From the the view of a "presumption of liberty" for citizens, the jury had decided that "witnesses" were telling the truth when they stated that "Tom Figg had stopped running and was on the ground when Land shot him."
In addition, that "witnesses" were telling the truth when they stated that "Land pepper-sprayed Figg."
The jury did not believe the officer and the medical examiner's testimony that 1)Figg had attacked the officer, per the officer's testimony and 2) that Figg was upright and moving when shot three times by the officer.
However, when this case is heard on appeal, where is the "presumption of liberty?"
For the appeals judge, suddenly the officer's and medical examiner's testimony has more weight that the "witnesses" testifying under oath to twelve jurors.
First, the Jury found that the officer acted reasonably. The Court upheld that ruling. Thus, the appellate judge has upheld the jury on that issue. The only facts at issue here in this poorly written story is the justification for detaining the the other two members, each of whom won small awards from the jury for being "wrongfully detained."
Unfortunately, the author of this piece gives us nothing as to how the judge reached that decision. Undoubtedly, the opinion of the Court tells the story. First, to over-rule a jury's findings of fact under Virginia law is VERY difficult to due. It is said that a party who has procurred a jury verdict, upheld by the trial judge, occupies the strongest legal position known to man before an appellate court. However, a judge may over-rule a jury in Virginia if, in light of the evidence, no reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise. The standard is very high, and the Fourth Circuit is not known for being activist judges.
As I said, we can't really pick apart the rationale here as to why those two were justifiably held for three hours, without knowing the facts and law on which the decision was based.
Make no mistake here though, the Apeals Court blessed the jury finding with respect to the reasonableness of the police action in shooting the man. That means, at a minimum, the jury did not believe the witnesses and gave them very little credibility.
As for the "presumption of liberty," that is a new standard on me. I don't know what that is, and it is not a recognized doctrine in common law, statutory construction, or Virginia Civil Proceedure. What ever you do, don't write that on your bar exam!
The guts of this story is that the Court found, countrary to the Jury, that the police were right to detain the two individuals. In addition, the Court found that the other guy, had a right to a trial on the issue of whether his detention was proper. That new trial obviously had something to do with the Jury's failure to fill out the verdict form on that issue.