Peggy Zebroski's not done with the Portland Police Bureau (PPB).

In April, the 68-year-old woman lost her case against the City of Portland for her injuries—both physical and emotional—sustained by a PPB officer during a 2017 rally against police brutality.

But Zebroski's lawyers are now arguing that the jury's verdict was legally flawed, and have requested a new trial.

Zebroski was injured during a February 20, 2017 protest against the fatal officer shooting of Quanice Hayes. After refusing to move out of SW Third Ave, where she and fellow demonstrators held a "Don't Shoot PDX" banner, Zebroski was grabbed by PPB Officer Adi Ramic and placed facedown on the street. Ramic used his knee to press her head into the cement, breaking Zebroski's nose in the process.

In court, Ramic said he grabbed Zebroski because he believed she was trying to pull an armored officer off a male protester to stop his arrest. Ramic said he didn't intend to hurt her.

Zebroski, however, said she was only trying to help her elderly friend who had fallen down. Zebroski requested $200,000 from the City of Portland for the traumatic incident. The jury denied that request.

Zebroski's lawyer Michael Willes believes that the jury's verdict wasn't based on the trial's central question: Whether or not Ramic used excessive force against Zebroski. To explain this argument, Willes points to the verdict form jurors were asked to fill out, which poses these questions:

1. Did the use of force by police constitute a battery?
2. If yes, was the force excessive?
3. If yes, what were Peggy’s damages?

The jury ruled that Ramic's use of force wasn't a battery, meaning they didn't even get to consider whether or not his force was excessive.

But, Willes argues, it's legally indisputable that Ramic's conduct was considered battery, which is defined as "intentionally touching or contacting a person in a way that is harmful or offensive."

Willes blames the city's attorneys for misleading jurors on the battery question by arguing that Ramic didn't mean to hurt Zebroski.

"The City argued throughout the trial that police never intended to harm Peggy," reads Willes' motion for a new trial, filed May 13. "But that was not the question before the jury. Rather, the question of battery concerned whether the police intended to contact Peggy in a way that was harmful or offensive. The undisputed evidence at trial established that the City did so."

The City of Portland has until next week to respond to Willes' motion. Circuit Judge Judith Matarazzo has already agreed to hold a hearing on Friday, May 31, to consider granting Zebroski a new trial.

Willes is one of three lawyers—with the Portland firm Tonkon Torp—representing Zebroski on the behalf of the ACLU of Oregon. Mat dos Santos, the ACLU of Oregon's legal director, says that Zebroski is eager to see her case through to the very end.

"From day one, Peggy has been fundamentally interested in the police being held accountable," dos Santos says. "Which is exactly what this new motion tries to accomplish."

Zebroski's case is only one of six cases the ACLU has filed accusing PPB of assaulted a protester. Her case is the first to be tried in court. Dos Santos expects the others to go to trial by the end of 2019.

"We want to demonstrate to the city and to the public that this treatment by police officers is a trend," he says. "It's not going away."