Skip to comments.Kelly Thomas case: Jurors may be told to disregard some testimony
Posted on 01/05/2014 11:50:49 AM PST by FBD
Jurors in the trial of two former Fullerton police officers accused of beating a mentally ill homeless man to death will probably be told to disregard the opinions of witnesses who said the two acted within department policy.The admonition is expected to be part of jury instructions that are still being negotiated by attorneys in the trial over the beating death of Kelly Thomas.You are ordered to disregard those opinions, a draft of the admonition says. It is up to you to determine whether the defendants used excessive or unreasonable force based on all the evidence that has been presented in this trial but you may not consider evidence that has been stricken.The probable instruction results from prosecutors' attempts to challenge the testimony of two witnesses who said defendants Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli acted, for the most part, within Fullerton Police Department policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Culture of corruption ping.
City fights to keep firings of two officers secret.
A trial is never a search for the truth.
Lawyers like to claim it is — they are lying.
Hide and deny. The city of Fullerton has been in full CYA mode on this one.
Kelly Thomas beating trial goes to the jury, with instructions to ignore defense witness testimony that officers acted within department policy.
Sorry Judge, the jurors are in charge. Or, they should be...
This seemed so clear cut case of police brutality at the time. The cop putting on the gloves and telling Thomas he was going to F him up. And that beating, so savage. The poor mentally ill guy calling out for his daddy. But I haven’t heard all the testimony. The cops put on a long defense.
What does everyone here think?
I remember that case very well. It happened the year before the last elections. So sad, and pitiful. The man was mildly retarded, and kept hollering for his father. “Dad!! They’re killing me!”, and the jury is supposed to say “I didn’t hear that”?. If you get people who dont follow the news, then you may find some who never heard of his violent beating death by multiple police. It must all come back to the way they are chosen and they way they are trained. The police either already fit a psychologic mold coming in or morph to fit this mindset during training.
In this case, the judge is telling the jurors to ignore the testimony of a liar for the defense. Officers Ramos and Cicinelli were fired because of this fatal beating. So their actions couldn’t have been within department policy.
I suspect a guilty verdict will be reached on all counts next week.
I don’t think there’s ever been a more open and shut case of police brutality. What’s disturbing is, these officers and the police chief really didn’t believe they did anything wrong.
Kelly Thomas beating trial jury instructions
"We were only following policy" should no more be a defense for police officers than "We were only following orders" was at Nirenberg.
If anything, such policy should, rather than being a defense, trigger prosecution of the police hierarchy that allowed such policy.
-Interesting that the city refuses to release the firing records for those officers isn’t it.
I was a jury foreman on a murder trial once. 45 pages of jury instruction on how to apply the law and what to consider, week of testimony, etc etc. I ignored the instructions. It ain’t rocket science. Jury is suppose to do “what is right”. I just needed to know... 1) did he kill the guy 2) was it on purpose or accident 3) was it self defense. Answer those three questions and then do “what is right”. The heck with what the lawyers say.
If I were on that jury I would convict them of the murder of Kelly Thomas.those officers were well above the normal use of force to neutralize any potential threat that could have been produced by Thomas.
Those S.O.B.’s are Guilty as hell.
Good points. That sounds like common sense thinking to me.
I’d agree that beating someone to death isn’t explicitly allowed in policy. I don’t agree that policy doesn’t encourage these types of things to occur.
From hiring, to training, to ‘officer safety’ all of those things create a mindset where this becomes acceptable.
I suspect we’re going to see guilty verdicts next week. That’s probably gonna get the other cop charged in this case to seek a plea bargain.
It this instance is appears to be the prosecution that is trying to hide information from the jury.