After a jury sided Friday with a woman who had sued Washington police officers for arresting her after she publicly criticized them, attorney Jeffrey Skinner of Goodwin Procter said he hopes the verdict will prompt a full investigation into the extent of "contempt-of-cop" arrests in the city.
Skinner, along with fellow Goodwin Procter attorneys Andrew Hudson and John Moustakas, represented Washington resident Lindsay Huthnance pro bono in her suit against the officers who arrested her, as well as the city’s Metropolitan Police Department.
The jury found the city and two officers who arrested Huthnance liable for $97,500 in damages for false arrest, emotional distress and a slew of constitutional violations committed in the course of her arrest and imprisonment; a third officer was not found liable. In addition to charges stemming directly from the arrest, she also charged the city with failing to properly train officers and take steps to stop unlawful “contempt-of-cop” arrests.
Skinner, in a phone interview Monday, said his team built their case against the city by reviewing hundreds of arrest reports filed the year before Huthnance’s arrest in November 2005. Of the nearly 900 arrest reports provided by the city – more than 100 reports were missing, Skinner said – the plaintiff’s experts determined that more than 30% contained errors or failed to make a case for probable cause.
The analysis of arrest reports provided “pretty strong proof that either the District wasn’t training [officers] properly, or it could also indicate MPD supervision was also lacking and deficient,” he said.
Police department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump declined to comment on the case, but did confirm that the three officers charged remain employed by the city. Ariel Waldman, a spokesman for the city’s attorney general, also declined to comment.
Huthnance claimed she was arrested in November 2005 on a trumped-up charge in retaliation for publicly criticizing a group of police officers. According to her complaint, Huthnance had stopped inside a 7-Eleven around midnight when she spotted a group of officers inside. After asking the officers if any incident had happened in the neighborhood and, according to her complaint, receiving a rude response, Huthnance made a comment that she didn’t think it was a good use of her tax dollars for the officers to be standing around the 7-Eleven.
After a verbal exchange with officers inside and outside of the store, Huthnance was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace, but claimed she never became belligerent or disorderly. She also accused the police of holding her in jail for several hours after she should have been released. At one point, she claimed, an officer told her she would be released if she would sit in her cell and “cry like a good girl.”
During the trial before U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, the officers disputed Huthnance’s version of events. They claimed she was screaming obscenities and was so loud that she attracted the attention of passers-by and residents living across the street from the 7-Eleven.
After she was released from jail, Huthnance contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital, which put her in touch with Goodwin Proctor and assisted during the trial. ACLU legal director Arthur Spitzer said Huthnance’s arrest highlights flaws in how the city has dealt with the problem of unlawful retaliation against individuals who speak out against the police.
“We’re glad that the jury was able to see the reality of what had happened to Ms. Huthnance and the reality about the District of Columbia’s failure to train and supervise officers about not making contempt-of-cop arrests,” Spitzer said in a phone interview Monday.
The verdict came one day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled on March 24 that a man who was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after calling a police officer a "fat slob" could move forward with a retaliatory arrest claim. More on this case from The National Law Journal's Leigh Jones can be found here.
Updated at 4:48 p.m. to correct the spelling of Goodwin Procter.
Well it is funny that she (Huthnance) did in fact lie on the stand and this information was NOT allowed to be shown to the jury. Also, the Judge did not allow the defense to recall Huthnance to challenge her testimony because she had to play volleyball? Obviously roller derby is not a weak sport. It's actually very physical and they did not want to portray Huthnance as such. But it's kinda ironic that her AKA is "Skanda Lass". You do the math, check out this link, http://www.newswire.co.nz/2011/03/capital-city-roller-derby-showdown/
She was deeply involved in this roller derby tournament DURING the trial that was SOOOOO important to her because her "rights were violated". She was excused by the Judge to play for the National team in volleyball?, not to play roller derby with her friends.
And yes, good job of getting her boyfriend to lie for her. They both couldn't even get their stories straight about where they were that night drinking their bottle of wine and two, well three, well four beers. I watched most of the trial, if you want to call it a trial, but it was clear that Huthnance was not telling the truth and her testimony was very rehearsed. She also stated that she signed the paperwork electing to forfeit a collateral on the charge and not go to court but then she lied to the court and said, "I didn't read it". She even acknowledged taking the document with her from the jail, but NEVER read it? An educated person that didn't read an important document she is signing. Come on give me a break!
And how one gets away sleeping away objections is beyond me, I think people expect more from the District Court.
And yes, the jury did have several members that had criminal records. And I also heard, that although not magically selected as a juror, it was very ironic that a family member of one of the plaintiff's attorneys was a part of the jury pool for the case. Makes you go, Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Out of all the cases in DC, criminal and civil on any given day (three court houses), how did she und up in that courtroom? Coincidence? I beg to differ, nice try.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2011 at 08:13 AM
First I would like to say that it is easy for everyone to talk about law enforcement officers the way they do until they need thier help. Ms huthnance lied on the stand and to make things even better, Judge Lambert slept through three quarters of the trial. And if he wasn't sleeping he was eating. The jury slept through most of it also. When juror #1 had to be released from the case, Mr Moustakos was on the record stating that he wanted to keep juror #1 because he was the only juror that wasn't sleeping during the trial. The only thing the officers were guilty of was a bad grammar in their report. I personally know all the officers and personally know the case and Ms. Hutnance's arrest was justified. Her attorney's lied about her having to leave the trial early to attend a pro volley ball match that she was playing in for the new zealand team, she even stated to the judge the same when on the stand. When in reality she is the captain of a roller derby team having a match that weekend. He exboyfriend who testified couldn't even get his story to match Ms. Hutnance's. He also testified that the officers attempted to get ms. huthnance to go home. He also stated he tried to get her to go home. He also stated she got very load when he tried to get her to go home. The Judge would not allow it into evidence to show her character, but then again he wouldn't allow much of any evidence from the defence. The trial was a joke from the start. But what would you expect when the judge allowed jurors with past criminal history to sit on the jury. Good luck to you DC residents. All this trial did was make good officers not want to work or take police action in the hopes that no one will try to sue them again. Hope your not the one's being assaulted or robbed when these officer are driving by. As for the sgt that was leaving the 7-11, he never testified at the trial, his deposition was allowed to be read by the judge and the defence wasn't given the chance to cross examin him to that night which he personally stated that he didn't even know if that was the night in question that he saw those officers. The trial, the judge, the juror, what a joke.
Posted by: James A | April 20, 2011 at 09:05 AM
By the same token, did they have anyone to corroborate the testimony of the police? The unfortunate fact is that people no longer trust the police to tell the truth. That was not always the case. There was a time when most jurors (at least most jurors who have not been victims of police mis-conduct)would automatically believe the testimony of the police. Then someone invented the video camera, someone else learned how to use it, someone learned how to show the video on the 11 o'clock news, and, well let's just say the net result of all this is that lots of jurors bring to the box a healthy skepticism when weighing the testimony of police witnesses. The sad thing is they have only themselves to blame for this.
Posted by: Oyez | March 31, 2011 at 06:55 PM
J Seda,
I disagree with your assertion that righteous law enforcement officers will taken action in these types of circumstances. The Blue Wall of Silence does exist and it is strenghtened by "good" cops who do nothing. If good cops took action,it wouldn't happen as much as it does. It was painful for me when I explained to my sons that "the police are not your friends".
Posted by: Robin | March 31, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Haha. try being in a motorcycle club, and see what they pull on us. Its never about the traffic infraction were told why were pulled over. And people wonder why we say "we dont dial 911". Ill trust a biker over a cop any day.
Posted by: Peacemaker Demo | March 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM
I imagine that all came out at the trial, wouldnt you Joe?
Posted by: Ron | March 30, 2011 at 06:18 AM
There was, indeed, testimony presented from a police sergeant who was leaving the 7-Eleven at the time Ms. Huthnance was outside allegedly screaming at the top of her lungs at two officers. Sergeant Michael Smith testified that, although he saw an encounter between Ms. Huthnance and the arresting officers from about 50 feet away, he could not hear anything that was being said -- undermining the claim that Ms. Huthnance's screaming woke residents asleep behind closed windows even further away.
In addition, although Ms. Huthnance requested the names of all police and civilian witnesses to her arrest, the District and its officers claimed that they failed to take down the identities of any such witnesses.
Posted by: John | March 29, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Great if the facts are correct!
I was a law enforcement officer and detective many years and then for many years an attorney. I have lived and worked in NY, Chicago, Boston, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Miami, VA, CO, and other places in my many years. I have seen such conduct and made my attempts to stop them (usually unsuccessful as the threats then turn towards me or my family).
The truth is that some law enforcement officers, aided by the look-the-other-way attitude of their "brother officers" and departments/agencies, act as if they are the "law" instead of law enforcement officers sworn to uphold the laws and constitutions of the U.S. and of the state(s).
The post-9-11 scares have allowed even more leeway to these rouge officers (including federal agents).
The righteous law enforcement officers will not stand idly by such behavior for it is no less criminal when a law enforcement officer breaks the law then when anyone else does. Officers who understand this will step in and make an arrest of such rouge officers.
Fortunately, some courts, and the jury system, know that the answer to the question "Who polices the police" is: WE DO!
God Bless America.
Posted by: J Seda | March 29, 2011 at 09:07 AM
Did they have testimony from anyone else inside the Seven Eleven? Anyone that could corroborate Huthnance's version of the story?
Posted by: Joe | March 28, 2011 at 08:27 PM