nothing to do with whether Officer Bueno’s shooting of Mr. Jones was justified. BLM can only inflame prejudices and distract from the actual claims in this case: whether Officer Bueno violated Mr. Jones’ constitutional rights by shooting him in the face. But that is exactly what Officer Bueno seeks to do—inflame the jury’s passions and prejudices in attempting to tie Mr. Jones to BLM and anti-police rhetoric.”
Jeffery said she didn’t intend to offer evidence about misconduct by the Black Lives Matters movement, but she argued evidence regarding “anti-police rhetoric” associated with the movement was “highly relevant in the circumstances.”
She wrote:
“On May 30, 2020, Officer Bueno faced an incredibly hostile violent crowd that contained many individuals who expressed anti-police sentiment, destroyed police property, and covered police cars with threatening messages. This is the environment which informed Defendant’s decision-making.”
Judge Slaughter ruled that any alleged misconduct unrelated to the May 30, 2020, protest shouldn’t be mentioned, but he said the rest of Jones’ motion in limine was “too broad in that it would exclude relevant evidence.”
The jury deliberated for several hours Wednesday after hearing closing arguments, then returned the liability verdict after returning Thursday morning. The punitive damages verdict was rendered shortly after.
"The conventional wisdom in the local legal community says not necessarily: L.A. juries are generally considered easier on liability but tougher on damage amounts."
Unless the case is decided by an L.A. jury in the court of Federal Judge John F. Walters in a matter involving the widpw of Kobe Bryant.
In that case, Judge Walters will postpone start of trial for 3 weeks with no reason, except targeting Kobe Bryant Day 8/24 for jury deliberations.
Judge Walters will allow co-plaintiff Chris Chester's attorney to inform jury that 8/23 would have been Bryant's 44th birthday.
Judge Walters' will participate with plaintiff Bryant's attorney to provide impromptu testimony.
Plaintiff attorney informed the court that his client was requesting permission to step out of courtroom during proceedings.
Judge Walter granted the request and stated that no request of permission was needed in the future, thus misleading a jury to believe that permission is needed from the Judge for a civil plaintiff observing proceedings to exit before recess is called(its not required), thus leading jury to believe Judge Walter felt that Ms. Bryant's emotional state was so unstable(due to actions committed by defendants) as to warrant granting a blanket permission for duration of trial.
Judge Walter, who previously stated he wanted to split trial into two parts to simplify complex issues for the jury, then provided extremely brief instructions to the Chris Chester/Vanessa Bryant jury. Basically, informing the jury that no guidelines or limits exist for the decisions placed before them to make.
Finally, following announcement of the verdict and jury award, the court is faced with the issue of a juror claiming the monetary award is incorrect.
Instead of seeking clarification of what the jury decided and if the jurors were actually in agreement and if they understood what they did, Judge Walters buried the issues by quickly accepting plaintiff Bryant's voluntary unilateral offer to have her award reduced by $1 million.