Protestor Whose Nose Was Broken by Portland Police Won’t Get a New Trial

A 68-year-old woman whose nose was broken by a Portland Police Bureau (PPB) officer at a 2017 protest—and who has been seeking damages from the City of Portland—will not receive a second trial.

In April, Peggy Zebroski lost her civil court case against the City of Portland for physical and emotional damages sustained during that protest. She had been seeking $200,000.

Earlier this month, the Portland law firm Tonkon Torp—which was representing Zebroski on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon—requested a new trial. Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Judith Matarazzo decided against granting Zebroski a new trial on Friday afternoon.

“We are deeply disappointed in the decision today,” Leland Baxter-Neal, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Oregon, told the Mercury. “We were disappointed when the jury returned its verdict, and we think the jury got it wrong…. The Portland Police grabbed our client off the sidewalk, threw her on the ground, and broke her nose by grinding her face into the concrete.”

Here’s a breakdown of why Zebroski’s lawyers thought there was a case for a new trial, from the Mercury’s previous reporting:

Zebroski’s lawyer Michael Willes believes that the jury’s verdict wasn’t based on the trial’s central question: Whether or not [PPB Officer Adi] 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.”

Matarazzo’s decision not to grant Zebroski a new trial hinged on a couple different legal points. In a nutshell, she reasoned that Zebroski’s lawyers could have brought up their issues with the verdict form before the first trial concluded, but failed to do so. Additionally, she decided that she did not want to substitute her own judgment on the case for that of the first trial’s jury.

Matarazzo’s decision likely marks the end of Zebroski’s legal journey—something Baxter-Neal said is unfortunate not only for Zebroski, but for all Portlanders.

“When Portland police use excessive force on peaceful protestors, the damage is not only the physical harm,” he said. “It creates a chilling effect on free speech and assembly.”