Why it's Tough to Convict Cops

The picture of the knot of burly Florida boot camp guards pummeling and dragging an agonizing, shirtless 14 year old black teen Martin Lee Anderson was shocking. It brought screams of outrage nationally, and the indictment of the seven guards and a nurse that allegedly stood by and did nothing. There was plenty of reason to expect that some if not all of the guards would be convicted. Florida legislators were angered by the brutality, and though initially reluctant to speak out on the case, conservative Republican Florida Governor Jeb Bush appointed a special prosecutor and there was the appalling videotape.

But expectations, the videotape, and the furor of state officials, meant little to the all-white jury that tried the guards. It took them less than ninety minutes to acquit them on all the counts. It's not hard to see why.

When cops, and in effect that's what the guards were, go on trial for overuse of force, their victims are generally poor blacks and Latinos. The attorneys that defend them are top gun defense attorneys, and have had much experience defending cops and guards accused of misconduct. Police and prison guard unions pay them and they spare no expense in their defense. The cops rarely serve any pre-trial jail time, and are released on ridiculously low bail.

During jury selection, their attorneys seek to get as many whites on the panel as possible. That was certainly the case in the Florida case. The presumption is that white jurors are much more likely to be middle-class, and conservative, and much more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than black witnesses, defendants, or even the victims.

Prosecutors have a big task in trying to overcome the pro-police attitudes, and the negative racial stereotypes of middle-class jurors. A 2003 Penn State University study found that many whites are likely to associate pictures of blacks with violent crimes, and in some cases where crimes were not committed by blacks they misidentified the perpetrator as an African-American.

The frequent media portrayal of young blacks and Latinos as crime-prone, drug-dealing gangsters, the gang and murder violence that continues to wrack many black neighborhoods and the glorification of the thug lifestyle by many young blacks reinforces negative racial perceptions.

Defense attorneys for the guards didn't openly type Anderson as a violent prone criminal, but the fact that he was in a boot camp, and that Anderson was unruly and out of control was more than enough to create some doubt about Anderson's behavior. That behavior makes many whites, non-blacks and even many older blacks guarded, suspicious and fearful of young blacks.

The attorneys claimed that the force that they used to subdue Anderson was not excessive, and that the tactics they used were standard operating procedure to control bad situations. The jury bought it. But again, it wasn't hard to see why. There is no ironclad standard of what is or isn't acceptable use of force. It often comes down to a judgment call by an officer. In the Rodney King beating case in 1992 in which four LAPD officers stood trial, defense attorneys turned the tables and painted King as the aggressor and claimed that the level of force used against him was justified.

The four New York City cops tried for gunning down African immigrant, Amadou Diallo in 1999, also claimed that they feared for their lives. The jury believed them and acquitted them.

In Cincinnati, a municipal judge summarily acquitted white Cincinnati police officer, Stephen Roach of criminal charges in the slaying of 19-year-old Timothy Thomas during a traffic pursuit in 2001. The shooting ignited three days of riots. The judge bought Roach's tale that he feared for his life, and fired in self-defense.

In the Sean Bell shooting case in New York City, defense attorneys for the officer's charged with killing the unarmed Bell, a young African-American, almost certainly will use the same tact and argue that the officers feared for their lives when they fired.

The code of silence is another powerful obstacle to convicting bad cops. Officers hide behind it and refuse to testify against other officers, or tailor their testimony to put the officer's action in the best possible light.

Prosecutors often are barred from using statements made during internal investigations of officer misconduct in court proceedings on grounds of self-incrimination. This knocks out another potentially crucial prosecution weapon. Federal prosecutors that retried the officers that beat King learned a vital lesson from the abysmal failure of local prosecutors to convict them. They did not rely exclusively on the videotape but on expert testimony on the use of force to prove that the officers went way over the top against King. Despite the massive time, resources, and care they devoted to the case, they still only managed to convict two of the four officers.

Within moments after the acquittal of the boot camp guards and the nurse, the Justice Department said it would take a hard look at the case; meaning there's the possibility of a federal civil rights indictment of the guards. Even if that happens, and the odds are long that it will, the same rules of legal engagement will apply. And that would still make nailing the guards a hard uphill fight.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press).

Comments

[Maurerguy]

I think a critical part of Hutchinson's point is that this is not about cops. And it certainly isn't about prosecutors, or even politicians, who, under pressure more or less did the right thing. It was the jury -- "ordinary" white folks -- who were the critical element defending/operating from racism.

As part of the solution, we need a much more effective movement of white people willing to identify and tackle day to day racism, to let jury members, real estate salespeople, lenders, etc etc know that their actions are unacceptable and their stereotypes are sick and bogus. This is not a struggle against villains, but against evil in the minds of ordinary people.

There is some beginning of this at www.wacan.org and www.reparationsthecure.org.

[Kansas Evans]

Just wanna say, you truth, especially if you're white, is refreshing.

[jhNY]

If police power is seen as even occasionally fallible and cruel, the authority of the state and public order in general is undermined-- at least that's what the juries in cases like these seem to believe. If on the other hand, the police , no matter what the evidence, are found not guilty, the notion that an individual can never prevail against the state's implacable power is preserved, a notion that comforts the comfortable, although it comes at the cost of occasional human sacrifice to the system.

[justice58]

It’s an outrage! Michael Vick could face prison time for killing a dog & when it’s a 14 year old black boy being killed…NOTHING! It’s a mockery of the Justice system just as it was in the Emmett Till Case.

God help America when a dog is more valuable than a human life. The jurors in this case clearly is a joke & should never serve on a jury again. Anyone can see from the video the child was beaten to death. It is a horrifying thing to see a child being killed before your eyes and it’s more chilling when adult jurors ignore it just because he was born a black male!

How long will it be before our government see the injustice here…how long!

These evil wicked murderers need to pay!

[Nommo]

Amazing how well they can coordinate all the various elements together when it comes to being certain that some will never pay for the murder of a Black citizen.
Down to a science. Can't keep the nation from falling apart, but can definitely see to it that some things never happen.

[fact finder]

It is a race and power thing always has been and always will be.

[Kansas Evans]

That's what makes this such an enraging situation: that it's NOT hard to understand how the 8 were acquitted.