A Federal Court Jury has ruled against Multnomah County Sheriff’s Deputy Richard Hathaway this morning, finding him liable for excessive force and battery related to an altercation with an inmate in the booking area of the county jail in 2006. You can catch up on the case by reading the post I wrote last night.
Nevertheless, the jury only awarded damages of $500 to the plaintiff, Michael Evans. They also found in favor of another Sheriff’s Deputy, Robert Griffith, and Portland Police Bureau Officer Ryan Albertson, finding them not liable for excessive force, or battery in the case. A jail sergeant was also cleared of alleged assault for shining a Taser into Evans’ eyes.
Evans had been seeking punitive damages of $60,000 against Deputy Griffith, $120,000 against Deputy Hathaway, and $60,000 against Officer Albertson, so the jury’s financial award was considerably lower than he had been seeking. Mr.Evans had written to a friend about the case, asking the question, “who wants to be a millionaire?” and had refused a larger offer of settlement in the case from the county, prior to trial.
Evans, who is serving time for two felony convictions dating back to last summer, was led out of the court in leg shackles after the verdict. It is understood he wants to appeal the rulings against him.
“We’re pleased with the result,” said Assistand County Attorney Carlos Calandriello, after the case had adjourned.
Evans’ attorney, Benjamin Haile, declined comment, as did Deputy Hathaway.
“So, do I have to pay the $250?” Hathaway asked County Attorney Stephen Madkour, after the verdict.
“No, we can afford it,” Madkour responded.
“My point is, for all this, and all that crap, I’ll gladly pay $250,” Hathaway told him. “I’m out of here. I’m gonna go home and have a drink.”
Two jurors told the Mercury afterward that their verdict was not swayed by the high damages sought by Mr.Evans in the case. “We separated that out,” said one—preferring not to be named.
“Our decision basically came down to one thing that we could all agree on,” said another juror, who also preferred not to be named. “We all agreed that a blow to the head was excessive force.”
An expert’s report filed with the court prior to the trial made troubling allegations about jail deputies routinely punching inmates in the head as a control technique.
Is the damages award $250 or $500? Either way this seems like an almost Judgment of Solomon style decision. Yeah, the guard got his come-upance, but the asshole felon didn’t get his money.
So what happens now? Can this proceed to a criminal charge?
It’s $250 on the excessive force and $250 on the battery.
And it’s unlikely this would go forward to a criminal trial, but I’ve got a call in to the DA’s office to find out.
@Matt Davis: I’ve seen you write this several times, “shining a Taser into Evans’ eyes”. I still have no idea what that means. Did he actually put a Taser to Evans’s eyes or what? The mechanics of what that implies seems.. well… I’m confused. Explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old Kiala.
@Graham:
Sorry. If you put your hands around the handle of a Taser, it fires a warning laser beam before deploying. If you watch the video, you can see where Sergeant Gorton shines that laser into Evans’ eyes.
She testified to saying: “See this? This is a Taser. If you don’t comply with commands, I’m going to Taser you,” as she shone that laser so that he could see it.
Attorney Haile argued that Evans would have been in fear of being Tasered in the face, and that Taser’s policies state that shining the laser into the eye is to be avoided.
It’s funny knowone talks about this part.
Jurors were not allowed to hear details of Evans’ criminal history, which includes convictions for molesting two children, ages 6 and 8. Evans, 42, will be in his 80s before he’s eligible for release from prison.
I find it funny knowone talks about this part.
Jurors were not allowed to hear details of Evans’ criminal history, which includes convictions for molesting two children, ages 6 and 8. Evans, 42, will be in his 80s before he’s eligible for release from prison.
@taxpater313: What does that have to do with anything? Unless you’re saying that it was a motive in the attack.
@Graham @taxpayer313
We have mentioned this, in the recent story, “punched in the head.”
“Evans has since been jailed for having sex with a minor and on assault charges. He has a lengthy criminal history and is unlikely to see his release before 2020. He also recently wrote the Mercury from prison, encouraging us to cover the civil trial related to his beating.”
As to the question of its relevance, we, like the judge, did feel that his felony convictions were relevant, going to his truthfulness. But we also felt that to attack Evans’ character would be no justification for his beating.
It means Evans is a piece of crap. NO I don’t mean it’s a green light to beat him.
So because they found in his favor, does the attorney get all the attorney costs?
Not all of them, guaranteed. He’s got to file for them.
I think, because the settlement offer was for more than they got at trial, that Haile will get his costs up to that offer. I’m not sure when that took place. After that, I think it’s up for debate.
The judge said: “It would be good if you could come to agreement on costs so that we don’t have to get into litigation over those.”
I don’t understand why you would beat somebody in the head when you have a Taser handy. Seems like that would be the best way to control an unruly person. Although I couldn’t really see that he was unruly. Obstinate, yes, but what he was doing wasn’t enough reason to beat him, however much he may have deserved it. It seems in this instance that the officers (especially Hathaway) were acting as judge and jury, and they are not supposed to do that. Otherwise there would be a lot more criminals being shot resisting arrest.
I agree that the Taser would have been a good choice. From what I understand the Deputies are not allowed by policy to carry the Taser on them in fear that it could be used against them if taken away. So I guess it was not available when the force started.
I’m pretty sure if they’d tazerd the hell out of him, there’d be a different lawsuit and everyone would be saying “why didn’t they just wrassle him a little like in the olden days?”
And the reason his shitbag convictions are relevant here is that he is clearly a man with poor impulse control. It’s hard to calmly tack a moderate course when you are dealing with someone who cannot be expected to react predictably.
Atomic’s got it right.
Actually, some people might think it is too bad they didn’t shoot him…. just sayin….
One thing I want to add here is that the jury was instructed to take into consideration the fact that the Mult County Detention Center is an open booking area. And the folks who have been arrested, after being searched for drugs and weapons of course, are waltzing around without restraints. There is an open seating area with a television and phone; the inmates are kept in a waiting room that looks more like a doctor’s office than jail. SO, with that being said, any potentially upcooperative inmate must be dealt with in a swift and efficient manner as to avoid possible riots, etc. The video was ~ 30 seconds long. And the actions of the Officers was made based on conclusions they had drawn in a matter of split seconds. It may have seemes excessiver after the fact, but we must remember that it is their JOB to protect themselves and other people from dangerous situations. And I think that is what they were trying to do here.
Apologies for typos.
seemed*
excessive*
*were based
I have to concur with Akayers. The booking area is open and the potential for injury to the deputies and other inmates is always an issue. In fact, last year a female deputy had her face bashed in from a drunk, unruly inmate. She is now permanently disabled because of the vision problems and facial bones that were broken form the inmate repeatedly smashing her face into the floor. She was the only deputy on duty on graveyard that night. The whole “open Booking” area concept needs to be abolished.