Officer not Guilty of Assault After Beating Person on Video

Print Friendly

Police Assault a person in handcuffsAn officer was recently caught on video assaulting a person.

See the footage here.

It is always shocking and saddening when a police officer clearly violates the law.  It is equally disappointing when the judicial process that is supposed to protect our society, does everything in its power to get a police officer off the hook.

In this case, the Judge did not allow the video footage into court.  The judge’s reasoning was that the video had not been authenticated.  What this means is that there was no one who had taken the stand to say that the video accurately depicted the incident.  Without someone saying that the video was accurate, the judge could not consider it.

In normal circumstances, Judges bend over backward to allow prosecutors to get evidence into the record.  They will give prosecutor three or four chances to authenticate a document or video before finally not allowing it.  For rookie prosecutors, they will allow documents to be authenticated without a proper record over the objection of defense counsel.  But when a police officer is the defendant, all of the sudden Judges decide that they must rigorously apply the rules of evidence to protect the officer.

Tecnically, the judge is not wrong in requiring the video to be authenticated and keeping it out for a failure to authenticated the video.  What is unfair here is threefold:

  • that there was a clear assault by the officer against a person in handcuffs;
  • that the prosecutor did not do his job to get the video admitted; and
  • that Judges often have a double standard for the admission of evidence, depending on who the defendant is.

The American perception of our Judicial system is that the fair and just result will prevail.  The just and fair result in this case would have been holding the police officer responsible for his assault.  But in this case, it appears that the prosecutor did nothing to present the video.  This is not justice.  Rather, it is a prosecutor providing ineffective assistance of counsel by not doing his best to get the evidence into the record.  Because the prosecutor did not do his job, our courtrooms, and hence our system of government, loses credibility.  Additionally, the judge allowed this charade to occur in his courtroom.  The Judge should have made sure that the prosecutor was going to do his job, and if he did not, the judge should have found him in contempt or found a conflict of interest and gotten someone in there that would do the job.  To simply allow police officers to rule the courtroom is to undercut the purpose of judges.

The bottom line is that this Police Officer should have gone to jail.





The information in this post is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or as the creation of an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, please contact an Attorney.

Written by

Nathaniel has worked in criminal law on both sides of the aisle spending time working for the prosecution as well as the defense. Most recently Nathaniel has represented individuals in violent felonies and drug cases. Prior to this work, Nathaniel handled DWIs, Domestic Violence Cases, Property Crimes, and White Collar Crimes. On the prosecutorial side, Nathaniel has most notably worked in Bosnia helping to prosecute individuals who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Bosnian War from 1993-1995. In particular, Nathaniel helped in the prosecution of military leaders who arranged for the organized murders and rapes of innocent civilians in various towns in Bosnia. Nathaniel is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Northwestern University, and Phillips Exeter Academy. Google Profile: Nathaniel Baca